Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Chemosphere
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere

Mechanical and microstructural properties of recycling granite residual soil

reinforced with glass fiber and liquid-modified polyvinyl alcohol polymer
Bingxiang Yuan a, Zihao Li a, Yiming Chen a, Hong Ni b, *, Zuqing Zhao a, Weijie Chen a, Jin Zhao a
a
School of Civil and Transportation Engineering, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510006, China
b
School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510006, China

H I G H L I G H T S

• SH polymer was helpful to improve the mechanical properties of granite residual soil.
• Mechanical properties of soil were enhanced by glass fiber, whose optimum content was 3.0 %.
• The reinforcement effect of glass fiber on granite residual soil was quantified.
• Microstructural analysis evidenced the interaction mechanism.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Derek Muir Glass fiber and liquid-modified polyvinyl alcohol polymer (SH Polymer) are used to reinforce granite residual
soil. In this paper, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) tests and drop-weight tests were used to study the
Keywords: microscopic interaction mechanism and impact resistance of granite residual soil specimens reinforced by glass
Granite residual soil fiber and SH Polymer. Combined with the equivalent confining pressure theory, Mohr-Coulomb intensity lines
Reinforcement of glass fiber
were used to quantitatively analyze the reinforcement effect of glass fiber. The SEM results showed that the
Microstructure
granite residual soil solidified by a 3.5 % SH polymer had a tighter bond between the flake clay particles. In
Impact resistance
Liquid-modified polyvinyl alcohol polymer addition, with the incorporation of glass fiber, these flake clay particles were cemented on the glass fiber along
the long axis, forming a cementing system of flake clay particles and glass fiber. When the glass fiber content was
3.0 %, the impact resistance of the specimen reached its maximum, 32.16 kN. Using the equivalent confining
pressure theory, the reinforcement effect of glass fiber on soil could be quantified by Δσ3 .

1. Introduction
Abandoned granite residual soil is widely distributed as relocated
post-excavation layers (Meng et al., 2020; Yuan et al., 2021a). The
mechanical properties of this kind of soil are very different under dry
and wet conditions (Chen et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2020; Yao et al., 2020),
and serious collapse and erosion occur when the soil encounters water
(Liu et al., 2020a; Zhang et al., 2020). Therefore, landslides and other
geological disasters often occur in the rainy season in southern China
(Liu et al., 2019, 2020b). Reinforcement offers one approach to recy­
cling the abandoned granite residual soil, which has poor mechanical
properties, as mentioned above.
Over the past few decades, reinforcement of poor soil has been a hot
research topic. The main purpose of reinforcement is to improve the
stability of such soil, increase its bearing capacity, and reduce de­
formations (Binici et al., 2005; Yuan et al., 2021b). Reinforcement
methods can be divided into three categories: physical reinforcements,
such as thermoelectricity, freezing, pre-compression, and dynamic
compaction; mechanical reinforcement with modified fiber; and soil
strengthening agents (Mandal et al., 2020). Among them, fibrous ma­
terials and soil strengthening agents have been widely used for the soil
reinforcement of several rock and soil structures, such as foundations,
abutments, and slopes (Ferreira et al., 2015; Daud and Mohammed,
2014).
Fiber materials are composed of natural fiber and artificial synthetic
fiber (Chen et al., 2019; S.N Wang et al., 2021). At present, natural fiber
used for soil reinforcement primarily include coconut fiber (Ramesh
et al., 2010), sisal fiber (Mattone, 2005; Prabakar and Sridhar, 2002),

