Polypropylene Fibre Reinforced Laterite Soil and Bricks

PAN AFRICAN UNIVERSITY, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCES,
TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION P.O.BOX 62000-00200,

NAIROBI-KENYA
PERFORMANCE OF POLYPROPYLENE FIBRE REINFORCED LATERITE SOIL

AND LATERITE SOIL BRICKS
Nourou Mahaman Lawali Salaou
CE300-0011/19
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree of Master of
Science in Civil Engineering (Structural Option).
2021
DECLARATION
I, Mahaman Lawali Salaou Nourou, the undersigned do declare that this report is my original
work and to the best of my knowledge, that it has not been presented for a degree in any other
University or Institution.
Therefore, I declare that all materials quoted in this thesis that are not mine have been duly
acknowledged.
Signature: Date: 22/09/2021
Mahaman Lawali Salaou Nourou
CE300-0011/2019
This thesis has been submitted with my approval as University supervisor;
Dr. Charles Kabubo
Department of Building and Civil Engineering, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology, Kenya
Signature: Date:
Prof Zachary Abiero Gariy
Department of Building and Civil Engineering, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology, Kenya
Dr. Joseph Thuo
Department of Civil Engineering, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology, Kenya
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to God the Almighty.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to sincerely thank my supervisors for their support and inputs. I also wish to extend my
gratitude to the Pan Africa University Institute of Science Technology and Innovation
(PAUSTI) for giving me the chance to study and carry out this research.
iv
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS
MDD Maximum dry density
OMC Optimum moisture content
PPFRS Polypropylene fibre reinforced soil
PL Maximum applied load Length
D Diameter
k Hydraulic conductivity
BS British standard
Cs Compressive Strength
T Tensile splitting strength
α Abrasion
IWA Initial rate of water absorption
ρ Dry density of the bricks
w Moisture content
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
PP Polypropylene
USCS Unified Soil Classification System
LL Liquid Limit
PL Plastic Limit
PI Plasticity Index
CSEB Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks
v
ABSTRACT
Accessibility to energy-efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly materials is one

of the challenges the building industry faces due to the need to conserve the environment. In
addition to its relatively high cost, cement production for use in concrete is a major cause of
climate change. Therefore, there is a need for civil engineers to come up with innovative
materials that contribute to the reduction of the challenges above. Due to its availability
worldwide and its environmentally friendly characteristic, earth materials have been a
conventional material of choice for masonry blocks production. However, blocks produced
from earth materials have low compressive and tensile strengths and low durability. Many
researchers have studied the stabilisation or reinforcement of soil with cement, lime, or fibres.
Cement/lime stabilisation is neither cost-effective nor energy-efficient, while natural fibres
reinforcement faces durability challenges. In this study, a laterite soil was reinforced with
polypropylene fibres. Polypropylene fibres are plastic wastes; hence their use contributes to the
recycling of plastic wastes in the world. Consequently, this leads to the production of low-cost
and environmentally friendly building materials. The study examined the performance of
polypropylene reinforced laterite bricks. Polypropylene fibres were mixed with air-dried
laterite soil at 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 and 0.4% fibre content by weight of dry soil.
The blocks made were air-dried for 14 days and tested for compressive strength according to
EN 772-1:2011 (E). In order to investigate the effect of the fibre aspect ratio, two fibre lengths
of 6 mm and 18 mm corresponding to the fibre aspect ratio of 231 and 600 were used. The
results indicate that the compressive strength of reinforced bricks increased by 83.42% and
90.26%, and the rate of water absorption was reduced by 50% and 54.76% at 0.25% fibre
contents by weight of dry soil with 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios, respectively. From the
results, it was concluded that polypropylene fibre is an alternative reinforcement material in
the production of more durable earth masonry blocks with improved compressive strength.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION..................................................................................................................... II
DEDICATION....................................................................................................................... III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .....................................................................................................IV
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS ......................................... V
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................VI
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. XII
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. XIV
CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 2
1.1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 2
1.2. Statement of the Problem............................................................................................. 4
1.3. Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Research questions....................................................................................................... 5
1.5. Justification of the study .............................................................................................. 5
1.6. Scope and limitations of study ..................................................................................... 6
1.6.1. Scope ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.6.2. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 7
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 7

vii
2.1. Soils ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1. Expansive soils....................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2. Laterites.................................................................................................................. 8
2.2. Fibres ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1. Natural Fibres......................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1.1. Sisal fibres ........................................................................................................ 11
2.1.1.2. Coconut (coir) fibre.......................................................................................... 12
2.1.1.3. Palm fibres ....................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1.4. Bamboo ............................................................................................................ 13
2.1.1.5. Sugarcane ......................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1.6. Challenges with the use of Natural Fibres ....................................................... 13
2.1.2. Synthetic fibres .................................................................................................... 15
2.1.2.1. Polypropylene fibre .......................................................................................... 16
2.1.2.2. Polypropylene fibre aspect ratio ...................................................................... 17
2.1.2.3. Nylon fibre ....................................................................................................... 18
2.1.2.4. Polyester (PET) fibres ...................................................................................... 18
2.1.2.5. Synthetic fibres in summary ............................................................................ 19
2.3. Empirical Review ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1.3. Polypropylene fibre reinforced soils .................................................................... 21
2.1.4. Fibre reinforced earth bricks ................................................................................ 25

viii
2.1.5. Strength of Soil Bricks According to Codes ........................................................ 27
2.4. Summary of literature review and research gap ........................................................ 27
2.5. Conceptual framework............................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 30
MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................................... 30
3.1. Materials .................................................................................................................... 30
3.1.1. Laterite ................................................................................................................. 30
3.1.2. Polypropylene fibres ............................................................................................ 30
3.1.3. Water .................................................................................................................... 30
3.2. Engineering properties of laterite soil and polypropylene fibre ................................ 30
3.2.1. Physical properties of the soil .............................................................................. 31
3.2.2. Chemical properties of the soil ............................................................................ 36
3.3. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil and laterite soil bricks . 36
3.3.1. Preparation of the blocks and bricks .................................................................... 36
3.3.2. Air drying of blocks and bricks ........................................................................... 37
3.3.3. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil ................................ 38
3.3.4. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks ........................................ 43
3.4. Determining the cost of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil bricks. ............. 46
CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................. 47
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 47

ix
4.1. Physical and chemical properties of laterite soil and polypropylene fibre ................ 47
4.1.1. Physical and chemical properties of laterite soil.................................................. 47
4.1.2. Chemical properties of the laterite soil ................................................................ 50
4.1.3. Polypropylene fibre engineering properties ......................................................... 52
4.2. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil and laterite soil bricks . 53
4.2.1. Unconfined compressive strength ........................................................................ 53
4.2.2. Shear strength test ................................................................................................ 54
4.2.3. Coefficient of permeability .................................................................................. 57
4.2.4. Indirect splitting tensile strength .......................................................................... 58
4.2.5. Compressive strength of bricks ............................................................................ 60
4.2.6. Bricks dry densities .............................................................................................. 62
4.2.7. Initial rate of water absorption ............................................................................. 63
4.3. Cost of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil bricks ........................................ 65
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 67
5.1. Conclusions................................................................................................................ 67
5.2. Recommendations...................................................................................................... 69
5.2.1. Recommendations for use of the findings ........................................................... 69
5.2.2. Recommendations for further research ................................................................ 69
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 70
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 85
x
Appendix A: Particle size distribution test results .................................................................. 86
Appendix B: Standard compaction test results ....................................................................... 87
Appendix C: Unconfined compressive strength test and shear test results ............................ 88
Appendix D: Permeability test and splitting tensile strength test results ............................... 89
Appendix E: Compressive strength test and dry density results ............................................ 90
Appendix F: Initial water absorption rate test and cost analysis of a unit brick..................... 91
Appendix G: Unified soil classification system procedure .................................................... 92
Appendix H: Plasticity chart................................................................................................... 93
Appendix I: Chemical composition of the soil ....................................................................... 94
Appendix J: Ruiru clay products LTD catalogue ................................................................... 95
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Classification of natural fibres 11
Figure 2.2: Classification of synthetic fibres 15
Figure 2.3: Polypropylene fibre 17
Figure 2.4: Conceptual frame work 29
Figure 3.1: Methodology flow chart Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 3.2: Manual press 37
Figure 3.3: Bricks under curing 38
Figure 3.4: Unconfined compression test apparatus 40
Figure 3.5: Falling head hydraulic conductivity test 41
Figure 3.6: Tensile splitting test 42
Figure 3.7: Servo-plus evolution testing machine 44
Figure 4.1: Particle size distribution curve 47
Figure 4.2: Liquid limit 48
Figure 4.3: Dry densities vs moisture content 49
Figure 4.4: Unconfined Compressive Strength vs Fibre content 53
Figure 4.5: Cohesion vs fibre content 55
Figure 4.6: Angle vs Fibre content 55
Figure 4.7: Shear stress vs normal stress at different fibre content with fibre aspect ratio of 231 56
Figure 4.8: Shear stress vs normal stress at different fibre content with fibre aspect ratio of 600 56
Figure 4.9: Coefficient of permeability vs fibre content 58

xii
Figure 4.10: Splitting tensile strength vs Fibre content 59
Figure 4.11: Compressive Strength vs Fibre content 60
Figure 4.12: (a) Bricks after failure; (b) Cylinder after failure 61
Figure 4.13: Dry density of bricks vs fibre content 62
Figure 4.14: Initial rate of water absorption vs fibre content 63
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Chemical composition of plant fibres 10
Table 2.2: Summary of research performed using natural fibres to reinforce soil 14
Table 2.3: Summary of research performed widely used synthetic-fibres to reinforce soil 20
Table 4.1: Physical Properties of the Soil 50
Table 4.2: Chemical composition of the Soil 51
Table 4.3: Properties of polypropylene fibres 52
Table 4.5: Cost of reinforced bricks at 0.25% fibre content per metre square of walls in Kenya 66
xiv
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
Soil can be defined as a material that has resulted overtime from weathering and organic actions
on the parent rock (Arnold, 2004; Martin & Doyne, 1930). Laterite soil is a highly weathered
soil that is widespread in tropical and subtropical climates, generally covered with sesquioxide-
rich solidification (Dauda et al., 2018; Martin, 1923; Saing et al., 2017). Laterite soils include
a substantial quantity of iron and aluminium oxides (Martin & Doyne, 1930). They have a
unique colour, poor fertility, and have high clay content (Omotoso, Ojo, Adetolaju, 2012).
Laterite soil is an excellent material for low-cost building, sustainable and environmentally
friendly construction (Saing et al., 2017).
However, despite the environmental advantages (no emission of CO2, good thermal
conductivity, etc.) and low-cost, earth material is mainly used by poor, particularly in Sahel
and desert regions (Oyelami & Rooy, 2016). Problems of earth bricks are essentially the
swelling-shrinkage phenomena or volumetric variations due to ambient moisture variation,
particularly during raining season (Mustapha & Alhassan, 2012). These problems can be
reduced through stabilisation or reinforcement of the laterite soil. The stabilisation or
reinforcement of soil aims to improve the soil engineering properties and contribute to the
mitigation of climate change problems (Alhassan, 2008).
Recently many researchers have focused on the improvement of the mechanical properties of
laterite soil bricks using either natural or synthetic fibres reinforcement or cement stabilisation
(Vodounon, 2018). Through previous studies, the use of natural and synthetic fibres as soil
reinforcement materials has shown promising results; as the inclusion of natural and synthetic
fibres in soil has demonstrated significant improvement regarding the overall physical and
mechanical properties and the cohesion of the composite material (Olgun, 2013). As the ratio
of fibre required is significantly less, fibre reinforcement is found to be both energy and
economically efficient as compared to stabilisation (Vodounon, 2018). The cement
stabilisation necessitates more energy and is costly (cement and transport cost) and non-
environmentally friendly (due CO2 emission by cement and cement structures/buildings) than
2
fibre reinforcement. For instance, Kamal et al. (2020) reported that the concrete building
industry produces 8% of CO2 global production. The building industry is responsible of about
30% of the global CO2 emission into the atmosphere (Paik & Na, 2019). The difference
between concrete building and building industry emission results from the from cement and
fired earth bricks/blocks productions. The production of 250 billion fired clay bricks in India,
emits 40.65–42.64 Tg (teragram) of CO2 into the atmosphere annually (Nath et al., 2018).
In general, two categories of fibres exist, natural fibres and synthetic fibres. Natural fibres are
any hair-like raw material directly obtainable from an animal, vegetal, or mineral source and
convertible into nonwoven fabrics such as felt or paper or, after spinning into yarns, into woven
cloth. Natural fibres have good mechanical and physical characteristics as reinforcement
materials and are biodegradable. Synthetic fibres, plastic fibres, or polymers are made from
chemicals and may have better engineering properties than natural fibres such as cotton or silk.
In general, synthetic fibres or polymers have better engineering properties (impact strength,
durability, tensile strength, water resistance, etc.) than natural fibres (see Table 2.2 and 2.3);
they are not biodegradable (Tajuddin et al., 2016). But, the main reason of the choice of
synthetic fibres over natural fibres is because synthetic fibres do not absorbe water, which is
an essential characteristic to improve the composite durability. The build-up of waste materials
worldwide is a known issue, as landfill space is limited, and the incineration process requires
considerable energy and produces unwanted emissions (Paulinus , Kennedy & Barine, 2018).
On the one hand, in Niger, laterite soil is one of the construction materials readily available
around the central and southern parts of the country. This availability makes laterite soil one
of the most used materials both in housing and roads constructions. But due to its substantial
clay amount, this material often misses satisfactory geotechnical properties (low durability,
low tensile strength for example), so that it always requires some treatments or stabilisation
before use (Danso, 2017; Martin, 1923). Currently, laterite soil is treated with cement and
chemicals to improve its engineering properties, particularly in road construction (Issiakou et
al., 2015). Often laterite or clay soil bricks are reinforced with straw or millet wastes. In other
regions, laterite soil bricks walls are covered by a cement mortar layer using wire netting.
Except for the straw or millet wastes reinforcement, other stabilisation methods (cement/lime
or cement and lime, ash + cement/ ash + cement+lime) used are expensive due the cost of the
binder and transport; and not environmentally friendly due CO2 emission.
3
On the other hand, plastic wastes is a big issue that threatens many African countries and
particularly Niger (Jambeck et al., 2018). Because plastic wastes are not biodegradable,
burning and throwing them away is harmful to the environment. With the exploitation and
refining of oil in Niger plastic by-products increase every day which makes their management
a big challenge. Therefore there is a need to develop innovative solutions or ways to consume
these wastes and protect the environment.
To propose an alternative soil reinforcement material that is environmentally friendly, less