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nihong@gdut.edu.cn (H. Ni).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.131652
Received 1 March 2021; Received in revised form 6 July 2021; Accepted 21 July 2021
Available online 22 July 2021
0045-6535/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Yuan et al.
palm fiber, jute fiber (Aggarwal, 2011), flax fiber (Segetin et al., 2007),
monofilament polyamide fiber (Michalowski and Cermák, 2002) and
bamboo fiber (Ma’ruf, 2012). The advantage of natural fiber is that it
can be made from local materials and is sustainable. However, compared
with natural fiber, synthetic fiber has better ductility and durability.
Therefore, artificial synthetic fibers, such as polypropylene fiber (Yeti­
moglu et al., 2005), polyethylene fiber (Kim et al., 2008), and glass fiber
(Consoli et al., 1998), are also used in the field of soil reinforcement.
Various experimental methods (such as unconfined compressive
strength tests, conventional triaxial compression tests, and standard
compaction tests) have been used to study the reinforcement effects of
artificial synthetic fiber on soil. Research on the reinforcement effect of
recycled tire polymer fiber and glass fiber on clay shows that the addi­
tion of fiber helps to improve the shear strength of clay. There is an
optimal percentage of fiber (0.5 % for recycled tire polymer fiber and
1.0 % for glass fiber) leading to the highest strength gain, beyond which
its strength decreases (Valipour et al., 2020). Through indoor standard
compaction experiments, the maximum dry density and optimal mois­
ture content of waste tire textile fiber mixed with expansive soil have
been studied as a function of the fiber content. Test results show that in
the waste tire textile fiber content range of 0–4 %, the optimal moisture
content has a positive correlation with the fiber content and the
maximum dry density has a negative correlation with the fiber content
(Narani et al., 2020). The results of direct shear testing show that after
adding 0.25 % and 0.50 % fiber, the increase in shear strength of the soft
clay under a low normal effective stress of 50 kPa is 68 % and 75 %,
respectively (Mirzababaei et al., 2018).
In addition, soil strengthening agents, such as cement (Consoli et al.,
2011; Dubrovina et al., 2021) and lime (Dang et al., 2016), are often
used together with fiber materials for soil reinforcement. Fiber materials
can alleviate the brittle behavior of reinforcing agents in soil. The
accumulation of graphene oxide in soil can significantly change the
physical and mechanical properties of soil (Zhou et al., 2017). In an
experimental study using cement and kenaf fiber to reinforce sand, it
was found that the addition of kenaf fiber could reduce the brittleness
index of cement-reinforced soil. When the kenaf fiber content increased
from 0.25 % to 0.75 %, the soil brittleness index dropped by 71.4 %
(Ghadakpour et al., 2019). Based on the unconfined compressive
strength test, the optimal fiber content of polypropylene fiber-reinforced
lime soil is 0.25 % (Wei et al., 2018).
In the process of characterizing fiber for soil reinforcement, the
contribution of fiber is often quantified by testing the equivalent internal
friction angle and soil cohesion. Based on the results of the direct shear
test of fiber-reinforced sand, it is assumed that along the shear plane, the
shear of soil is considered to cause tensile deformation of the fiber. The
reinforcement effect of fiber on sand is quantified as the increase in
shear strength, and its expression is δS = t(sinθ + cosθtanϕ), where θ is
the angle of shear deformation, ϕ is the internal friction angle of the soil,
and t is the tensile strength (Gray and Ohashi, 1983). Furthermore, for
fiber randomly distributed in soil, the increase in shear strength can be
corrected with an empirical parameter (Maher and Gray, 1990). From
the perspective of energy conservation, only considering the slip be­
tween the fiber and soil and the energy dissipation caused by fiber
tensile fracture, the function of the energy dissipation rate is established
when the fiber-soil composite material is broken and the fiber material
yield stress is established. This relationship is used to characterize the
reinforcement effect of fiber on soil (Michalowski and Zhao, 1996). In
addition, the equivalent shear strength Seq of fiber-soil composite ma­
terial is predicted by obtaining the parameters from the independent
characterization of soil and fiber: Seq = S + αt, where S is the shear
strength of unreinforced soil, t is the tension caused by the fiber, and α is
an empirical coefficient accounting for the partial contribution of the
fiber (α = 1 is assumed for randomly distributed fiber) (Michalowski
et al., 2002).
In summary, research on the reinforcement mechanism of fiber soil
2
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652
mainly includes changes in its static mechanical properties before and
after the addition of fiber materials or soil strengthening agents. Most of
the methods used are static test methods, which fail to reveal the me­
chanical performance of fiber-reinforced soil under impact loading. In
addition, regarding the role of fiber materials in soil reinforcement, the
equivalent soil shear strength is often used for quantification, but too
many parameters are usually needed (such as the fiber tensile strength,
deformation modulus, aspect ratio, etc.). Moreover, some parameters
(such as the thickness of the shear zone when soil is damaged) are
difficult to quantify, which results in the quantification process being
complicated and not conducive to practical applications.
Glass fiber and liquid-modified polyvinyl alcohol polymer (SH
polymer) are used to reinforce abandoned granite residual soil. Using
scanning electron microscopy (SEM), the cementation system formed by
clay particles of granite residual soil and glass fiber was observed,
explaining the strengthening effect of this cementation system on
granite residual soil. Second, static load and drop-weight test of the
granite residual soil before and after reinforcement were carried out.
Most importantly, combined with the equivalent confining pressure
theory, the reinforcement effect of glass fiber on granite residual soil was
quantified by the expression of δσ 3 , which was derived from the geo­
metric relationship.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Fig. 1 (a) shows the granite residual soil used in the experiment, and
its basic soil engineering properties are reported in Table 1.
The SH polymer was a liquid-modified polyvinyl alcohol polymer
with a 5 % mass fraction of the solute in the original solution, which
came from Lanzhou University, China (Wang et al., 2005). In addition,
the SH polymer could be diluted indefinitely with water, whose density
was 1.09 g/cm3 and relative molecular mass was approximately 2000.
The viscous solution shown in Fig. 1 (b) is the original SH polymer.
As shown in Fig. 1 (c), the average length of the glass fiber used in the
test was 19 mm. The glass fiber, an inorganic non-metallic material with
excellent performance, acted as a reinforcing material for soil rein­
forcement in the experiments. The specific parameters of the glass fiber
are shown in Table 2.
3. Methods
The granite residual soil was dried in an oven and then several tests
were conducted to obtain its geotechnical properties. According to
ASTM-D422-63 (2007), a soil particle test was performed to determine
the particle size distribution curve and soil classification. To perform
this test, 500 g of soil was poured into the top of a standard test sieve.
Then, the sieve was placed in a mechanical shaker and shaken for 10
min. Next, the passing percentage of each sieve was calculated and the
soil particle size distribution curve was plotted.
The morphology of samples was observed with scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) using a JEOL, JSM-7800F Prime. X-ray powder
diffraction (XRD) (Rigaku SmartLab 9 X-ray Diffractometer, 40 kV, 40
mA) to explore the change of the mineralogical phase. The scanning
angle range was 3◦ –70◦ , the scanning speed was 3◦ /min, and the step
size was 0.02. Using the commercial software JADE5.0 to analyze the X-
ray diffraction pattern.
In its unsaturated state, the response of the strength of granite re­
sidual soil to the dry-wet curve was significantly different than in its
saturated state. In other words, the initial moisture content condition
affects the strength of unsaturated soil (Kim and Kim, 2010). Therefore,
the experiments in this paper controlled the initial moisture content of
the granite residual soil specimens to the optimal moisture content (13
%).
The granite residual soil was placed in an oven for 7 h, keeping the
B. Yuan et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

Fig. 1. Experimental materials: (a) granite residual soil; (b) SH polymer; (c) glass fiber.