expensive and contributes to plastic wastes reduction, this work studied the effect of
monofilament polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil. The study aims to evaluate the
performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil and polypropylene fibre reinforced
laterite soil bricks. Polypropylene fibres are chosen in this study because of their low density,
high melting temperature and chemical inertness with low cost as compared to other type of
synthetic fibres. These properties make polypropylene optimum for long-life applications and
due to its high versatility and tensile strength, diversity in structural designs and mechanical
properties are achievable. The use of polypropylene fibre as soil reinforcement will contribute
to enhance the mechanical properties of the soil (tensile and flexural strength) along with a
significant reduction of plastic shrinkage cracking and minimising of thermal cracking.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Earth as a construction material misses certain engineering properties; for example, earth bricks
suffer from shrinkage, cracking, they have low compressive and tensile strengths and low
durability (Danso, Martinson, Ali, Williams, 2015). Laterite soil is one of the most used soil
materials in civil engineering construction such as road, housing, dam etc. However, due to its
substantial clay minerals amount, laterite soil may often have its engineering properties and
stability altered and compromised (Martin, 1923). The more the clay content, the more the soil
face volumetric variations, which cause the swelling and shrinkage phenomena, in the presence
of water and dry environment, respectively (Alhassan, 2008; Waziri et al., 2013).
Niger is a dry-weather country where the average raining season is 3 – 4 months per year
(Boulama et al., 2005; Mariko, 2003; Olivry, 1994). Due to the dry climate, people usually
build their houses with laterite soil reinforced with straw, animal, or millet wastes. During the
rainy season, the earth constructions around the Niger river suffer in case of flooding despite a
4
protection dike recently constructed; this can happen 1 or 2 times per rainy season. The drying
occurs gradually some hours or one day later after flooding. After drying, cracks appear on
wall bricks. The development of cracking during drying observed on earth wall bricks is due
to a substantial amount of clay contained in the laterite soil that absorbs water during flooding.
The water absorbed by the soil evaporates during drying and creates voids which result in
cracks (Issiakou et al., 2015).
1.3. Objectives
1.3.1. General objective
To assess the performance of laterite soil reinforced polypropylene fibre bricks.
1.3.2. Specific objectives

i. To establish laterite soil and polypropylene fibre engineering properties
ii. To determine the performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil and
laterite soil bricks.
iii. To evaluate the cost of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks in Kenya.
1.4. Research questions
i. What are the engineering properties of laterite soil and polypropylene?

ii. How do polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil and laterite soil bricks perform?
iii. What is the cost of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks in Kenya?
1.5. Justification of the study
This work aims to study the performance of laterite bricks reinforced with polypropylene fibre
in order to produce a low-cost construction material that is environmentally friendly and
durable for earth buildings. Discrete monofilament polypropylene fibres were mixed with
laterite soil in order to improve the mechanical performance of the reinforced soil by increasing
the tensile strength of reinforced composite blocks, therefore, limiting potential weakness
planes and cracking; and by increasing the compressive strength of reinforced laterite soil
bricks. The improvement of mechanical performance of the composite can be an alternative to
reduce the cement/lime stabilisation, particularly in dry weather countries like Niger. On the
5
other hand, the inclusion of polypropylene fibre is expected to reduce the water absorption of
bricks and permeability coefficient of the composite by filling the voids in the soil matrix.
1.6. Scope and limitations of study

1.6.1. Scope
This study has focused only on the performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil
bricks. The performance of reinforced laterite blocks and bricks with different fibre contents
were determined and compared to that of unreinforced ones. Finally, the cost of reinforced
bricks with the optimum fibre contents was determined and compared to that of unreinforced
laterite soil, interlocking and fired clay blocks/bricks.
1.6.2. Limitations
Only two polypropylene fibre aspect ratios were separately mixed with a laterite soil from a
quarry in Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT). Other aspect
ratios were not investigated due to time constraints. Engineering properties of manually
compressed reinforced laterite soil bricks were studied. The bricks were tested after 14 days
air drying, compressed stabilised earth bricks are out of the scope of this study.
6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Soils
Soil is an earth material formed through mechanical disintegration or chemical decomposition

a rock and generally composed of solid matters (solid grains), liquid matters (intrinsic water),
gases (air) and countless organisms (Nortcliff, 2012). Depending upon its structure and
composition and the composition of its parent rock, many type of soils can be distinguished
(Kosmas et al., 1997). According to the particle size, three main groups of soils are possible
(Nortcliff, 2012):
• Sandy soils when the particle diameter of the soil varies from 2.0 to 0.05 mm
• Silty soils when the particle diameter ranges from 0.05 to 0.002 mm
• Clay soils for the particle diameter less than 0.002 mm.
Soil fibre reinforcement is a modern form of ancient method used for strengthening masonry
and building materials (Sutcu et al., 2015). Dixit, Goel, Dubey, Shivhare and Bhalavi (2017)
reported on the beneficial application of plant roots to increase the shear strength of the soil
and consequently, the stability of natural slopes. Since the 1980s, synthetic fibres have also
been introduced to improve the mechanical behaviour of soil in geotechnical engineering
practice. Therefore, the beneficial effect of fibres in geotechnical and construction engineering
has become a known fact to all engineers (Otoko, 2014). Studies on fibre-reinforced soil have
mainly consisted of conducting experimental laboratory research such as using tri-axial
compression tests, unconfined compression tests, direct shear tests and Odometer tests to
investigate the mechanical behaviour of fibre-reinforced soils (Chuitou, 2020).
2.1.1. Expansive soils
Expansive soils are types of soils with a substantial amount of clays of silty clays, generally
found in arid and semi-arid regions. Expansive soils have a significantly more deformation
range than elastic deformations and are not predictable using classic elastic or plastic theory
(Rajapakse, 2016). Expansive soils are usually formed with a hot climate and poor drainage
conditions; they are located in the arid and semi-arid regions, and they are encountered in
7
abundance where the annual precipitation is less than the yearly evaporation (Amer Ali Al-
Rawas & Goosen, 2006). These soils face changes in volume due to changes in moisture
conditions, which result in the development of severe cracking and damages to the structure
(Debora & Miller, 1992).
2.1.2. Laterites
The term Laterite comes from the Latin word ―later, which means brick; it is one of the
essential earth materials in the building industry (Lemougna, Melo, Kamseu & Tchamba,
2011). Some researchers have proposed other definitions of laterite soils, depending upon the
degree of weathering, chemical and physical compositions, and the colour of the soil. Lateritic
soil is a porous soil and contains a significant amount of iron as red and yellow ochres; they
are formed in the tropical or sub-tropical zones through physical disintegration, chemical
alteration or physico-chemical alteration or transformation that causes parent rock's destruction
and favour the formation of iron, aluminium, manganese and titanium oxides (Lemougna et
al., 2011; Waves, 1976). Lateritic soils result from a superficial disintegration of the parent
rock; they contain silica, lime, magnesia, soda and potash, and accumulation of hydrated iron,
aluminium, titanium, and rarely, manganese (Lemougna et al., 2011). Laterite is a category of
highly weathered soils composed of hydrated oxides of iron and aluminium (Achampong et
al., 2019).
2.1.2.1. Chemical properties of laterites
Mineral content is the principal factor controlling the chemical properties of soils (Kamtchueng
et al., 2015). According to Mustapha & Alhassan (2012), the chemical properties of lateritic
weathering profiles vary essentially with depth, location, and climate and site geology. The
study found that the chemical properties of oxides compositions (SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, K2O,
SiO2/Al2O3+Fe2O3) content in laterite soil vary at each level. The higher percentage
composition of Fe2O3 is found at 1.0 m depth, and this is an indication of matured laterite. This
kind of laterite is the most appropriate for soil bricks (Mustapha & Alhassan, 2012). Lateritic
soil is a natural concrete usually used in the construction of roads. It is formed by silica (SiO2),
hydrous oxides of aluminium (Al2O3x3H2O) and iron (2Fe2O3xH2O - goethite) (Volkoff,
1956). (Alao and Ogunbode, 2019) further stated that the excellent soil for brick should have
alumina (Al2O3) or clay of 20-30 per cent by weight: silica (SiO2) or sand of 35-50 per cent by
8
weight and silt of 20-25 per cent by weight. Vodounon (2018) reported the ferruginous and
aluminous nature of laterite soils. Martin (1923) defined three grades of laterite soils based on
the silica-alumina ratio (SiO/AlO3):
• Ratios less than 1.33 true laterites,

• Ratios between 1.33 and 2.00 of lateritic soils
• Ratios greater than 2.00 of non-lateritic tropically weathered soils.
2.1.2.2. Physical properties of laterites
The physical properties of laterite soil play an essential role in the engineering properties of its
bricks; the physical properties to be assessed for soil before its application are essentially:
liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index, clay, silt, fine sand, and coarse sand, and moisture
content according to BS 1377: 1990 (Danso, Martinson, Ali & Mant, 2015). In general,
according to Abdullah et al. (2017), experimental results show that lateritic soil is more suitable
than clay for Compressed Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB) production. Soil is a very non-
homogeneous material, and therefore stabilization is not the only factor that affects block
performance. Other important factors are compaction energy, soil characteristics such as
particle size distribution, Atterberg limits and moisture content (Danso et al., 2015).
2.2. Fibres
Fibre is a hair-like, thread or filament element obtained from vegetables, animals, polymers
wastes and used in soil reinforcement (Ghavami et al., 1999; Ansell & Mwaikambo, 2009).
Fibres can be categorized in natural and man-maid fibre.
2.1.1. Natural Fibres
Natural fibres are currently available in two families i.e vegetable origin fibres and animal
origin fibres. Regarding those of vegetable origin, natural fibres can be categorised into two
main groups. The first group concerns fibres that come from primary plants, which are grown
for their fibre contents. The second group is fibres from secondary plants, where fibres are
obtained as a by-product from some other use. For instance, jute, cotton, kenaf, hemp and sisal
are primary fibre plants, while pineapple, stalk, cereal, oil palm, agave, and coir are secondary
fibre plants (Ghavami et al., 1999). Natural fibres occur in stem and leaf parts as cell walls and
9
contained hemicelluloses, celluloses, aromatics, lignin, ash and water-soluble compounds,
waxes and other lipids (Ansell & Mwaikambo, 2009). Table 2.1 shows the chemical
composition of common plant fibres used in soil reinforcement.
Table 2.1: Chemical composition of plant fibres
Fibre Cellulose (%) Hemicellulose (%) Lignin (%)
Cotton 82 - 96 2-6 0.5 - 1

Pineapple 80 - 81 16-19 4.6 - 12
Hemp 70 - 92 18 - 22 3-5
Flax 72 - 84 16 - 18 0.6 - 5
Ramie 68 - 76 13 - 15 0.6 - 1
Banana 60 - 65 6 - 19 5 - 10
Jute 51 - 84 12 - 20 5 - 13
Source: Ansell & Mwaikambo (2009)
Natural fibres are the most abundant, inexpensive, renewable lightweights, with low density
and high toughness. They are biodegradable with minimal health hazards and low wear
resistance; natural fibres have high stiffness, high specific strength, high impact resistance and
relatively high flexural and tensile modulus (Ussig, 2010; Kılınç & Seydibeyoğlu, 2017).
Natural fibres are widely used in construction material reinforcement. Plasters, cement and
mud, have been reinforced using natural fibres (Coutts & Warden, 1990). In general, natural
fibres have good mechanical and physical properties with desirable fibre aspect ratios. Because
of their technical and economic advantages, natural fibres have been found as one of the very
interesting reinforcing materials (Buitrago et al., 2015). The animal origin fibres do not interest
the building industry at all. Figure 2.1 below shows a classification of natural fibres.
10
Natural fibres
Plant Animal
Stalk Root Seed Hair Wool Silk

Straw (cereal) Broom root Cotton
Grass Stem Fruit

Bagasse Flax, hemp, Coir, oil palm,
bamboo jute, kenaf, date palm, banana,
wood pineapple, sisal
Figure 2.1: Classification of natural fibres
Source: Ussig, 2010; Kılınç & Seydibeyoğlu (2017)
2.1.1.1. Sisal fibres
A lingo-cellulosic, sisal fibre is traditionally used to reinforce gypsum plaster sheets in the
building industry with a diameter of about 0.06 – 0.4 mm; sisal fibre has 60 – 70% water
absorption capacity (Rohit & Dixit, 2016). Sisal fibres are produced from plant leaves in Brazil,
Indonesia and some East African countries (Fajrin & Sari, 2018). The inclusion of 4% of sisal
fibre in soil increased the compressive strength slightly and imparted significant ductility to
the soil (Fajrin & Sari, 2018). The use of sisal fibre for soil reinforcement has shown a
considerable reduction of dry soil density. The higher the fibre content and fibre length, the
higher is the reduction of dry soil density. Similarly, an increase of the shear stress was
observed with the increase in fibre length up to 20 mm, which decreased with any length
beyond (Chuitou, 2020).
11
2.1.1.2. Coconut (coir) fibre
Coconut fibres contain mainly lignin, cellulose, tannin, pectin and other water-soluble
substances, with a length between 50 mm and 350 mm. Coir fibres are long-lasting and degrade
more slowly than other natural fibres because of their high lignin content. Coir fibres have
about 0.1 – 0.6 mm diameter and a water absorption capacity of about 130 – 180% (Blaya;
Pedro Sáez, 2017). When wet, coir fibres retain much its tensile strength with a considerable
high elongation and low tenacity. In general, coir fibres have shown a better resilience response
than synthetic fibres by their higher coefficient of friction. For example, some studies results
have shown that soils reinforced with coir fibres have presented better Young’s modulus or
strength than those reinforced with some synthetic fibres (Anggraini, 2016). The inclusion of
randomly distributed coir fibres results in reducing soil swelling and the reduction of maximum
dry density, while the moisture content increases with the increase in fibre content
(Viswanadham et al., 2009). It has been observed that the compressive and tensile strengths
increase with the increase in fibre content (Andavan & Pagadala, 2020).
2.1.1.3. Palm fibres
Currently, palm fibres are produced in filament forms; they possess special characteristics such
as good durability, low cost, lightweight, relative strength against deterioration and tension
capacity (Taallah et al., 2014). Palm fibres are extracted from decomposed palm trees; they
have a low modulus of elasticity and low tensile strength with very high-water absorption and
are brittle. An expansive soil reinforced with palm fibres produced higher California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) and Unconfined Compression Strength (UCS) than the neat. With an increase in
fibre content (from 0 to 1%), the maximum and residual strengths increased, while the
difference between the residual and maximum strengths decreased. Inclusion of palm fibres in
a soft soil considerably enhances the failure deviator stress and shear strength parameters
(cohesion and unconfined compressive strength) of the soil (Omrani et al., 2017). Palm fibres
fit together particles as a group of particles in a unitary coherent matrix, and therefore can
increase the strength properties of the soil (Siyamak et al., 2012). Bakar et al. (2013) studied
the increase of shear strength during tri-axial compression by reinforcing sand silty soil with
palm fibres. Specimens of different lengths (15 mm, 30 mm and 45 mm) with 0.25% and 0.5%
palm fibre contents were tested. Increases of 25% and 35% were observed respectively in
friction angle and cohesion of the soil with specimen containing 0.5% coated fibres of 30 mm,
12
compared to those of unreinforced soil. In addition, a significant enhancement in the shear
strength of silty sand soil was observed with palm fibres coated with acrylic butadiene styrene
thermoplastic much more than the one with uncoated fibres. The inclusion of 3% palm fibres
ameliorates the compressive strength of composite bricks significantly. Water absorption test
results showed a slight increase in water absorption with the increase in the palm fibre content
(Chuitou, 2020).
2.1.1.4. Bamboo
A regenerated cellulose fibre, bamboo fibre can prosper naturally without using any pesticide.
Pests or pathogens rarely eat or infect the bamboo fibres. Thus, scientists found that bamboo
owns a unique anti-bacteria and bacteriostatic bio-agent named ‘‘Bamboo Kun’’. The root
rhizomes of bamboo fibres are excellent soil binders that prevent erosion (Flanagan et al.,
2003). With a remarkably strong tension strength, bamboo fibres have a low modulus of
elasticity of about 33–40 kN/mm2 and high-water absorption of about 40–45%. After some
tests on bamboo fibres, Coutts & Ni (1995) concluded that these fibres are satisfactory fibres
for incorporation into the cement matrix. Ali et al. (2012) studied the behaviour of concrete
reinforced with bamboo fibres and concluded that bamboo fibres could be successfully used in
concrete as a reinforcement material. It seems that the combination of cement and the root
rhizomes of bamboo open a new window for the soil reinforcement process (Yasin & Priyanto,
2019).
2.1.1.5. Sugarcane
A grass family, cane or sugarcane can grow up to 6 m high and have a diameter of up to 6 cm;
bagasse is the fibrous residue produced from sugarcane after extraction of the juice from the
cane stalk. The fibre diameter varies from 0.2– 0.4 mm. However, waste cane fibre is limited
in most common applications of waste fibres because of its residual sugar content and limited
structural properties as reinforcement material (Tajuddin et al., 2016).
2.1.1.6. Challenges with the use of Natural Fibres
Natural fibres are some of the most studied materials in soil reinforcement. However, the use
of these fibres in soil reinforcement results in low-durability composite (Chuitou, 2020; Kılınç,
2017). Table 2.2 summarises the properties of some natural fibres from previous studies.
13
Table 2.2: Summary of research performed using natural fibres to reinforce soil
Fibre type Length Optimized Fibre special Soil Conclusions

(mm) fibre property type
percentage
Sisal fibre 10, 15, 20, Keeps 80% of its Fibre – soil – cement block has
D(µm) SG(g/cm3) E(GPa) UTS(MPa) 25 mm 0.75% tensile strength after low thermal conductivity.
optimized 6 months of -Clay
25-
1.2 – 1.45 26 - 32 560 emdment in clay.
400
Palm fibre 15, 20, 30, Low cost, durability, Fibre increases the UCS, CBR
D(µm) SG(g/cm3) E(GPa) UTS(MPa) 40, 45; 30 relative strength -Silty and shear strength parameters (C
0.5%
mm: against deterioration, clay and U) of the soft soil.
optimized low tensile strength.
25 - 60 1.3 – 1.46 0.55 21 - 60
Jute fibre Used for producing Fibre reduces the MDD while
5, 10, 15
D(µm) SG(g/cm3) E(GPa) UTS(MPa) porous textiles which increases the OMC. CBR value
and 20; 10
0.8%are widely used for -Clay is increased more than 2.5 times
mm:
10 - 50 1.44 1.46 22 453 - 550 filtration and soil compared to the plain soil CBR
optimized
stabilization value.
Coir fibre Retains much of its -black
10 – 500
D(µm) SG(g/cm3) E(GPa) UTS(MPa) 1% by tensile strength when cotton
mm The compressive and tensile
weight with wet.
strength of the composite soil
aspect ratio -
10 - 20 1.15– 1.33 4 - 5 250 Optimized: increases up to 1% of content
20 Low tenacity but lateritic
50 mm
high elongation soil
Source: Hejazi, Sheikhzadeh, Abtahi & Zadhoush (2012)
14
2.1.2. Synthetic fibres
Synthetic fibres are produced artificially from raw materials (petroleum) and are increasingly
used as soil reinforcement material nowadays. They are manufactured by the textile industry
from chemical or petrochemical elements as an alternative to natural fibres. Fibres are extracted
with a spinneret, which is a device that takes polymers to form fibres. Synthetic fibres are
cheaper, more durable, stretchable, and have better waterproofing, better stain resistance and
better fire resistance than natural fibres (Vodounon, 2018).
In general, synthetic fibres have good mechanical and physical properties and can readily
accept variable dyes. For instance, the tensile modulus of synthetic fibres varies between 5 and
330 GPa, with a tensile strength up to 7 GPa, compressive strength up to 1.7 GPa, and
temperature resistance up to 400 °C(Albertsson et al., 2005). Unlike natural fibres, synthetic
fibres are not biodegradable but can be broken down and worn away by sunlight, hot washing
and moisture (Amezugbe, 2013). Synthetic fibres are valuable commercial products and have
many applications in the diverse field of engineering and technology (Mohammed et al., 2018).
Figure 2.2 shows a classification of synthetic fibres.
Man made fibres
Organic Inorganic
By transformation of From synthetic polymer Carbon

natural polymer Ceramic
Glass
Viscose Polyester Metal
Acetate Polyamide
Lyocell Polypropylene
Elastodiene Polyethylene
Figure 2.2: Classification of synthetic fibres
Source: Amezugbe (2013)
15
2.1.2.1. Polypropylene fibre
Polypropylene fibre is a type of thermoplastic polymer prepared by stereo specific

polymerisation. Due to propylene monomer (C3H6, which is purely a hydrocarbon) and the
polymerisation process during its production, polypropylene fibre is found to be one of the
low-density fibres than other synthetic fibres. Polypropylene fibre is a low-cost fibre with
excellent physical properties such as high tensile strength, good toughness, good resilience and
permeability, excellent chemical and abrasion resistance. Because of its intrinsic
characteristics, polypropylene fibre is found to be limited in dyeability. There are three
common processes of synthetic fibre preparation such as wet spinning, dry spinning and melt
spinning; each method allows extrusion of viscous fluid, forming a fine diameter fibre.
Polypropylene fibre is produced through the melt spinning method, which includes essentially
two manufacturing phases. The first phase consists of extrusion of the fibre, while the second
consists of the subsequent thermal and mechanical stretching of the fibre (Maddah, 2016;
Mohod, 2015).
Polypropylene fibre has a melting point of 165oC and can resist a temperature of over 100oC
for short periods before softening. It is chemically inert but degradable by sunlight and oxygen.
Polypropylene fibres are one of the recent polymer fibres used for reinforcing building
materials. They were first used as reinforcement in concrete in 1965 by US Corps Engineers.
Since then, their use increases mainly worldwide as their inclusion has proven significant
amelioration in the mechanical and physical properties of concrete. The improvement observed
was mostly about the tensile strength, the flexural strength, the toughness and impact strength,
and the failure mode of the concrete (Mohod, 2015). Polypropylene fibres are the most
synthetic fibre widely used fibre to reinforce soils (Hejazi et al., 2012).
Polypropylene fibres are mainly used for the amelioration of mechanical properties of soils. It
has been shown that polypropylene fibres increase soil unconfined compressive strength and
significantly reduce shrinkage and swelling in expansive soils. With silty sand and black cotton
soils, the inclusion of polypropylene fibre results in a significant amelioration of the cohesion
and a slight reduction of the internal friction angle of the soil, with the addition of fibre content
up to 3% by weight (Chuitou, 2020). The inclusion of polypropylene fibres up to 0.2% by
weight of the soil in laterite soils increased the soil's tensile and unconfined compressive
strength ( Menon & Ravikumar, 2019).
16
The choice of polypropylene fibres over other synthetic fibres in this study is essentially due
to the called-up advantages and the factors below:
a. Great properties of polypropylene such as low density, high melting

temperature and chemical inertness with low cost, making polypropylene
optimum for long-life applications.
b. Polypropylene is a highly versatile material meaning that diversity in structural
designs and mechanical properties are achievable.
Different morphological structures of polypropylene are possible by using fillers or reinforcing