loading axial force was recorded when the specimen failed. Formula (1)
Table 1
was used to calculate the uniaxial compressive strength of each
Properties of the granite residual soil samples.
specimen.
Specific Water content ω Density (g/ Liquid limit Plastic limit
gravity ds (%) m3) ωl ωp R = P/A (1)
2.67 13 16.5 48.3 27
where R is the ultimate compressive strength of the specimen, P is the
maximum load when the specimen failed, and A is the cross-sectional
area of the specimen.
Table 2
The scheme of the static load test is shown in Table 3. A control group
Glass fiber parameters.
(Group A) and two experimental groups (Groups B and C) were included
Density Linear Elastic Tensile Melting Elongation in the scheme. In particular, three specimens were made for each group,
(g/cm3) density Modulus strength point (◦ C) (%)
and the test results of each group were the average of three data points.
(dtex) (MPa) (MPa)
An Instron Ceast9350 floor-standing drop weight impact tester, as
0.91 8.21 4286 346 169 36.4
shown in Fig. 3, was used to carry out the drop weight tests (Standard
test method for determination of the impact value (IV) of a soil, 2015).
temperature of the oven at approximately 105 ◦ C. When the temperature The weight of the falling hammer was 3.065 kg, the loading weight was
of the oven dropped to 26 ◦ C, the granite residual soil was crushed and 36.674 kg, the impact speed was 4.5 m/s, and the corresponding
passed through a 1.18 mm sieve. Finally, according to the content instantaneous impact energy was 402.36 J.
specified in the test plan, the SH polymer, glass fiber, and granite re­ Compared with the static load test, in the scheme of the drop weight
sidual soil were mixed and stirred evenly. A small compaction instru­ tests, which is shown in Table 4, a control group (Group H) and two
ment was used to compact the mixture into a specimen with a diameter experimental groups (Groups F and G) were set up.
of 100 mm and a height of 125 mm, as shown in Fig. 2. In a ventilated In addition, a small manual compactor was used to make cylindrical
and dry place, the specimen was air-dried for 14 days, and the total standard specimens with a height of 80 mm and a diameter of 39.1 mm.
weight was 2100 g. For group F2 and group H, conventional triaxial consolidation un­
In the static load test (GB/T 50123-2019, 2019), the uniaxial drained tests were carried out under confining pressures of 100 kPa, 200
compressive strength of the specimen was measured by a 4 W uniaxial kPa, and 300 kPa, while the shear rate was 0.06 mm/min. According to
compressive test instrument. Specifically, the specimen was placed in the Standard for geotechnical testing method (GB/T 50123-2019, 2019),
the centre of the bearing plate to ensure that eccentric loading would not the criterion for stopping the triaxial test was that the specimen showed
occur. The loading rate of the static load test was 0.5 MPa/s, and the an obvious yield phenomenon or the axial strain reached 15 %.

3
B. Yuan et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

the main factors that affect the mechanical properties of reinforced

granite residual soil (Zeng et al., 2017). Accurate information regarding
the particle distribution and contact is very important for determining
the micromechanical evolution of granite residual soil. Due to the
addition of glass fiber and the SH polymer, the distribution and contact
forms of soil particles in the granite residual soil, especially near the
glass fiber, were bound to change.
Fig. 5 shows 2000x magnified images under SEM. It can be seen that
in group H (Fig. 5 a), which contained only granite residual soil, the soil
particles are basically flaky, which is a typical feature of clay particles.
Clay particles are bonded by cement to form agglomerates. Since the
clay particles themselves cannot be compressed, when resisting the
impact load, they depend only on the friction and cohesion between
themselves. Group F1, after adding glass fiber, is also shown in Fig. 5 (b)
at 2000x magnification. It is observed that the flaky clay particles are
always bonded to the surface of the glass fiber along the long axis di­
rection, increasing the contact area between the fiber and clay particles.
However, the surface of the glass fiber is still relatively smooth, indi­
cating that the number of flake clay particles adhered to the glass fiber is
small. Observing group G1 in Fig. 5 (c), it can be seen that the surface of
the glass fiber is more uneven than that of group F1, and the amount of
flaky clay particles adhering to the glass fiber was significantly
increased. The reason for this result is that the SH polymer becomes the
cementing material between the flake clay particles and the glass fiber,
and the cementing system of the flake clay particles and glass fiber is
constructed using the SH polymer.
The scanning electron microscopy results show that the long axis
direction of the flake clay particles is parallel to the long axis direction of
the glass fiber. A similar phenomenon was found in the previous
research (S. Wang et al., 2021). The surface-to-surface contacts between
particles and between particles and glass fiber are the main types of
contacts. In addition, Fig. 5 (d) shows a schematic diagram of the
interaction between glass fiber and flake clay particles abstracted from
Fig. 2. Reinforced soil specimen.
the results of the SEM tests. Generally speaking, fiber may enhance the
mechanical properties of soil by the means of interface friction between
Table 3 fiber and soil particles and the spatial confined effect of fiber (Gupta and
Static load test plan. Kumar, 2016; Kapogianni et al., 2016). When subjected to an external
load, because the clay flake particles squeeze each other, the clay flake
Group SH polymer (%) Glass fiber (%) Water content (%) Gradient
particles near the glass fiber will inevitably exert pressure on the glass
A 0 0 13 0 fiber in the direction perpendicular to the long axis (Y1 and Y2).
B 2–3.6 0 13 0.2
C 3.5 2–3.6 13 0.2
Furthermore, under the action of shear force, the clay flake particles on
both sides of the glass fiber slip in the opposite direction or have a
tendency to slip in the opposite direction. Therefore, the glass fiber will
4. Results and discussion receive a pair of opposite friction forces (X1 and X2). Scholars have
found that there is a friction coefficient between clay particles and fiber
4.1. Basic properties of granite residual soil based on fiber-soil pull-out tests, and this friction coefficient has an ef­
fect on the shear strength of clay (Namjoo et al., 2020). On the other
Fig. 4 (a) shows the particle size distribution curve of granite residual hand, the glass fiber is wrapped by interlocking soil particles. When
soil. The maximum particle size of the soil is 2 mm, and the average subjected to an impact load, the soil particles near the fiber are rear­
particle size d50 is 0.48 mm. Granite residual soil has a high clay content, ranged and rotated, which also causes the glass fiber to generate friction.
and the main soil particles are clay particles (over 70 %) with a particle Moreover, the tighter the fiber and the soil particles are combined, or the
size of less than 0.1 mm, which is consistent with previous studies (Xia higher the degree of interlocking soil particles, the greater the resistance
et al., 2019). According to ASTM-D2487 (2011), granite residual soil is to rearrangement and rotation of the soil particles. As the glass fiber are
classified as clay. Since the mineralogical composition is an important subjected to friction in the opposite direction, the “tensile stress” inside
feature of soil properties (Kretzschmar et al., 1997), the mineral the glass fiber is mobilized, which can be understood as enhancing the
composition of granite residual soil was determined by X-ray diffraction shear strength of granite residual soil.
analysis. Fig. 4 (b) shows that the main mineral components of the From the perspective of the interactions between a fiber and soil, the
granite residual soil are quartz, kaolinite, illite, muscovite, and birnes­ reinforcement provided by the fiber to the soil is mainly derived from
site. This is a typical feature of the granite residual soil in the Guangzhou the “tensile stress inside the fiber” caused by friction (Hejazi et al.,
area of China, which was the source of the soil in the experiment. 2012). When subjected to the impact load, the soil element containing
glass fiber expands and cracks, forming the failure surface shown in
4.2. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) Fig. 6, and the fiber is twisted or stretched (Zornberg, 2002). However,
as long as the fiber and the soil unit are not separated, tensile stress will
It is feasible to use image analysis technology to observe the continue to be exerted, which helps to relieve cracking, that is, to bridge
displacement of soil particles (Yuan et al., 2019, 2020). The microscopic cracks (Tang et al., 2010). The bridging effect can effectively improve
particle distribution and particle contact form of granite residual soil are the integrity of the granite residual soil and transfer the internal