agents and blending polypropylene with other polymers, which yield superior characteristics.
In addition, polypropylene fibre has a high softening or glass-transition point, high resistance
to flexing stress, low water absorption, good electrical resistance, lightweight, dimensional
stability, high impact strength and a non-toxicity property (Maddah, 2016). Figure 2.3 shows
an image of the monofilament polypropylene fibre.
Figure 2.3: Polypropylene fibre
2.1.2.2. Polypropylene fibre aspect ratio
The fibre aspect ratio is a convenient parameter that is usually used to describe the fibres. It is
calculated by dividing fibre length (l) by its diameter (d). The aspect ratio of the fibre is an
important factor that influences the composite's properties and behaviour. It has been reported
that up to an aspect ratio of 75, an increase in the aspect ratio increases the ultimate concrete
linearly. Beyond 75, relative strength and toughness are reduced. Fibre aspect ratio plays a key
role in the enhancement in mechanical properties and plastic shrinkage properties of Fibre
17
Reinforced Concrete. The least fibre aspect ratio (that is, 30 mm length of High-Density Poly
Ethylene fibres) shown better performance than the higher fibre aspect ratio (that is 50 mm
length HDPE fibre) (Rao, 2019). The results indicated that the lower the polypropylene fibre
aspect ratio, the higher the compressive strength, the higher the energy absorptive material,
resulting in higher flexural strength, toughness indices, and impact strength (Sudhikumar,
2014).
2.1.2.3. Nylon fibre
The word nylon was first invented by the American Chemical Company EI du Pont de Nemours
(DuPont) to denominate its aliphatic polyamide fibre, launched commercially in 1938. As
nylon was not registered as its trademark, it became an internationally accepted generic name
for polyamide linear fibres (McIntyre, 2005). Nylon fibres are synthetic used for reinforcing
building materials. The addition of nylon fibres to silty clay soil reduces the compaction energy
and increases the peak and residual strength of the soil ( Dutta & Gayathri, 2012).
A soil sample with nylon fibre reinforcement compacted at 93% gives better peak and residual
strengths than a sample of unreinforced compacted at a higher compaction degree. Nylon
fibres, when mixed with jute fibres, incorporated in the soil increased the value of CBR
(Californian Bearing Ratio) by about 50% of that of unreinforced soil. This value of CBR is
achieved with 0.75% fibre content; beyond 0.75% by weight of the soil, there is no significant
increase (Chuitou, 2020). Studying a laboratory test program to analyse the properties of nylon
carpet waste fibre-reinforced of sand silty soil, Zhu et al. (2019) found that the triaxial
compressive strength increased by 204% with the addition of 3% nylon carpet waste fibre.
2.1.2.4. Polyester (PET) fibres
PET fibres are one of the synthetic fibres that dominate the synthetic fibres industry world.
They are produced from petrochemical sources; they are cheap and have a good range of
physical characteristics. Polyester fibres are versatile, lightweights, strong, easily dyeable and
have excellent wash-wear properties and wrinkle-resistance. Polyester fibres are available in
two primary forms: continuous filament yarn and staple fibre, and are used in many varieties
(McIntyre, 2005). When used as fine sand soil reinforcement, PET fibres have increased both
the peak and ultimate strengths depending upon the fibre content.
18
Three lengths of flat fibres (3 mm, 6 mm and 12 mm) and crimped fibres cut to 3 mm long
were used (Dixit et al., 2017). The results show that the unconfined compressive strength value
increased with the increase in fibre length or fibre content with flat fibres. A slight increase of
unconfined compressive strength was observed in the case of crimped fibres. Oliveira, Correia,
Teles & Custódio (2016) found comparable results; they reinforced a highly compressible clay
soil with randomly distributed flat fibres (length 12mm) and observed that ultimate bearing
capacity increased, while settlement decreased at the maximum load. With the inclusion of
fibre content up to 0.50%, soil bearing capacity and the safe bearing pressure increased and
then decreased with further inclusion of fibres.
2.1.2.5. Synthetic fibres in summary
In summary, synthetic fibres have good properties as reinforcing material (Chuitou, 2020;
McIntyre, 2005; Oliveira et al., 2016). Many studies have focused on soil reinforcement with
synthetic fibres (Albertsson et al., 2005; Amezugbe, 2013; Chuitou, 2020; Dutta & Gayathri,
2012; Menon & Ravikumar, 2019; Zhu et al., 2019). They reported significant improvement
on soil basic mechanical properties such as unconfined compressive strength, shear strength,
CBR test. But investigations on the permeability of reinforced soils, the performance of fibre-
reinforced soils in road application and fibre reinforced bricks were not carried out to the
knowledge of this researcher. In this study, polypropylene fibre was chosen among synthetic
fibres because of its low density, good tensile strength, and ease of cutting in the desired aspect
ratio. Table 2.3 gives a summary of synthetic fibres and their effects in soil reinforcement.
19
Table 2.3: Summary of research performed widely used synthetic-fibres to reinforce soil
Fibre type Length Optimized Fibre special property Soil Conclusions