4
B. Yuan et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

Fig. 3. Drop weight tester.

the glass fiber are randomly distributed in the specimens, the fiber under
Table 4
tension and compression will simultaneously appear in the process of
Drop weight test plan.
resisting the external load. When the glass fiber content reaches 3.2 %,
Group SH polymer (%) Glass fiber (%) Water content (%) the number of effective fiber reaches a maximum; that is, the rein­
F F1 0 2.8 13 forcement effect of glass fiber on the granite residual soil reaches its
F2 0 3 peak.
F3 0 3.2
The same results were found in the research of Akbulut et al. (2007)
G G1 3.5 2.8
G2 3.5 3 and Lenoir et al. (2016). The uniaxial compressive strength increases
G3 3.5 3.2 first and then decreases with the increase of fiber content. After the peak
H 0 0 of uniaxial compressive strength, the greater the fiber content, the lower
the unconfined strength of fiber-reinforced soil (Tajdini et al., 2018).
Orasutthikul et al. (2017) believed that the reason why the uniaxial
concentrated stress to a uniform distribution to prevent the further
compressive strength decreases after the optimal fiber content is that the
expansion of cracks (Lin et al., 2008).
fiber are easily form into balls, which leads to poor fiber distribution and
weakens the space restriction effect in the fiber-soil.
4.3. Static load test

In the static load test, the compressive strength of the specimen of the
control group (group A) was 902.69 kPa. As shown in Fig. 7, group B is
granite residual soil solidified only by the SH polymer, and the
compressive strength of the specimens are greater than 3000 kPa. At the
same time, group C is granite residual soil mixed with glass fiber on the
basis of SH polymer solidification, and the compressive strength of the
specimens can reach more than 3900 kPa. After observing the strength
curve of group B, it was found that the compressive strength of the
specimens increased slowly as the concentration of the SH polymer
increased from 2.0–2.8 %, but when the SH polymer concentration
exceeded 2.8 %, the strength of the specimens first decreased and then
stabilized, which shows that the strength increase of soil is not obvious
after its concentration exceeds 2.8 %. The strength curve of group C
shows that when the glass fiber content is 3.2 %, the maximum uniaxial
compressive strength of the specimen is 5343 kPa. In particular, the
uniaxial compressive strength decreases after reaching its maximum
value, which means that the reinforcing effect of the glass fiber on
granite residual soil does not always increase with increasing glass fiber
content because there are effective glass fiber in residual granite soil
with randomly distributed glass fiber, and the number of effective glass
fiber determines the quality of reinforcement. So-called effective glass
fiber refers to glass fiber that exert tensile stress. In this study, because
4.4. Drop-weight test
4.4.1. Impact load analysis
The drop-weight test can evaluate the ability of the specimens to
resist an impact load, and the dynamic response of the test piece can be
obtained by analysing the instantaneous impact load of the drop weight
(Yoo, D. Yoo et al., 2016a), the compression of the specimens (Banthia
et al., 1999b), and the time history. In Fig. 8, the maximum impact load
of the impact force time history curve of the control group (group H) is
9.87 kN, which is much smaller than that of the two experimental groups
(groups F and G). Although the glass fiber contents of groups F1, F2, and
F3 are different, their time history curves of the impact force show
similarity, as shown in Fig. 8 (a). The time history curves of the impact
force show a rapid straight upward trend within 0–1 ms and reach the
first maximum point, but after the first maximum point, the curves show
a downward trend. When the curves drop to the first minimum point,
they show an upward trend again and, finally, reach the second
maximum point in approximately 5 ms. When the second maximum
point is passed, the curves gradually approach the time axis.
The reason why the curves grow approximately linearly in the early
stage is that under an impact velocity of 4.5 m/s, the specimen produces
elastic deformation in a short time, and the impact load has a linear