(mm) fibre type
percentage
Polypropylene fibre Hydrophobic, non- Fibres enhance the soil strength and ductility,
D(µm) SG(g/cm3) E(GPa) UTS(MPa) corrosive and resistant to reduce the swelling and shrinkage properties and
6,12,18,24,3
0-3% alkalis, chemicals and overcome chemical and biological degradation,
5
chlorides, economical, the -Sand improve the freeze–thaw resistance, (Vasudev
23-150 0.92 3-3.5 120-460 most widely used ,2007).
and 50
inclusion in soil
reinforcement.
Polyester fibre Hydrophobic, non- -Silty Both peak and ultimate strength of the soil have
D(µm) SG(g/cm3) E(GPa) UTS(MPa) 3,6,12,20 and
0-1%
corrosive and resistant to Sand been improved, crimping of fibres resulted in a
64 alkalis, chemicals and slightly enhancement of UCS, the UCS value
chlorides, relatively - improved as the fibre length and/ or fibre content
30-40 1.35 10-30 400-600 economical compared to increased (Consoli, 2002).
Clayey
polypropylene fibres. Soil
Polyethylene fibre Plastic materials usually Fibres can increase the fracture energy, the CBR
-
D(µm) SG(g/cm3) E(GPa) UTS(MPa) made of Polyethylene, value, the toughness and the secant modulus of the
12,25, and 50 0-4% Clayey
economical especially in soil, (Kim T, 2008).
400-800 0.92 0.14-1 100-620 Soil
waste management.
Glass fibre It increases strength and soil cohesion between
-Sand
D(µm) SG(g/cm3) E(GPa) UTS(MPa) 100 and 300 KN/m2. 1% glass fibre to cemented
A fibre with high modulus
25 0-1% sand resulted in an increase of 1.5 times in the
of elasticity. -Silty
3-19 2.49-2.60 53-95 1500-5000 UCS compared to non-fibre-reinforced cemented
Sand
sand, (Consoli C, 2004).
Source: Chuitou (2020)
20
2.1.3. Polypropylene fibre reinforced soils
In recent years, fibres have been added and mixed with soils to improve soils' strength and
mechanical behaviour. With the inclusion of discrete polypropylene fibres, the tensile strength of
soils tends to increase and induce more ductile failures. In general, the good mechanical and
physical properties of polypropylene fibres added (high tensile strength and extendibility) help
effectively reduce the soil's brittleness and compressibility, which is significantly better than
traditional soil improvement approaches such as using cement or lime (Anggraini et al., 2016).
Menon & Ravikumar (2019) evaluated the strength of laterite soil reinforced with Polyethylene
Terephthalate (PET) bottle fibres and Polypropylene (PP) sack fibres. The performance of PET
bottle fibres and PP sack fibres were separately analysed for their impacts on the unconfined
compressive strength of the soil. The experimental results show that laterite soil stabilised with
optimum polypropylene fibre content produced better mechanical properties than the laterite soil
stabilised with optimum PET fibre content. Marçal et al. (2020) studied the unconfined
compressive strength of polypropylene strips (obtained from plastic packaging with 1.5 mm width
and 0.5 mm thickness) reinforced clay soil and clayey sand. They reported increased unconfined
compressive strength of reinforced soils with an increase in strips content and length. Best effects
of about 53% and 50% were obtained with 30 mm strip at 2% and 1.5% strips contents by dry
weight of soil respectively with clayey sandy and clay soil.
Freilich et al. (2010) studied the effect of 0.5% polypropylene short fibres on drained and
undrained strength of high plastic clay soils. They reported increased shear strength of fibre
reinforced clay at undrained conditions. Benziane et al. (2019) studied the effect of randomly
distributed polypropylene fibre (12 mm in length and 0.032 mm in diameter) on the shear
behaviour of sandy soil, where they found that the mechanical characteristics are improved with
the addition of polypropylene fibres. The best effect on shear strength was obtained with 0.75%
fibre content by dry mass of soil and corresponding to an increase of about 124% compared to
unreinforced soil. Studying the response of polypropylene fibre reinforced soil, Rawat et al. (2018)
concluded that the residual strength of fibre-reinforced soil is higher than that of unreinforced soil;
shear strength increases roughly linearly with an increase in fibre content. Snigdha et al. (2016)
21
studied the effect of polypropylene fibre on the behaviour of clayey soil regarding the strength
parameters; and found that the unconfined compressive strength increases with the addition of
polypropylene up to 0.05% by dry weight and then decreases. With 0.05% fibre content by dry
weight of soil, the unconfined compressive strength was increased by 454% compared to that of
unreinforced soil.
Shear strength tests were conducted on polypropylene fibre (length 12 mm and diameter 0.025 –
0.030 mm) reinforced cohesive soils; the results of the test revealed that the inclusion of fibres
increases the shear strength of the composite significantly. Internal friction angles increase by 24%
and 59% at optimum fibre contents with sandy silt and silty clay, respectively (Anagnostopoulos
et al., 2014). Teja (2016) reinforced two clayey soils with polypropylene fibre (length 12 mm and
diameter 0.034 mm) and carried out shear strength and unconfined compressive strength tests. The
results show that the more the plasticity of the soil, the greater the shear and unconfined
compressive strengths of the composite.
In order to contribute to the reduction of polymer waste, which is harmful to the environment, M.
Chen et al. (2015) propose the use of two types of polymers, namely monofilament polypropylene
fibre and fibre bundles split from polymer textile bags in soft soil reinforcement. A series of
laboratory tests were conducted on an admixture of cement-clay reinforced with monofilament
polypropylene fibre on the one hand and an admixture of cement-clay reinforced with polymer
textile bags fibre bundles on the other hand. A significant improvement of the cement-treated
Shanghai clay strength and ductility was observed. The strength depends upon both content and
length of fibres, and peaks were reached for both types of fibre reinforced cement clay at 0.5%.
Zaimoglu & Yetimoglu (2012a) mixed a fine-grained soil with randomly distributed
polypropylene fibre and carried out unconfined compression, direct shear and California Bearing
Ratio tests on the composite. Varying the content of fibre between 0.25 and 1%, they observed an
increase of unconfined soil compression and California Bearing Ratio values. The results of the
test showed that the shear strength angle was not significantly affected by the fibre reinforcement
on the other hand. Han et al. (2020) studied the effect of fibre length on the shear strength of
discrete polypropylene fibre reinforced clay soil. Four fibre lengths were investigated, namely 3,
22
6, 9 and 12 mm with a diameter of 0.018 – 0.048 mm and fibre content was varied from 0.1% -
0.4%. The results show that the internal friction angle of the soil increases with increasing fibre
content regardless of the fibre length over the range of fibre contents investigated. While the
cohesion of the composite reaches a maximum and then decreases with 3, 6 and 9 mm fibres at
0.1, 0.2 and 0.3% fibre content by dry weight of soil, corresponding to an increase of about 18, 21
and 27%, respectively. Except with 12 mm fibre, where the cohesion of the composite keeps
increasing with increasing fibre content.
(Akbulut et al., 2007) distributed randomly waste fibres (scrap tire rubber, polyethene, and
polypropylene fibre) in three different clayey soils (all the three soils were classified as high
plasticity clays) in order to investigate their influences on soil geotechnical behaviour particularly
on the strength and dynamic behaviour of the soil. Three lengths of polypropylene fibre, namely
5, 10 and 15 mm, were investigated. A number of laboratory tests, such as compression, shear box,
and resonant frequency tests, were performed on unreinforced and reinforced soil samples to
determine their strength and dynamic properties. The results show that with polypropylene fibre
at a constant fibre diameter of 1 mm, the best effects on unconfined compressive strength were
obtained with 10 mm fibre at 0.2% fibre content by dry weight of soil.
Zaimoglu (2010) studied the effect of randomly distributed polypropylene fibre on a fine-grained
soil subjected to freezing-thawing cycles, with fibre content varied from 0.25% and 2%. A series
of unconfined compression tests were conducted, and the mass losses were determined after
freezing-thawing cycles in order to evaluate the strength and the durability of the reinforced soil,
respectively. It was observed that the unconfined compressive strength of the specimens increases
with increasing fibre content, and a mass loss of about 50% was found as compared to that of the
unreinforced soil. Jiang et al. (2010) evaluated the influence of polypropylene fibre length as well
as the aggregate size and fibre additives on the engineering properties of a fibre reinforced soil.
After carrying out a series of laboratory tests on the mix soil-fibre, they found that the unconfined
compressive strength, cohesion and internal friction angle of the fibre reinforced soil were better
than those of unreinforced soil. The results indicated the optimal fibre content and fibre length of
0.3% by the weight of dry soil and 15mm, respectively. On the other hand, it was observed that
the strength of the reinforced soil decreases with soil particle size increase and the critical soil
23
particle size was found to be between 3.5 and 7.5 mm in average diameter for an effective
contribution of polypropylene fibre reinforcement.
Plé & Lê (2012) added polypropylene fibre (length of 12 mm and diameter of 0.034 mm) to a
clayey soil and carried out direct tensile and compression tests on both clay and reinforced samples
specimens. A rigid composite material resulted in compression with overall ductility better than
that of the clayey soil. The results indicate that the best effects were obtained with 0.6% fibre
content by weight of dry soil, and improvements of about 20% and 100% were achieved in
compressive and tensile strengths, respectively, as compared to unreinforced clay. In order to
improve the mechanical properties and hydraulic conductivity, Chuitou (2020) reinforced a clay
soil with discrete polypropylene fibre, varying fibre content from 0 – 3% by the dry weight of soil
and carried out a series of laboratory tests on the composite and raw clay namely direct shear tests,
split tension tests and hydraulic conductivity tests. The results revealed an increase of about 88%
and a reduction of about 77% of tensile strength and hydraulic conductivity coefficient,
respectively, and an increase of about 70% and 50% of cohesion and internal friction angle with
an optimum fibre content of 1% by the weight of the soil as compared to unreinforced soil.
Tang & Gu (2011) conducted a study to evaluate the effect of a combination of cement and
polypropylene fibre on soft soil engineering properties. An investigation of the influences of the
initial water content of soft soil (35% ~ 70%), fibre content (0 ~ 0.3%) and fibre length (6 ~ 19
mm) on the strength of treated soft soil was conducted based on laboratory tests. The results
indicated that the best improvement was achieved with 15% cement content at the optimum initial
water content of 55%; the cemented soil strength increased with increasing fibre content. The best
reinforcing effect was observed with the polypropylene fibres of 12 mm length.
In summary, studies on polypropylene fibre reinforced soils have mainly focused on the
mechanical properties of the composite (Chuitou, 2020; Jiang et al., 2010; Menon & Ravikumar,
2019; Plé & Lê, 2012; Teja, 2016). But studies on the permeability of polypropylene fibre
reinforced laterite soil are yet to be carried out.
24
2.1.4. Fibre reinforced earth bricks
Selsiadevi & Sujatha (2018) compared the performance of glass and polypropylene fibres
reinforced a non-plastic soil. They reported that polypropylene fibre with aspect ratio 80 (12 mm
length and 0.15 mm diameter) increases the compressive strength and decreases the water
absorption of reinforced compressed earth bricks of non-plastic soil by 150% and 20%,
respectively. But this study has focused on only one polypropylene fibre aspect ratio, and as
described in section 2.2.5.2, the fibre aspect ratio plays an important in the resulting composite
performance. Jalaei & Jrade (2014) studied the effect of polypropylene fibre length on the flexural
and compressive strength of compressed cement stabilized earth blocks using 27 and 54 mm length
fibres. They reported the best compressive and flexural strength at 0.20% fibre content by dry
weight of the soil with 54 mm fibres. But this study did not evaluate the water absorption of
reinforced stabilized earth bricks.
Donkor & Obonyo (2015) evaluated the performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced
compressed earth bricks stabilized with cement. A polypropylene fibre with an aspect ratio of 67
(length = 54 mm and average diameter = 0.82 mm) was used, and fibre content by dry weight of
soil was varied from 0 to 1%. The results indicate an increase of about 22% in both compression
and 3-point bending strength. But this study did not evaluate the water absorption of the reinforced
bricks. Vignesh et al. (2021) studied separately the effects of polypropylene flakes, polypropylene
monofilament fibre and polystyrene on a mixture of 90% black cotton soil, 5% sand and 5% lime,
at a ratio varying from 0 – 0.5% by weight of dry soil each. The best effects were achieved with
0.5% content by dry weight of the with each reinforcement. The increments at 0.5% were 63%,
54% and 149%, respectively, with polypropylene flakes, polypropylene monofilament fibre and
polystyrene. However, the addition of polypropylene flakes, polypropylene monofilament fibre
and polystyrene to soil-sand-lime mixture increase the water absorption of the bricks up to 29%.
In comparison, the standard used required a maximum water absorption rate of 15%. A natural
binder, namely Terminalia chebula, was used to reduce the water absorption of the bricks. In sum,
reinforcement is costly due to the use of many materials and is not environmentally friendly due
presence of lime and binder.
25
Vodounon (2018) investigated the engineering properties of a cement stabilized lateritic soil
reinforced with treated pineapple leaves fibres and an untreated one. Varying the fibre contents
from 0 to 5% in different types of blocks, he carried out a compression test, water absorption and
density tests on cubic blocks; a flexural strength, abrasion and drop tests on rectangular blocks;
and splitting tensile strength test into cylinder blocks at 14, 21 and 28 days of curing. The results
indicated that the best effects were obtained with 5% cement stabilization reinforced with treated
pineapple leaves fibres, and the bricks water absorption increases with increasing fibre content.
Investigating for improvising stabilized lateritic blocks, Sreekumar & Nair (2013) reinforced
lateritic soil with coir cutting wastes after a pre-stabilization with cement and sand. After
preparation, the blocks were tested on compressive strength and durability. The results show that
the compressive strength has increased by 19%, while the tensile strength has increased by 9%.
The durability characteristics have considerably been improved with a fibre content of 0.5%.
Mostafa & Uddin (2015) investigated the effects of banana fibres on compressive and flexural
strengths of compressed earth bricks stabilized with cement, with two fibre lengths 25 and 50 mm.
Untreated and treated with sodium hydroxide banana fibres was studied. The results indicate that
about 78% and 94% increments at 0.35% treated fibre content by dry weight of the soil were
achieved in compression and flexure, respectively. However, the inclusion of banana fibres treated
or not increases the water absorption of the bricks. With 0.35% treated fibre content by dry weight
of the soil, an increase of about 3% was observed as compared to unreinforced soil bricks. Danso
et al. (2015) evaluated the effect of the fibre aspect ratio of three natural fibres: coconut, bagasse
and oil palm fibres on earth bricks mechanical characteristics. The results show that the greater the
fibre aspect ratio better the mechanical properties of the bricks. Best effects were obtained with
125, 100 and 100 aspect ratios corresponding to improvements of about 25%, 25% and 20 of
compressive strengths compared to plain soil bricks with coconut, bagasse and oil palm fibres,
respectively. But this study did not focus on the water absorption or durability of the bricks.
In summary, studies on fibre reinforced earth bricks have focused on the reinforcement of
compressed stabilized earth bricks. These studies have investigated the effects of natural as well
as synthetic fibres on compressed stabilized earth bricks (Danso et al., 2015; Donkor & Obonyo,
2015; Jalaei & Jrade, 2014; Mostafa & Uddin, 2015; Vignesh et al., 2021; Vodounon et al., 2019).
26
But with natural fibres, the challenge remains the durability of the bricks while, with synthetic
fibres, the use of a stabilizer makes the reinforced stabilized bricks expensive. Studies on fibre-
reinforced compressed earth bricks with synthetic fibres are limited and need to be carried out.
2.3. Strength of Soil Bricks According to Codes
A minimum compressive strength value of 2.07 N/mm2 of the material is needed for the
achievement of the soil walls according to New Mexico Code (Vodounon, 2018). A minimum
compressive strength of 1.5 N/mm2 for a 400 mm wall thickness to one level houses while a
minimum compressive strength of 2.0 N/mm2 in the case of two-storey houses is required
according to Zimbabwe Code (Sadcstan, 2014). The Australian Standard requires a minimum
compressive strength of 1.15 N/mm2 and ASTM International E2392/E2392M-10e1 (2010)
indicates a value of 2,068 N/mm2 (Calatan et al., 2017). The ACI Material, Journal Committee
indicates that compressive strength values depend upon the soil composition, as follows: 2.76 to
6.89 N/mm2 in sandy soil, and from 1.72 to 4.14 N/mm2 for clay soil (Calatan et al., 2017).
Minimum strength of at least 3.5 N/mm2 for load-bearing walls is suggested in the Tanzania
Standard, TZS 283:1986 (Mrema, 2017). Regarding the functional and quality requirements of the
bricks, it was found that with 7% cement content as a stabilizer, the strength achieved at 28 days
was 2.93 N/mm2, well above the minimum of 2.5 N/mm2 recommended for low-cost housing
according to Low-Cost Housing Technologies in Kenya, 1996 (Vodounon et al., 2019). Agbede &
Joel (2011)stipulated that a minimum compressive strength of 3.5 N/mm2 and a maximum value
of 20% of water absorption are required for earth bricks by Brick Development Association (1974;
IS 1077. 1992).
2.4. Summary of literature review and research gap
With reference to the literature reviewed, natural as well as synthetic fibres have been used in soil
reinforcement in order to replace totally or partially the cement/lime stabilisation that is not
environmentally friendly and to reduce the polymers, vegetables or animals wastes (Anggraini,
2016; Kennedy et al., 2018; Sreekumar & Nair, 2013; Tang & Gu, 2011; Vodounon et al., 2019;
Zaimoglu, 2010). Reinforcement with natural fibres has improved the soil engineering properties,
27
particularly the compressive, tensile and shear strengths and the CBR of the reinforced soil
(Andavan & Pagadala, 2020; Ansell & Mwaikambo, 2009; Hejazi et al., 2012; Siyamak et al.,
2012; Tajuddin et al., 2016). However, the natural fibres reinforcement yields a low durability
composite.
Some researchers have focused on the reinforcement of soil (clay soil particularly) with synthetic
or polymer fibres ( mainly glass and PET fibres), or as a substituent, in concretes, these studies
have reported significant improvements on mechanical performances, particularly (Dixit et al.,
2017; Dutta & Gayathri, 2012; Fabiano et al., 2017; Karabash et al., 2015; Patel & Singh, 2014;
Zhu et al., 2019). However, these studies have focused only on the mechanical properties of fibre-
reinforced soil: shear and unconfined strengths of the composite. The permeability of fibre
reinforced soils needs to be investigated and particularly in the case of polypropylene fibre
reinforced laterite soil.
Some studies have been conducted on fibre reinforced compressed stabilised earth bricks using
both natural and synthetic fibres. These studies have investigated the effects of natural as well as
synthetic fibres on compressed stabilised earth bricks (Danso et al., 2015; Donkor & Obonyo,
2015; Jalaei & Jrade, 2014; Mostafa & Uddin, 2015; Vignesh et al., 2021; Vodounon et al., 2019).
But with natural fibres, the challenge remains that of the durability of the bricks while with
synthetic fibres, the use of a stabiliser makes the reinforced stabilised bricks expensive. Studies on
fibre reinforced compressed earth bricks with synthetic fibres are limited and need to be carried
out. As described in section 2.2.5.2 and reported through reviewed literature, polypropylene fibre
aspect ratio is one of the parameters that affect the properties of the composite; there is a need to
investigate the effect of polypropylene fibre aspect on reinforced compressed laterite soil bricks,
particularly.
28
2.5. Conceptual framework
This section of the study presents the main concepts of reinforcement of laterite soil bricks. It
shows how the independent variables are related to the processes and the output or dependent
variables. Figure 2.4 below presents the conceptual framework of this study.
Independent
Engineering properties:
Chemical composition,
mechanical and physical
properties of laterite soil and
polypropylene fibre
Dependent
Blocks and bricks at various
fibre contents Output:
• Reinforced blocks
and bricks with
Processes: improved
Data collection for cost performance
evaluation • Curing and testing • Optimum fibre
content
• Cost of bricks
Figure 2.4: Conceptual frame work
29
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Materials
3.1.1. Laterite
For the purpose of this research, laterite materials which is abundant in most parts of Kenya was
borrowed from a laterite quarry in JKUAT (Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
Technology) Juja.
3.1.2. Polypropylene fibres
Polypropylene fibres were procured from Master’s Builders, a fibre supplier company in Nairobi,
Kenya. The fibre aspect ratio is given by the ratio of the fibre length over the fibre diameter. In
this study, two fibre lengths: 6 mm with a fibre aspect ratio of 231 and 18 mm with a fibre aspect
ratio of 600 were studied. For this study, all fibre-reinforced laterite soil specimens were prepared
at fibre contents 0%, 0.05%, 0.1%, 0.15%, 0.2%, 0.25%, 0.30%and 0.40% by weight of dry soil.
This is because many studies reported that the optimal polypropylene fibre content for soil
reinforcement varies from 0.05 to 3% (Kumar et al., 2018; Menon, 2018; Snigdha et al., 2016). In
the case of laterite soil the fibre content varies from 0.05 to 0.4% (Menon & Ravikumar, 2018;
Teja, 2016).
3.1.3. Water
For this study, potable water in accordance with BS 1348-2(1980) was used for mixing the
materials.
3.2. Engineering properties of laterite soil and polypropylene fibre
In order to characterize the laterite soil used in this study, the physical and chemical properties
were determined.
30
3.2.1. Physical properties of the soil
The physical properties of the soil were determined using the following methods.
3.2.1.1. Natural moisture
The procedure outlined in BS 1377: Part 2: 1990 was used to determine moisture content. Moisture
content refers to the amount of water present in the soil. The moisture is defined as a portion of
the dry soil mass. The moisture content was determined by oven-drying at a temperature not
exceeding 110°C. A sample of soil on arrival was weighed and put in oven-drying for 24 hours.
After 24 hours, the sample was removed from the oven, cooled and reweighed. The moisture
content (ω ) value was computed using Equation 3.1:
m₂−m₃
ω=( )*100(%) (3.1)
m₃−m₃
Where
ω = Moisture content of the soil
m1 = Mass of container
m2 = Mass of the soil before oven drying
m3 = Mass of the soil after oven drying
3.2.1.2. Specific gravity of soil (BS 1377: Part 2: 1990)
The specific gravity of soil is an important soil parameter that is used in the computation of other
soil parameters such as the ratio of voids, degree of saturation, the density of soil, consolidation
31
analysis and the like (Braja, 2008; Prakash et al., 2012). The pycnometer method was used to
determine the specific gravity of the soil in this study. A pycnometer was weighed, then a quantity
of dry soil was put into the pycnometer, the set was weighed and the soil weight was deducted.
Distilled water was then added to the pycnometer + dry soil until the pycnometer was full. The
weight of the pycnometer+soil+water was recorded, the pycnometer was then emptied and clean.
The same pycnometer was filled with water and weighed.
The specific gravity of soil solids is given by the ratio of the weight of a given volume of the soil
to the weight of an equal volume of distilled water (Braja, 2008). Equation 3.2 was used to
determine the value of soil specific gravity (Gs) in this study.
unit weight (or density) of soil solids only