5
B. Yuan et al.
Fig. 4. Grain gradation curve and XRD diffraction pattern of granite resid­
ual soil.
relationship with time. When the elastic deformation of the specimen
reaches the maximum value, the specimen begins to crack, which causes
the deformation of the specimens to further increase, and the impact
load gradually decreases with time. As cracks further develop, the
specimens are compacted, their deformation modulus increases, and the
flaky clay particle-glass fiber cementation system begins to bear the
impact load. The tensile strength of the glass fiber is exerted so that the
specimen can be further compressed until failure occurs. Particularly, in
group F, the maximum impact load that the specimen can withstand is
not positively correlated with the glass fiber content. Yoo et al. (2016b)
find the same rule in the fiber-improved concrete beam test: by
increasing the fiber content, the impact resistance of the specimen is
improved. But as the fiber content increases continuously, the impact
resistance is weakened instead. Banthia et al. (1999a) believe that the
bridging effect of the fiber improves the stress distribution inside the
specimen, which leads to the improvement of impact resistance.
However, when the optimal content is exceeded, the fiber are easy to
mix together, which weakens the impact resistance of the specimen.
When the glass fiber contents of the specimen are 2.8 %, 3.0 %, and 3.2
%, the impact loads that the specimens can withstand are 26.37 kN,
32.16 kN, and 30.21 kN, respectively. Fig. 8 (b) shows that the time
history curve of the impact load of Group G is similar to that of Group F.
The maximum impact loads in Group G are 49.2 kN, 57.7 kN, and 54.9
kN. Comparing the maximum impact loads in Group F and Group G, it
can be seen that for specimens with glass fiber contents of 2.8 %, 3.0 %,
and 3.2 %, the maximum impact load of the specimen increases by
6
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652
86.57 %, 79.42 % and 81.72 %, respectively, after mixing with the 3.5 %
SH polymer, which shows that the 3.5 % SH polymer can increase the
impact load resistance of the specimen by 79%–86 %.
4.4.2. Analysis of test piece compression and test response time
The specimens were compressed under the impact load, and the
compression amount time history curves are shown in Fig. 9. The
compression displacement of the control group (group H) has a linear
relationship with time, and its slope is 4.5 m/s, which is consistent with
the impact velocity of the falling hammer. The reason is that when the
falling hammer just touches the surface of the specimen, the specimen is
destroyed, resulting in the impact velocity of the falling hammer not
being weakened and being maintained at 4.5 m/s. Different from the
control group, under the impact load, the compression amount time
history curves of the two experimental groups (groups F and G) expe­
rienced changes from linear to nonlinear. Moreover, the curves begin to
fall after passing the peak point, indicating that the specimens of the
experimental groups all exhibited elastic rebound in the final stage of
loading.
It can be seen from Table 5 that the maximum compression, final
compression, and response time of group F2 under impact loading are
the smallest, which means that when only 3.0 % glass fiber is added, the
impact resistance of the specimen is the best, which is consistent with
the results of the impact load test. On the other hand, by comparing
group F1 and group G1, it can be seen that when the glass fiber content is
2.8 %, the addition of the 3.5 % SH polymer can reduce the maximum
compression, final compression and response time of the specimen by
5.08 mm, 5.21 mm and 1.94 ms, respectively. Comparing groups F2 and
F3 with groups G2 and G3, respectively, similar conclusions can be
drawn, confirming that the addition of the 3.5 % SH polymer can
improve the impact resistance of the specimen, which is also consistent
with the conclusion of the impact load analysis.
Banthia et al. (1996) believe that fiber can effectively improve the
energy absorption capacity of fracture under impact, resulting in smaller
compression deformation. Similarly, in the study of Dey et al. (2014) it is
found that adding fiber can alleviate the development of cracks in the
specimen and absorb impact energy, which reduces the final compres­
sion. SH polymer and glass fiber form a composite. Due to the good
bonding ability of SH polymer, the connection between the composite
and the soil particles is closer, which further enhances the energy ab­
sorption capacity of the specimen, resulting in smaller compression
deformation.
4.5. Quantification of glass fiber reinforcement
In the process of studying the role of fiber in reinforced soil, the effect
of fiber on soil is often equivalent to an external force. Wang et al.
(2017) proposed considering the role of fiber in soil as an additional
confining pressure. In this paper, based on the equivalent confining
pressure, the reinforcement effect of glass fiber on granite residual soil is
represented by Δσ 3 , as derived using the geometric relationship in
Fig. 10.
Assuming that the radius of the equivalent confining stress circle is R,
the lengths of the two right-angle sides of the black triangle, as shown in
Fig. 10, are Rcosϕ1 and Rsinϕ1 . Moreover, in the coordinate system
shown in Fig. 10, the abscissa of the tangential point between the Mohr-
Coulomb intensity line of the granite residual soil and the equivalent
confining stress circle is σ1 − R − Rsinϕ1 , and the ordinate is Rcosϕ1 .
Substituting the coordinates of the tangential point into the Mohr-
Coulomb intensity line of the granite residual soil, the radius R of the
equivalent confining stress circle can be obtained.
[σ 1 − R − Rsinϕ1 ]tanϕ1 + c1 = Rcosϕ1 (2)
σ 1 tanϕ1 + c1 = (1 + sinϕ1 + cosϕ1 )R (3)
B. Yuan et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

Fig. 5. SEM results.

σ1 tanϕ1 + c1 In this way, as long as the strength index of granite residual soil and
R= (4)
1 + sinϕ1 + cosϕ1 the strength index of granite residual soil mixed with glass fiber are
obtained through conventional triaxial tests, the contribution of glass
Furthermore, δσ3 is derived:
fiber to the reinforcement of granite residual soil under different
Δσ 3 = (σ 1 − σ 3 ) − 2R (5) confining pressures can be derived.
As shown in Fig. 11, the failure form of the specimen in the triaxial
Substituting formula (4) into formula (5):
test is a “bulging” shape, which is a typical behavior of fiber-clay
2σ 1 tanϕ1 + 2c1 specimens (Ekinci and Ferreira, 2012). Obviously, the specimens con­
Δσ 3 = (σ 1 − σ 3 ) − (6)
1 + sinϕ1 + cosϕ1 taining glass fiber showed more obvious bulging behavior and increase
in shear strength (Ma’ruf, 2012), which may be the result of the fiber
σ 1 in formula (6) can be expressed by σ 3 , ϕ2 , and c2 according to the restricting the development of cracks (Wei et al., 2018). In Fig. 11, the
Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion: three red relationship curves between (σ 1 − σ 3 ) and ε1 , which belong to
granite residual soil, all show a strain hardening trend, and, starting
(1 + sinϕ2 )σ3 + 2c2 cosϕ2
σ1 = (7) from the axial strain of 5 %, the curves tend to be flat. The three blue
1 − sinϕ2
curves belong to the granite residual soil after adding 3.0 % glass fiber,
Sorting formulas (6) and (7): showing a more obvious strain hardening trend. With the increase of
[ ] deviator stress, the granite residual soil reinforced by glass fiber will
(1 + sinϕ2 )σ 3 + 2c2 cosϕ2 2 (1+sinϕ1−2 )σsinϕ
3 +2c2 cosϕ2
tanϕ1 + 2c1 deform elastically first, and then begin to deform plastically. Immedi­
Δσ 3 = − 2
(8)
1 − sinϕ2 1 + sinϕ1 + cosϕ1 ately afterwards, the resistance of the fiber is mobilized, and hardening
is observed. For higher confining pressure, the granite residual soil

7
B. Yuan et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

Fig. 6. Bridging effect of a glass fiber on a crack.

reinforced by glass fiber showed more severe hardening behavior and do

not show obvious peak shear strength. The same behavior was observed
by Correia et al. (2021).
Fig. 11 shows the Mohr circle and failure strength line of granite
residual soil before and after reinforcement with 3.0 % glass fiber. The
shear strength indexes of the two are substituted into formula (8). Under
different confining pressures, the equivalent confining pressure of glass
fiber to granite residual soil is shown in Table 6.

5. Conclusions

Fig. 7. Compressive strength curve.
In this paper, the compressive strength test and the drop weight test
are used to evaluate the reinforcement effect of SH and glass fiber on
granite residual soil. When the glass fiber content is 3.2 %, the uniaxial
compressive strength of the granite residual soil is the largest, which is
5343 kPa. In the drop weight test, the specimens with glass fiber con­
tents of 2.8 %, 3.0 %, and 3.2 % have similar time history curves of
impact force, which show a rapid straight upward trend within 0–1 ms
and reach the first maximum point, but after the first maximum point,
the curves show a downward trend. SEM results show that a cemented
system of clay flake particle-glass fiber is formed. In the process of
resisting the external load, the glass fiber is subjected to a pair of
opposite friction forces so the tensile strength of the glass fiber is exer­
ted. It is understood that the shear strength of the granite residual soil is

8
B. Yuan et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

Fig. 8. Time history curve of impact force.

Fig. 9. Compression amount time history curve.

Table 5
Compression and test response time.
Group Maximum compression Final compression Response time
(mm) (mm) (ms)

F F1 24.08 23.21 15.74

F2 19.17 18.11 11.30
F3 20.04 18.98 12.25
G G1 19.00 18.00 13.80
G2 15.00 13.00 10.30
G3 17.00 15.00 11.20

enhanced. In particular, based on the equivalent confining pressure

theory, the reinforcement effect of glass fiber on granite residual soil can
be quantified by δσ3 , which is related to the confining pressure and shear
strength index. These findings indicate that the granite residual soil
reinforcement technology proposed in this paper is feasible, which is
conducive to recycling the granite residual soil as filling materials for
retaining walls and roadbeds. δσ 3 can be used to predict the reinforce­
ment effect of glass fiber on the soil and provide a reference for the safe
operation of retaining walls and slopes.
Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of equivalent confining pressure.
Credit author statement
Bingxiang Yuan: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition. Zihao Li:
Writing – original draft; Methodology, Yiming Chen: Software; Formal
analysis, Hong Ni: Writing – review & editing, Zuqing Zhao: Software,
Weijie Chen: Software, Jin Zhao: Data curation.

9
B. Yuan et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

Fig. 11. Triaxial test results.

Declaration of competing interest

Table 6
Result of equivalent confining pressure.
The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this
Shear strength index Confining δσ 3 work.
pressure (kPa) (kPa)

Soil: tanϕ1 = 0.32, c1 = 43kPa Soil with glass
fiber: tanϕ2 = 0.6, c2 = 30kPa
Data availability statement
The data used to support the results of this research can be obtained
from the corresponding author upon request.
100 171 Acknowledgement
200 344
300 516
The authors would gratefully like to acknowledge the support pro­
vided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.
51978177), by the Science and Technology Plan Project of Guangdong
Provincial Department of Transportation (2017-02-018), by the
Guangdong Natural Science Foundation (No. 2018A030313839). The
editorial help from Professor Galen Leonhardy of Black Hawk College is
also greatly appreciated. In addition, Taishan Fiberglass Inc. which
provides glass fiber for experiments in this paper is also worthy of
appreciation.

10
B. Yuan et al. Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652

References granite gneiss. Geoderma 75 (3), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061