Gs = (3.2)
unit weight (or density) of water
3.2.1.3. Particle size distribution (BS EN 1997-2 :2007)
A particle size analysis is a soil classification test that allows one to determine the proportions of
different types of soil included in a given soil sample. This test was conducted using a tub, a stack
of test sieves, a balance with an accuracy of 0.01g, a sieve shaker and an oven. A representative
soil sample was oven-dried, and 500 g of the dry sample was soaked in water for wet sieving test.
After the wet sieving the quantity of soil retained on 75 µm sieve was oven-dried and sieved.
o Wet sieving
The wet sieving method was used to remove the fine particles that can impede or prevent the
separation process. 500 g of soil was soaked in water for 24 hours after oven-drying. After soaking,
the soil was washed using a 75 µm sieve, and the quantity of passing is waste. The soil washed
was then oven-dried and weighed, and the waste fraction was deducted. A wastes fraction of 29%
of the initial weight was found. This wastes fraction is greater than the 10% required by the
standard. Therefore, the hydrometer method was used to complete the particle size distribution
test.
32
o hydrometer method
The hydrometer method is the continuity of dry or wet sieving to produce a complete soil size
distribution curve. This test was conducted using sedimentation to determine the particle
distribution of the soil from coarse sandy to clay size.
After sieving, the weights of soil retained and passed on each sieve were computed. Their
corresponding percentages were also determined, and the particle size distribution curve was then
plotted with the obtained data. If Ms is a sieve mass, Me is the mass of sieve + retained soil and
M is the total mass of the initial soil, the retained percentage can be calculated using Equation 3.3.
Me−Ms
%R=( ) (3.3)
M
Where
Me = Mass of sieve + retained
Ms = Sieve mass
M = Total mass of the initial soil
3.2.1.4. Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content (BS 1377: Part 4: 1990)
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of soil are determined in the laboratory
to find a measure of the compaction level of the soil. These parameters were measured through the
Standard Proctor Compaction method in this study.
Five kg of an air-dried representative sample of the soil under test passing 20 mm sieve were
collected. The soil was then thoroughly mixed with enough water to give a low value of water
content. The mixture was then compacted in a metal mould with an internal diameter of 100 mm
using a 2.5 kg rammer of 50 mm, free-falling from 300 mm above the top of the soil. The
compaction was done in three layers of approximately equal depth. Each layer was given 27 blows
33
which were spread evenly over the soil surface. At the end of the third layer, the top of the
compacted soil was trimmed level with the top of the mould. The base of the mould was removed,
the mould and the test sample it encloses were weighed. Samples were taken from the top and the
base of the compacted soil sample for water content determination. The remaining soil was then
removed from the mould and discarded. 2% water was added to the previous water content and
thoroughly mixed with the soil, and the compaction was repeated. The test ends when the weight
of the compacted sample decreases or after a minimum of five (5) sets.
After the test, different values of moisture content were computed with means of Equation 3.1 (see
3.4.1 a). The corresponding dry densities were then determined using Equation 3.4.
M/V
γ= (3.4)
1+ω
Where
𝛾 = Dry density of the soil
M = Wet mass of the compacted soil
V = Volume of the mould
ω = Moisture content
3.2.1.5. Liquid Limit (Atterberg box method) ASTM D 4318
The liquid limit (LL) is the empirically established moisture content at which soil passes from the
liquid state to the plastic state. Casagrande box method was used to determine the limit liquid in
this study. A quantity of 250 g of an air-dried soil passing 0.425 mm sieve was sampled. Distilled
water was then poured and mixed with the sample until a relatively viscous paste was obtained.
The paste was placed into the porcelain dish at roughly 3/4 of the dish volume and a groove was
created in the centre of the paste. Blows are then given to the set until the groove closes on a length
of about 10 mm, the number of blows was recorded and a mass of the soil was taken from closed
34
length to oven dry. The same paste was removed from the porcelain dish and remixed for a while
to reduce its moisture. After remixing, the paste was replaced in the porcelain dish and the test was
repeated 5 times.
After oven-drying, the moisture content values were computed using Equation 3.1 (see 3.4.1 a),
and the relationship between the moisture content and number of blows with the moisture content
as ordinates and number of blows as abscissae was plotted, both on linear scales. The best straight
line fitting the points was drawn. The liquid limit of the soil sample is the moisture content
corresponding to 25 blows.
3.2.1.6. Plastic Limit
The plastic limit (PL) is used with the liquid limit to determine the Plasticity Index (PI). The
plasticity index and the liquid limit on the plasticity chart provides a means of classifying soils.
The plasticity index is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit. The plasticity
index is the range of moisture content in which soil is plastic; the finer the particle size of soil, the
greater the PI.
After the liquid limit test, a ball of soil was formed manually. The ball was then moulded between
the fingers and rolled between the palms of the hands until the heat of the hands had dried the soil
sufficiently for slight cracks to appear on its surface. The sample was then divided into two equals
sub-samples, and two threads of the soil of about 6 mm were formed. Each thread was rolled to
form a thread of about 3 mm of diameter in 5 to 10 complete, forward and back movements of the
hand. The soil was picked up, moulded between the fingers to dry it further, formed into a thread
and rolled out again as specified above. The procedure was repeated until the thread shears both
longitudinally and transversely when rolled to about 3 mm diameter. The first crumbling point is
the plastic limit. The pieces of crumbled soil thread were gathered together and transferred to a
suitable container to determine the moisture content BS EN 1997-2:2007 (Mbumbia et al., 2000).
After oven drying, the moisture content values were computed using the Equation 3.1 (see 3.4.1
a) and an average value of different moisture content values was the plastic limit of the soil.
35
3.2.2. Chemical properties of the soil
The chemical properties of the soil were analysed according to BS 1377 (British Standards
Institute, 1990). The soil sample was oven dried for 24 hours, and an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF)
apparatus was used to determine the chemical composition of the soil. XRF is a non-destructible
analytical method to determine the chemical composition of materials (Brouwer, 2010; Chen et
al., 2008). The materials may be in solid, liquid, powder, filtered or other forms. The XRF analysis
was done in two important steps: qualitative and quantitative analyses. The qualitative analysis
consists to determine the nature of the elements in the sample, while the quantitative analysis
determines the intensity of each element (Brouwer, 2010). A clean and homogeneous sample of
soil was poured into a cup which was placed in the spectrometer of the apparatus. The X-ray
fluorescence analysis (XRF) method consists to emit the characteristic fluorescent X-rays of the
atoms of reference and analysing substances that have been excited by a controlled x-ray energy
source of an X-ray tube. A fluorescent x-ray is then created when a photon of sufficient energy
strikes atoms of the soil sample (Chen et al., 2008).
Once passed in the apparatus the sample was crushed and the machine automatically prints the
chemical composition of the soil on the screen.
3.3. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil and laterite soil bricks
In order to evaluate the performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil and laterite soil
bricks, the following tests were carried out on laterite soil blocks and/or bricks reinforced
polypropylene fibre.
3.3.1. Preparation of the blocks and bricks
Blocks and bricks prisms were cast. The prism brick dimensions were 290x140x120 mm in terms
of length, width and height, respectively, while the cylindrical block ones were 100 mm in diameter
by 127 mm in height. The prism bricks were made using a manual compressed earth blocks press
machine. Figure 3.2 shows the manual press used to make bricks in this research work.
36
Figure 3.2: Manual press
3.3.2. Air drying of blocks and bricks
Blocks and bricks were stored at the ambient temperature in the laboratory or curing room for 14
days and tested when their masses became constant as prescribed in EN 772-1:2011. Figure 3.3
shows a picture of bricks under air-drying.
37
Figure 3.3: Bricks under curing
3.3.3. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil
In order to determine the performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil direct shear
box test, unconfined compression tests, tensile tests and permeability tests were carried out.
3.3.3.1. Shear box test
This test was conducted to evaluate the effect of polypropylene fibre reinforcement on the effective
shear strength parameters of the soil, the cohesion and the angle of internal friction(φ). These
values may be used for calculating the bearing capacity of soil and the stability of slopes. A series
of 51 specimens were tested with reinforced and unreinforced soil in accordance with BS 1377-
7:1990. The specimens were then built into the shear box by the use of the specimen cutter, and
38
the results were plotted in a graph to determine the cohesion, angle of internal friction(φ) of a
specimen.
Calculation and plotting general data were done as follows:
❖ Moisture content, ω in percentage (see Equation 3.1)
❖ The Shear Stress on the surface of shear, τ (in kPa) for each set of readings from the
Equation 3.6:
𝑃
τ= (3.6)
𝐴
Where
A = Initial plan area of the specimen
P = Horizontal shear force
❖ The normal stress σn (in kPa), applied to the specimen is given by the Equation 3.7:
9.81∗𝑚
σ= (3.7)
𝐴
Where
m = Mass of the hanger and hanger weights (or equivalent mass if a lever-arm loading
system is used) applied to the loading cap (in kg)
A = Initial plan area of the specimen
3.3.3.2. Unconfined compression test (BS 1377: Part 7:1990:7.2 and ASTM D 2166)
The unconfined compression test is used to estimate the undrained shear strength of soils
containing gravel size particles, stiff fissured clays and non-homogeneous soils. Axial compression
is applied to a cylindrical specimen of soil at a constant rate of deformation (the strain-controlled
39
procedure). The ASTM controlled strain procedure is similar, and that standard also includes a
procedure using controlled stress, in which the axial force is increased incrementally at regular
intervals of time (Abou Diab et al., 2018; Head, 1982; Jackson, 2015). After the preparation, the
specimen was placed in the unconfined compression test apparatus or autographic apparatus.
Compression was then applied and readings are recorded until the failure, and the system was then
unloaded. Figure 3.4 shows an unconfined compression test apparatus (Jakub, 2014; Kasim, Marto,
Rahman & Tan, 2015).
Figure 3.4: Unconfined compression test apparatus
A graph was plotted using the half of each reading value and the strengths were determined from
the graph data.
3.3.3.3. Permeability test (BS 1377-5:1990)
The permeability is one of the most important soil hydraulic parameters, an essential factor in
water transport in the soil, and it is used in all equations for subsurface water flow. The hydraulic
conductivity’s definition follows Darcy’s Law (Darcy, 1856, Kutílek & Nielsen, 1994, Todd &
Mayes, 2005) and is given by units of velocity. For measuring the permeability of soils of
intermediate and low permeability (less than 1024m /s), the falling head procedure is used. In the
40
falling head test, a relatively short sample is connected to a standpipe, which provides both the
head of water and the means of measuring the quantity of water flowing through the sample.
Several standpipes of different diameters (0.5 cm, 2 cm and 5 cm) are normally available from
which one can be selected the diameter to suit for the type of material being tested (Jackson, 2015).
In the current study, the sample was compacted at the maximum dry density and put in the
apparatus for saturation. After saturation, the test was conducted. Figure 3.5 shows the
permeability test apparatus.
Figure 3.5: Falling head hydraulic conductivity test.
The different values of the permeability coefficient or hydraulic conductivity (k) were determined
using the Equation 3.8:
Ls h₁
k= ∗ ln h₂ (3.8)
t₂−t₁
Where
k = Hydraulic conductivity
Ls = Length of the soil sample
41
t1 = Ttime at the beginning of each reading
t2 = Ttime at the end of each reading
h1 = Position of water in the apparatus tube at the beginning of each reading
h2 = Position of water in the apparatus tube at the end of each reading
3.3.3.4. Indirect tensile splitting strength test
The tensile splitting test was conducted in accordance with BS EN 12390- 6 (2009) (British
Standards Institution BSI, 2009) to assess the tensile strength of brittle materials such as mortar
because the direct tensile test cannot be done on such types of materials. The tensile splitting test
was conducted on cylindrical specimens after 14 days of curing. A load P was applied continuously
at a steady rate of 0.05 N/ mm2/s up to the failure of the cylinder, and tensile splitting strength was
recorded. Figure 3.6 shows an ongoing tensile splitting test.
Figure 3.6: Tensile splitting test
42
Equation 3.9 was used to calculate the splitting tensile strength (T in MPa) of cylindrical blocks.
The recorded data were used for analysis.
2P
T= (3.9)
πLd
Where
T = Splitting tensile strength of the specimen
P = Maximum load applied to the specimen
d = Diameter of the cylinder
L = Length of the cylinder.
3.3.4. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks

3.3.4.1. Compressive strength of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks
The compressive strength test was conducted on bricks after 14 days of air drying or when a
constant dry mass was reached between two subsequent measurements in accordance with BS EN
772 (BS EN 772-1 (2011), 2011). A load P was applied at a rate of 0.05 N/mm2/s until the brick
failure after which, the maximum compressive load of the brick was recorded. Figure 3.7 shows a
picture of the machine used for compression test.
The compressive strength (Cs in MPa) was computed using equation 3.10 and the recorded data
were used for analysis.
𝑃
Cs = (3.10)
𝐴
Where
Cs = Compressive strength
43
P = Maximum compressive load of the blocks
A = Surface area in contact with the platen
Figure 3.7: Servo-plus evolution testing machine
3.3.4.2. Dry density of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks
The densities of the brick samples were determined at 14th days of curing. The test was carried
out in accordance with BS EN772-13:2000 (ČSN, 2001). At 14 days the bricks were weighed (m)
and their dimensions were measured to compute different volumes (V).
Equation 3.11 was used to compute the density (𝜌) in which m and v are the mass and volume of
the brick, respectively.
𝑚
𝜌= (3.11)
𝑉
44
Where
𝜌 = Density of the brick
m = Mass of the brick
v = Volume of the brick
3.3.4.3. Evaluating the initial rate of water absorption ability
A water absorption test was conducted as per the EN 772-11. The bricks were oven-dried for 24
hours. Thus, the bricks were immersed in cold water at a maximum of 5 mm depth for 1 minute to
absorb water. They were then taken out of the water, wiped and weighed again (ω2).
The initial rate of water absorption was determined using equation 3.12:
w₂−w₁
Iwa = (3.13)
t∗L∗B
Where
Iwa = Initial rate of water absorption
w1 = Weight of the brick before immersion
w2 = Weight of the brick after immersion
L = Length of the brick
B = Width of the brick
t = Immersion period
45
3.4. Determining the cost of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil bricks.
The foremost step in order to establish the cost of reinforcing laterite soil bricks with
polypropylene fibre in this study was to assess the cost involved in the production of a unit brick.
The evaluation of a unit brick cost includes the evaluation of the weight of different materials
(laterite soil, water, polypropylene fibre) involved in its production, their costs, their
transportation’s fees and the labour cost. After the determination of plain laterite and
polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil brick costs, reinforced-laterite brick costs were
compared to neat laterite brick, fired interlocking block and fired clay brick ones.
46
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Physical and chemical properties of laterite soil and polypropylene fibre
4.1.1. Physical and chemical properties of laterite soil
In order to characterize the physical properties of the soil specific gravity, particle size distribution,
Atterberg limits and compaction tests were carried out.
4.1.1.1. Particle size distribution
The particle size distribution test was conducted in two steps namely wet sieving and the
hydrometer test. After wet sieving, 29% of the initial weight were found as a waste fraction, which
is greater than the 10% that is required by the standard. The hydrometer test was then conducted
to complete the particle size distribution test. the findings are given in Appendix A, and the particle
size distribution curve is presented in Figure 4.1.
Clay Silt Sand Gravel

100
90
Soil Passing (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 4.1: Particle size distribution curve
47
From Figure 4.1, the results show that the laterite soil used in this study includes gravel (55%),
clay (18%), sand (15%) and silt (12%). Ali et al. (2017) reported two laterite soils with clay content
(4% and 7.4%), sand (86% and 71.5%) and gravel (10% and 21.1%), respectively. Vodounon et al.
(2019) reported a laterite soil of 2% gravel, 20% sand, 58% silt and 20% clay; and concluded that
based on ASTM D4753, the laterite soil includes high fines content. Therefore it needs to be
stabilised before use in compressed stabilised building blocks. A laterite soil with 34.8% grained
soil and 65.2% fine soil was reported by Amadi (2019) laterite soils. From the different studies
reported, laterite soil includes two main groups of soils namely grained soil (sand+gravel) and fine
soil (silt+clay), the laterite soil is better for bricks when the fines are less than grained soils. Based
on these two categories, the laterite soil used in the study fits in the range of laterite soils with
fewer fines content (30%) as compared to grained soil content (70%).
4.1.1.2. Atterberg limits
Atterberg limits determine the state of the soil at different moisture content values. The liquid limit
and plastic limit tests were carried out. The liquid limit was carried using the Atterberg box, and
the results are presented in Figure 4.2.
45.00
Moisture Content
43.00
41.00
(%)
39.00
37.00
35.00
19 24 29 34
Number of blows
Figure 4.2: Liquid limit
• Liquid limit: LL = 41.74% at 25 blows

• Plastic limit: PL = 22.73%
• Plasticity index: PI = 19.01%
48
The results found with Atterberg limits confirm the amount of clay found in particle size
distribution. According to Smith et al. (1985), the higher the clay amount, the greater the Atterberg
limits. According to García-Gaines & Frankenstein (2015), based on USCS (Unified Soil
Classification System), a soil with a liquid limit less than 50% PI = f(LL) above “A” line on the
plasticity chart (see Appendix H) is a medium plasticity soil.
Based on Atterberg limits and particle size distribution results, the soil used in this study was
classified as coarse material with plastic fines (GC) using USCS (Unified Soil Classification
System) classification system and plasticity chart (see Appendices G and H).
4.1.1.3. Compaction test
Standard compaction test was conducted to determine the maximum dry density (MDD) and the
optimum moisture content (OMC) of the soil. The data are given in Appendix B, and Figure 4.3
summarises the findings.
2.05
Compaction curve
2.00 Series5
Dry Density of Soil
10% voids
1.95 5% voids
(g/cm3)
1.90
1.85
1.80
1.75
1.70
11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00
Moisture Content (%)
Figure 4.3: Dry densities vs moisture content
From Figure 4.3 a maximum dry density of 1.882 g/cm³ corresponding to an optimum moisture
content of 14.88% were found. With these values, about 95% of voids were eliminated from the
soil.
Amadi (2019) reported an MDD of 1.78 g/cm³ with an OPC of 17.57% and a specific gravity of
2.64 for a laterite soil classified as CL (low plasticity clay). Fajobi et al. (2014) found a range of
49
MDDs values from 1.720 to 1.880 g/cm³ with OPCs varying from 11 to 15% and specific gravities
from 2.62 to 2.70 for laterites from different locations all classified as SC. Table 4.1 summarizes
the physical properties of the soil used in this study.
Table 4.1: Physical Properties of the Soil
Property Value
Specific gravity 2.67
Atterberg limits
Liquid limit (%) 41.74
Plastic limit (%) 22.73
Plasticity index 19.01
Particle size distribution
Gravel (%) 55
Sand (%) 15
Silt (%) 10
Clay (%) 20
Soil classification USCS GC
Compaction characteristic (standard proctor)
Maximum dry unit weight (kg/m3) 1882
Optimum moisture content (%) 14.88
Soil permeability coefficient (cm/s) 2.58x10-2
Shear strength parameters
Cohesion (kPa) 28.4
Internal friction angle (degree) 28.45
4.1.2. Chemical properties of the laterite soil
The chemical composition test was done using the XRF method at the Ministry of Mining
Laboratory in the Nairobi industrial area. Table 4.2 presents the chemical composition of the soil.
50
Table 4.2: Chemical composition of the Soil
Element Proportion (%)

Iron as FE₂O₃ 46.77
Silica as SiO₂ 33.43
Aluminium as Al₂O₃ 6.49
Manganese as MnO 4.38
Titanium as TiO 3.21
Calcium as CaO 1.52
Potassium as K₂O 1.09
Phosphorus as P₂O₅ 1.05
Sulphur as S 0.75
Barium as Ba 0.51
Zirconium as Zr 0.28
Zinc as Zn 0.26
Niobium as Nb 0.08
Yttrium as Y 0.03
Nickel as Ni 0.02
Lead Pb 0.02
Rubidium as Rb 0.02
Ratio:
33.43
SiO/AlO3 = = 0.715
46.77
From Table 4.2, it can be seen that the soil main minerals contained in the soil under study were
iron and silica. Iron, silica and aluminium are the main chemical components for laterite soil (Ali
et al., 2017; Ishola, 2020). If laterite soil has no or has low iron content, it results in high clay
content laterite or high plasticity soil (Vodounon et al., 2019). Achampong et al. (2019) and Martin
(1923) qualified soil with the silica-alumina ratio (SiO/AlO3) less than 1.33 as true laterites.
51
Therefore, based on the silica-alumina ratio (SiO/AlO3) and the amount of iron, the soil used in
this study can be qualified of true laterite soil.
4.1.3. Polypropylene fibre engineering properties
The effects of randomly distributed polypropylene fibre on laterite soil bricks were studied. Two
fibre aspect ratios were investigated, the characteristics of the polypropylene fibres used in this
study are given in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Properties of polypropylene fibres
Property value
Material 100% polypropylene
Fibre type Bunchy monofilaments
Density 0.91g/cm3
Acid and alkali high
Melting point about 160˚c
Elongation at break 30
Specification 6 mm, 18 mm
Tensile strength ˃400 MPa
Young modulus ˃3.5 GPa
Fibre diameter 0.026 mm, 0.030 mm
Burning point 580˚c
Ageing resistance Anti-ageing resistance
As shown in Table 4.3, the polypropylene fibre used in this study has low density, good fire
resistance and excellent tensile strength. These properties, anti-ageing resistance and non-
biodegradability property confirm that the polypropylene fibre has sufficient flexibility and
52
durability characteristics. The latter is very important in a reinforcing material to produce a more
durable composite.
4.2. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil and laterite soil bricks
4.2.1. Unconfined compressive strength
Unconfined compressive strength test (UCS) was conducted to evaluate the effect of
polypropylene fibre on the laterite soil unconfined compressive strength and the effect of fibre
aspect ratio. The data are given in Appendix C and the results are summarized in Figure 4.4.
0.70
0.65
Unconfined compressive
0.60
strength (MPa)
0.55
0.50
Aspect ratio 231
0.45
0.40 Aspect ratio 600
0.35
0.30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fibre content (%)
Figure 4.4: Unconfined compressive strength vs fibre content
From the results, the inclusion of polypropylene fibre reinforcement increases the unconfined
compressive strength of laterite soil up to a certain optimum point. With both fibre aspect ratios, a
rapid increase was observed up to 0.15%. From 0.15 to 0.25%, the UCS of the composite increases
very slightly and finally, at a higher fibre content, the UCS decreases. The optimum fibre content
was 0.25% of the dry weight of the soil with both fibre aspect ratios. The inclusion of a fibre with
a higher aspect ratio (600) had better strength compared to 231 aspect ratio results. The decrease
of UCS can be attributed to the formation of small balls of fibre in the soil-fibre matrix that may
imprison the air and create voids and weakness plans when the fibre content is higher than 0.25%.
It was also observed that the inclusion of polypropylene fibre changes the soil failure behaviour
from brittle to ductile. This means fibres bridge the development of cracks within the composite
53
(Patel & Singh, 2014). From these results and observations, it can be concluded that the increase
in fibre content increases the number of fibres in the soil-fibre matrix, which increases the contact
between soil particles and fibre, therefore reduces the volume of voids and increases the strength
of the composite.
Bangladesh road design manual requires a minimum value of UCS of 0.4 MPa in the case of hard
subgrade (Hossain et al., 2018). According to Zhu et al. (2019), the United States transportation
department recommends a minimum UCS value of 0.7 MPa for subgrade in the case of cement or
lime stabilisation. For overseas road design guide, a cement or lime stabilised subgrade UCS value
varies from 0.75 to 1.5 MPa (Transport Research Laboratory, 1993). With regard to the
Bangaladesh road design, the composite obtained in this study may replace the unstabilised hard
subgrade. But with the results found in this study, the fibre-composite cannot serve as a
cement/lime stabilised subgrade.
The results reported in this study are similar to those reported by Menon & Ravikumar (2019),
who evaluated the unconfined compressive strength of polypropylene fibre (fibre aspect ratio =
7.5) laterite soil. The trend found in this study is similar to that reported by Taha et al. (2020) when
studying the influence of polypropylene fibre reinforcement on the mechanical properties of clay
soil. Dave et al. (2020) reinforced a cohesive soil with polypropylene fibre. They reported that the
unconfined compressive strength increases up to optimum fibre content with polypropylene fibre
reinforcement and then decreases.
However, the results reported in this study are not in line with Marçal et al. (2020), Zaimoglu &
Yetimoglu (2012a) findings. They reported that with a clayey soil, the unconfined compressive
strength increases with increasing fibre content and tends to become constant. This may be due
difference in fibre aspect ratio or soil type.
4.2.2. Shear strength test
Direct shear box test was conducted to evaluate the effect of polypropylene fibre and the fibre
aspect ratio on the soil's cohesion and internal angle of friction. Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 present
the summary of the findings on the cohesion and the internal friction angle, respectively; Figure
54
4.7 and 4.8 show shear stress vs normal stress at different fibre content with fibre aspect ratio of
231 and 600.The data are shown in Appendix C.
39.00
37.00
35.00
Cohesion (KPa)
Aspect ratio 231