(96)00089-4.
Lenoir, T., Preteseille, M., Ricordel, S., 2016. Contribution of the fiber reinforcement on
Aggarwal, Praveen, 2011. Application of Jute Fiber in the Improvement of Subgrade
the fatigue behavior of two cement-modified soils. Int. J. Fatig. 93, 71–81. https://
Characteristics. Acee International Journal on Transportation and Urban
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.08.007.
Development https://doi.org/02.ACE.2010.01.41.
Lin, T., Jia, D., He, P., Wang, M., Liang, D., 2008. Effects of fiber length on mechanical
Akbulut, S., Arasan, S., Kalkan, E., 2007. Modification of clayey soils using scrap tire
properties and fracture behavior of short carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer matrix
rubber and synthetic fiber. Appl. Clay Sci. 38 (1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. 497, 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
clay.2007.02.001.
msea.2008.06.040.
ASTM-D2487, 2011. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Liu, W.P., Song, X.Q., Huang, F.M., Hu, L.N., 2019. Experimental study on the
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System), West Conshohocken, PA.
disintegration of granite residual soil under the combined influence of
ASTM-D422-63, 2007. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (D422-
wetting–drying cycles and acid rain. Geomatics 10 (1), 1912–1927 https://doi.org/
63). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
info:10.1080/19475705.2019.1651407.
ASTM-International, 2015. Standard Test Method for Determination of the Impact Value
Liu, P., Chen, R.P., Wu, K., Kang, X., 2020. Effects of drying-wetting cycles on the
(IV) of a Soil. ASTM D, 5874-2015.
mechanical behavior of reconstituted granite-residual soils. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 32 (8)
Banthia, N., Mindess, S., Trorrier, J.E., 1996. Impact resistance of steel fiber reinforced
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003272.
concrete. ACI Mater. J. 93, 472–479.
Liu, W.P., Ouyang, G.Q., Luo, X.Y., Luo, J., Hu, L.N., Fu, M.F., 2020a. Moisture content,
Banthia, N., Gupta, P., Yan, C., 1999a. Impact resistance of fiber reinforced wet-mix
pore-water pressure and wetting front in granite residual soil during collapsing
shotcrete part 1: beam tests. Mater. Struct. 32 (8), 563. https://doi.org/10.1007/
erosion with varying slope angle. Geomorphology 362 https://doi.org/info:
BF02480490.
10.1080/19475705.2019.1651407.
Banthia, N., Gupta, P., Yan, C., 1999b. Impact resistance of fiber reinforced wet-mix
Liu, W.P., Song, X.Q., Luo, J., Hu, L.N., 2020b. The processes and mechanisms of
shotcrete Part 2: plate tests. Mater. Struct. 32 (9), 643–650. https://doi.org/
collapsing erosion for granite residual soil in southern China. J. Soils Sediments 20
10.1007/BF02481702.
(2), 992–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02467-4.
Binici, H., Aksogan, O., Shah, T., 2005. Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a
Maher, M.H., Gray, D.H., 1990. Static response of sands reinforced with randomly
building material. Construct. Build. Mater. 19 (4), 313–318. https://doi.org/
distributed fiber. J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (11), 1661–1677. https://doi.org/10.1061/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.07.013.
(ASCE)0733-9410(1990)116:11(1661).
Chen, R., Xu, T., Lei, W.D., Zhao, Y.R., Qiao, J., 2018. Impact of multiple drying-wetting
Mandal, S., Pu, S.Y., He, L.L., Ma, H., Hou, D.Y., 2020. Biochar induced modification of
cycles on shear behaviour of an unsaturated compacted clay. Environ. Earth Sci. 77
graphene oxide & nZVI and its impact on immobilization of toxic copper in soil.
(19), 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7868-6.
Environ. Pollut. 259, 113851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113851.
Chen, R., Huang, J.W., Chen, Z.K., Xu, Y., Liu, J., Ge, Y.H., 2019. Effect of root density of
Mattone, Roberto, 2005. Sisal fibre reinforced soil with cement or cactus pulp in
wheat and okra on hydraulic properties of an unsaturated compacted loam. Eur. J.
bahareque technique. Cement Concr. Compos. 27 (5), 611–616. https://doi.org/
Soil Sci. 70 (3), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12766.
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2004.09.016.
Consoli, N.C., Prietto, P.D.M., Ulbrich, L.A., 1998. Influence of fiber and cement addition
Ma’ruf, M.F., 2012. Shear strength of Apus bamboo root reinforced soil. Ecol. Eng. 41,
on behavior of sandy soil. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (12), 1211–1214.
84–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.01.003.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:12(1211).
Meng, F.Y., Chen, R.P., Wu, H.N., Xie, S.W., Liu, Y., 2020. Observed behaviors of a long
Consoli, N.C., Zortea, Franco D.S., Maurfcio, F., Lucas, 2011. Studies on the dosage of
and deep excavation and collinear underlying tunnels in Shenzhen granite residual
fiber-reinforced cemented soils. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (12), 1624–1632. https://doi.
soil. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000343.
tust.2020.103504.
Correia, N.S., Rocha, S.A., Lodi, P.C., McCartney, J.S., 2021. Shear strength behavior of
Michalowski, R.L., Cermák, J., 2002. Strength anisotropy of fiber-reinforced sand.
clayey soil reinforced with polypropylene fiber under drained and undrained
Comput. Geotech. 29 (4), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(01)
conditions. Geotext. Geomembranes. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
00032-5.
geotexmem.2021.05.005.
Michalowski, R.L., Zhao, A., 1996. Failure of fiber-reinforced granular soils. J. Geotech.
Dang, L.C., Fatahi, B., Khabbaz, H., 2016. Behaviour of expansive soils stabilized with
Eng. 122 (3), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:3
hydrated lime and bagasse fibres. Procedia Eng 143, 658–665. https://doi.org/
(226).
10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.093.
Mirzababaei, M., Arulrajah, A., Haque, A., Nimbalkar, S., Mohajerani, A., 2018. Effect of
Daud, N.N.N., Mohammed, A.S., 2014. Material characterization of palm oil fuel ash
fiber reinforcement on shear strength and void ratio of soft clay. Geosynth. Int. 25
(POFA) mixed with granite residual soil. Adv. Mater. Res. 955–959, 2093–2097.
(4), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.18.00023.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.955-959.2093.
Namjoo, A.M., Jafari, K., Toufigh, V., 2020. Effect of particle size of sand and surface
Dey, V., Bonakdar, A., Mobasher, B., 2014. Low-velocity flexural impact response of
properties of reinforcement on sand-geosynthetics and sand – carbon fiber polymer
fiber-reinforced aerated concrete. Cement Concr. Compos. 49, 100–110. https://doi.
(CFRP) interface shear behavior. Transp. Geotech. 24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.12.006.
trgeo.2020.100403.
Dubrovina, T.A., Losev, A.A., Karpukhin, M.M., Vorobeichik, E.L., Dovletyarova, E.A.,
Narani, S.S., Abbaspour, M., Hosseini, S.M.M.M., Aflaki, E., Nejad, F.M., 2020.
Brykov, V.A., Brykova, R.A., Ginocchio, R., Yáñez, C., Neaman, A., 2021. Gypsum
Sustainable reuse of Waste Tire Textile Fiber (WTTFs) as reinforcement materials for
soil amendment in metal-polluted soils—an added environmental hazard.
expansive soils: with a special focus on landfill liners/covers. J. Clean. Prod. 247
Chemosphere 281, 130889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130889.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119151.
Ekinci, A., Ferreira, P.M.V., 2012. The undrained mechanical behaviour of a fibre-
Orasutthikul, S., Unno, D., Yokota, H., 2017. Effectiveness of recycled nylon fiber from
reinforced heavily over- consolidated clay Proceedings. In: ISSMGE Technical
waste fishing net with respect to fiber reinforced mortar. Construct. Build. Mater.
Committee TC 211 International Symposium on Ground Improvement (IS-GI
146, 594–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.134.
BRUSSELS 2012), May, 2012.
Prabakar, J., Sridhar, R.S., 2002. Effect of random inclusion of sisal fibre on strength
Ferreira, F.B., Vieira, C.S., Lopes, M.L., Carlos, D.M., 2015. Experimental investigation on
behaviour of soil. Construct. Build. Mater. 16 (2), 123–131. https://doi.org/
the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics embedded in a granite residual soil. European
10.1016/S0950-0618(02)00008-9.
Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Ramesh, H.N., Krishna, K.V. Manoj, Mamatha, H.V., 2010. Compaction and strength
19648189.2015.1090927.
behavior of lime-coir fiber treated Black Cotton soil. Geomechanics Geoengin. 2 (1),
GB/T 50123-2019, 2019. Standard for Geotechnical Testing Method.
19–28. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2010.2.1.019.
Ghadakpour, M., Choobbasti, A.J., Kutanaei, S.S., 2019. Investigation of the Kenaf fiber
Segetin, M., Jayaraman, K., Xu, Xun, 2007. Harakeke reinforcement of soil–cement
hybrid length on the properties of the cement-treated sandy soil. Transp. Geotech. 22
building materials: manufacturability and properties. Build. Sci. 42 (8), 3066–3079.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.07.033.
Gray, D.H., Ohashi, H., 1983. Mechanics of fiber reinforcement in sand. J. Geotech. Eng.
Tajdini, M., Hajialilue Bonab, M., Golmohamadi, S., 2018. An experimental investigation
109 (3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1983)109:3(335).
on effect of adding natural and synthetic fibres on mechanical and behavioural
Gupta, D., Kumar, A., 2016. Strength characterization of cement stabilized and fiber
parameters of soil–cement materials. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 16 (4), 353–370. https://doi.
reinforced clay–pond ash mixes. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground
org/10.1007/s40999-016-0118-y.
Engineering 2 (4), 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0069-z.
Tang, C.S., Shi, Zhao, L.Z., 2010. Interfacial shear strength of fiber reinforced soil.
Hejazi, S.M., Sheikhzadeh, M., Abtahi, S.M., Zadhoush, A., 2012. A simple review of soil
Geotext. Geomembranes 28 (1), 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
reinforcement by using natural and synthetic fiber. Construct. Build. Mater. 30,
geotexmem.2009.10.001.
100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.045.
Valipour, M., Shourijeh, P.T., Mohammadinia, A., 2020. Application of recycled tire
Kapogianni, E., Sakellariou, M., Laue, J., Springman, S., 2016. Investigation of the
polymer fiber and glass fiber for clay reinforcement. Transp. Geotech. 27 https://doi.
mechanical behaviour of the interface between soil and reinforcement, via
org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100474.
experimental and numerical modelling. Procedia Eng 143, 419–426. https://doi.
Wang, Y.M., Yang, Z.C., Chen, W., Han, W.F., 2005. Strength characteristics and
org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.053.
mechanism of loess solidified with new polymer material SH. Chin. J. Rock Mech.
Kim, C.K., Kim, T.H., 2010. Behavior of unsaturated weathered residual granite soil with
Eng. 24, 2554–2559. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-005-0030-x (in chinese).
initial water contents. Eng. Geol. Amsterdam 113 (1–4), 1–10. https://doi.org/
Wang, Y.X., Guo, P.P., Ren, W.X., Yuan, B.X., Yuan, H.P., 2017. Laboratory investigation
10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.09.004.
on strength characteristics of expansive soil treated with jute fiber reinforcement.
Kim, Y.T., Kim, H.J., Lee, G.H., 2008. Mechanical behavior of lightweight soil reinforced
Int. J. GeoMech. 17 (11) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000998.
with waste fishing net. Geotext. Geomembranes 26 (6), 512–518. https://doi.org/
Wang, S.N., Xue, Q.P., Ma, W., Zhao, K., Wu, Z.J., 2021. Experimental study on
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.05.004.
mechanical properties of fiber-reinforced and geopolymer-stabilized clay soil.
Kretzschmar, R., Robarge, W.P., Amoozegar, A., Vepraskas, M.J., 1997. Biotite alteration
to halloysite and kaolinite in soil-saprolite profiles developed from mica schist and

11
B. Yuan et al.
Construct. Build. Mater. 272, 121914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.121914.
Wang, S., Xue, Q., Zhu, Y., Li, G., Wu, Z., Zhao, K., 2021. Experimental study on material
ratio and strength performance of geopolymer-improved soil. Construct. Build.
Mater. 267, 120469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120469.
Wei, L., Chai, S.X., Zhang, H.Y., Shi, Q., 2018. Mechanical properties of soil reinforced
with both lime and four kinds of fiber. Construct. Build. Mater. 172, 300–308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.248.
Xia, J., Cai, C., Wei, Y., Wu, X., 2019. Granite residual soil properties in collapsing gullies
of south China: spatial variations and effects on collapsing gully erosion. Catena 174,
469–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2018.11.015.
Yao, Y.S., Ni, J.J., Jue, L., 2020. Stress-dependent water retention of granite residual soil
and its implications for ground settlement. Comput. Geotech. 129 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103835.
Yetimoglu, T., Inanir, M., Inanir, O.E., 2005. A study on bearing capacity of randomly
distributed fiber-reinforced sand fills overlying soft clay. Geotext. Geomembranes 23
(2), 174–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.09.004.
Yoo, D.Y., Banthia, N., Kang, S.T., Yoon, Y.S., 2016a. Effect of fiber orientation on the
rate-dependent flexural behavior of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced
concrete. Compos. Struct. 157, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2016.08.023.
Yoo, D.Y., Gohil, U., Gries, T., Yoon, Y.S., 2016b. Comparative low-velocity impact
response of textile-reinforced concrete and steel-fiber-reinforced concrete beams.
J. Compos. Mater. 50 (17), 2421–2431. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0021998315604039.
12
Chemosphere 286 (2022) 131652
Yuan, B.X., Sun, M., Wang, Y.X., Zhai, L.H., Luo, Q.Z., Zhang, X.Q., 2019. Full 3D
displacement measuring system for 3D displacement field of soil around a laterally
loaded pile in transparent soil. Int. J. GeoMech. 2019 (5) https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001409.
Yuan, B.X., Sun, M., Xiong, L., Luo, Q.Z., Li, H.Z., 2020. Investigation of 3D deformation
of transparent soil around a laterally loaded pile based on a hydraulic gradient
model test. J. Buil. Eng. 28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101024.
Yuan, B.X., Li, Z.H., Zhao, Z.Q., Ni, H., Su, Z.L., Li, Z.J., 2021a. Experimental study of
displacement field of layered soils surrounding laterally loaded pile based on
transparent soil. J. Soils Sediments. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-021-03004-y.
Yuan, B.X., Li, Z.H., Su, Z.L., Luo, Q.Z., Chen, M.J., Zhao, Z.Q., 2021b. Sensitivity of
multistage fill slope based on finite element model. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 13. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2021/6622936.
Zeng, L., Bian, H.B., Shi, Z.N., He, Z.M., 2017. Forming Condition of Transient Saturated
Zone and its Distribution in Residual Slope under Rainfall Conditions, vol. 24.
JOURNAL- CENTRAL SOUTH UNIVERSITY, pp. 1866–1880.
Zhang, C.Y., Zhang, M., Zhang, T.L., Dai, Z.W., Wang, L.Q., 2020. Influence of intrusive
granite dyke on rainfall-induced soil slope failure. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 79 (1)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-020-01895-8.
Zhou, G.X., Zhong, J., Zhang, H., Hu, X., Wu, J., Koratkar, N., 2017. Influence of
releasing graphene oxide into a clayey sand: physical and mechanical properties.
RSC Adv. 7 (29), 18060–18067. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RA01539A.
Zornberg, G.J., 2002. Discrete framework for limit equilibrium analysis of fibre-
reinforced soil. Geotechnique 52 (8), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.52.8.593.38833.