33.00
Aspect ratio 600
31.00
29.00
27.00
25.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fibre content (%)
Figure 4.5: Cohesion vs fibre content
40
38
36
Angle (º)
34
32 Aspect ratio 231

30 Aspect ratio 600
28
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fibre content (%)
Figure 4.6: Angle vs Fibre content
55
75
0.00%
70
65 0.05%
Shear stress (KPa)

60 0.10%
55
0.15%
50
45 0.20%
40 0.25%
35
0.30%
30
25 0.40%
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Normal Stress (KPa)
Figure 4.7: Shear stress vs normal stress at different fibre content with fibre aspect ratio of 231
85.00 0.00%
75.00 0.05%
Shear stress (KPa)
0.10%
65.00
0.15%
55.00
0.20%
45.00
0.25%
35.00
0.30%
25.00 0.40%
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Normal stress (KPa)
Figure 4.8: Shear stress vs normal stress at different fibre content with fibre aspect ratio of 600
Figures 4.5 and 4.6 present the cohesion and internal angle of friction of fibre-reinforced soil. The
inclusion of fibre increases the cohesion of the composite up to certain optimum fibre content
Figure 4.5. After the optimum fibre content, the cohesion decreases with 231 fibre aspect ratio
fibre, while a constant trend was observed with 600 aspect ratio fibre reinforcement. The internal
angle of friction keeps increasing with increased fibre content with both fibre aspect ratios Figure
56
4.6. In the beginning, the internal friction angle was better with the 231 fibre aspect ratio. But at
certain fibre content (0.27%), the internal friction angle reaches the same value with both fibre
aspect ratios. And then from that point, the increase with 600 fibre aspect ratio became better with
increasing fibre content.
These results suggested that the polypropylene fibre reinforcement enhances the bonding between
soil particles surrounding the discrete fibres and reduces the swelling and cracking phenomena.
The decrease of the cohesion in the case of 231 fibre aspect ratio fibre can be attributed to the
formation of fibre balls in the composite matrix, which may be a source of voids and weakness
plans when the fibre content becomes high in the soil. At high content, polypropylene fibres
present in the matrix stick together and formed pockets of voids that lead to a low density of the
composite (Diab et al., 2018). With regard to the trends in Figure 4.5, it can be said that the greater
the fibre aspect ratio, the better the soil cohesion. This behaviour can be attributed to the capacity
of the fibre to create a strong net in the soil-fibre matrix due to its length and therefore increases
the cohesion of the composite. These results also suggested that the fibre net acts as a bridge and
changes the soil behaviour from brittle to a more ductile one (Zaimoglu & Yetimoglu, 2012a). The
increase of the soil-fibre internal angle of friction can be due to the increase of the soil-fibre
contact, which results in increased interface friction (Benziane et al., 2019). The point (0.28 fibre
content) where the two fibre aspect ratios give the same angle corresponds to the fibre content at
which the fibre aspect ratio does not have an influence on the internal angle of the composite.
Han et al. (2020), Abdullah et al. (2019), Malekzadeh & Bilsel (2012) reported similar findings to
those found with 231 fibre aspect ratio in this study on the cohesion of reinforced clay soils. While
the results found with 600 fibre aspect ratio in this study are similar to Zaimoglu & Yetimoglu
(2012b) and Chuitou (2020) results.
4.2.3. Coefficient of permeability
To evaluate the effects of polypropylene fibre and fibre aspect ratio on the permeabilty and
porosity of the soil, the falling head test was carried out on laterite and fibre reinforced laterite
soil. The data are given in Appendix C and the results are summarized in Figure 4.9.
57
0.03
Coefficient of permeability (cm/s)

0.025
0.02
Aspect ratio 231
0.015
Aspect ratio 600
0.01
0.005
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Fibre content (%)
Figure 4.9: Coefficient of permeability vs fibre content
The results in Figure 4.9 suggested that with both 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios, the coefficient
of permeability of the soil-fibre composite decreases with increasing fibre content. From certain
fibre content (0.25%), the coefficient of permeability of the composite tends to become constant.
These results show that discrete fibres reduce the voids in the soil matrix and, therefore, increase
the soil water resistance. The results found in this study are similar to those reported by Chuitou
(2020) with polypropylene fibre reinforced clay soil.
4.2.4. Indirect splitting tensile strength
Indirect tensile strength test was conducted in accordance to BS EN 12390- 6(2009) (British
Standards Institution BSI, 2009). The sepecimens were compacted at the maximum dry density
and optimum moisture content to assess indirectly the effects of polypropylene fibre and fibre
aspect ratio on the splitting tensile of the soil. The data are given in Appendix D and the results
are summarized in Figure 4.10.
58
Aspect ratio 600
0.42
Tensile strength (MPa)

Min Strength (MPa)
0.37
0.32
0.27
(0.25 MPa)
0.22
0.17
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fibre content (%)
Figure 4.10: Splitting tensile strength vs Fibre content
As with the previous test, the inclusion of polypropylene fibre improves the tensile strength of
laterite soil regardless of fibre length. The results show a better tensile strength with a 600 fibre
aspect ratio. From these results and observations, the maximum tensile strength was obtained at
0.25% fibre content by the dry weight of the soil with both fibre aspect ratios. At this point, the
increase in strengths was 123.53% and 141.18% as compared to that of unreinforced soil with 231
and 600 fibre aspect ratios, respectively. Based on these results, it can be said that monofilament
fibres act as a bridge in a loaded composite to prevent the extension of tensile cracks and therefore
prevent the sample of brittle or catastrophic failure. The findings also suggested that the fibres
contribute to the increased bonding of soil particles surrounding the individual fibres and aid in
transferring the load between them and increasing the tensile strength of reinforced soil (Al-Neami
et al., 2020; Jalaei & Jrade, 2014). The decrease in tensile strength after the optimum fibre content
may be due to fibre balls' formation inside the composite matrix. AS/NZS 4455 recommends a
minimum tensile strength of 0.25 MPa for earth bricks. Therefore, the reinforced bricks with
0.25% fibre content by dry weight of soil meet these requirements.
Results found in this study are similar to those reported by (Chuitou, 2020). Malekzadeh & Bilsel
(2012) reported increased tensile strength with increased fibre content with polypropylene fibre
59
reinforced expansive soil. The results found in the current study are at variance to Selsiadevi &
Sujatha (2018) results on laterite soil bricks with a polypropylene fibre aspect ratio of 80.
4.2.5. Compressive strength of bricks
The compressive strength is most important characteristic of bricks. In this study, the bricks were
made with a manual press shown on Figure 3.2 and air dried in the laboratory at the ambient
temperature. Two fibre aspect ratios were investigated to evaluate both the effects of
polypropylene fibre and fibre aspect ratio on the compressive strength of laterite soil bricks. Figure
4.11 presents the summary of the findings and the data are given in Appendix E.
7.50
7.00
Compressive strength (MPa)
6.50
6.00
Aspect ratio 231
5.50

4.50
Min strength BS (MPa)
4.00
3.50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fibre content (%)
Figure 4.11: Compressive strength vs fibre content
Figure 4.11 shows the compression test results, it is observed that polypropylene fibres
reinforcement improves the compressive strength of compressed earth bricks regardless of the
fibre aspect ratio. The compressive strength of the composite increases up to 0.25% fibre content
with both 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios, respectively. At 0.25%, fibre content the compressive
strength increased by 83.42% and 90.26% with 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios, respectively.
According to BS 3921:1985, the minimum required compressive strength for earth load-bearing is
5MPa (Clay Bricks - Copy, 1985). The Australian Standard requires a minimum compressive
60
strength of 1.15 N/mm2, and the ASTM International E2392/E2392M-10e1 (2010) indicates a
value of 2.068 N/mm2 for non-load bearing blocks (Calatan et al., 2016).
The results found in this study show that monofilament fibre when mixed with soil fill up the voids
between the soil particles, and with the increase of fibre content the contact between soil particles
and discrete fibre increase. The increase in contact between soil particles and discrete fibre reduce
the voids in soil-fibre composit, which results in an increasing compressive strength. The increase
in compressive strength of polypropylene fibre reinforced concrete specimens may be attributed
to the polypropylene fibre acting as a bonding material between the surrounding particles or to the
geometric shape and interface of the fibre (Jalaei & Jrade, 2014). Selsiadevi & Sujatha (2018)
attributed the increase in strength to the frictional resistance developed between the fibre and the
soil matrix. The results found in this study are similar to those found by Bagherzadeh et al. (2012),
who observed that longer the polypropylene fibre better the compressive strength of fibre
reinforced concrete at 28 days. It is also important to note that the failure mode in every test with
monofilament polypropylene fibre was ductile, while with unreinforced soil, the failure was brittle.
Figure 4.12 shows examples of the failure mode on bricks and blocks.
(a) (b)
Figure 4.12: (a) Bricks after failure; (b) Cylinder after failure
61
4.2.6. Bricks dry densities
The densities of bricks were evaluated at different fibre contents to see how the inclusion of fibre
and fibre aspect ratio affect the density of bricks. The summary of findings is shown in Figure 4.13
and the data are given in Appendix E.
2.40 Aspect ratio

231
Aspect ratio
600
Dry density (g/cm3)
Min density
2 BS
1.90 Max density
BS
1.5 (g/cm3)
1.40
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fibre content (%)
Figure 4.13: Dry density of bricks vs fibre content
The results in Figure 4.13 show that the density of bricks was not affected with the inclusion of
polypropylene fibre with both fibre aspect ratios. Although a slight increase of density was
observed with increasing fibre content up to 0.25%. Beyond this fibre content, the dry density of
bricks slightly decreases with both fibre aspect ratios. This may be due to the balls of fibre formed
inside the composite when the fibre content is high (> 0.25% by dry weight of soil).
The values of bricks densities found in this study are in the range of compressed earth bricks
prescribed by BS 3921 and ASTM C67 (Morel et al., 2007; Riza et al., 2010; Vodounon et al.,
2019). (Snigdha et al., 2016) reported that the inclusion of polypropylene fibre increased the dry
density of the composite to the optimum fibre content. Beyond the optimum point, the dry density
of the composite decreases. But the results found in Figure 4.13 are not similar to those reported
by Taha et al. (2020), who reported increased dry density of the composite with increased fibre
content.
62
4.2.7. Initial rate of water absorption
The water absorption rate is an important characteristic of compressed earth bricks. It is the
parameter that governs the durability of the bricks. Due the absence of a binder, initial rate of water
absorption was carried out on the bricks in this study. The computed data are given in Appendix F
while the summary of the findings is shown in Figure 4.14.
0.55
Initial rate of water absorption
0.5 0.5 kg/(m²xmin)
0.45
Aspect ratio 600
kg/(m²xmin)

0.35 IRA range BS
0.3
0.25 kg/(m²xmin)
0.25
0.2
0.15
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fibre content (%)
Figure 4.14: Initial rate of water absorption vs fibre content
The results in Figure 4.14 above show that the initial water absorption rate decreases with
increasing fibre content and tends to be constant from certain fibre content. These findings show
that monofilament fibre, when mixed with soil, fills up the voids in the composite matrix. This
allowed the composite to develop a better water resistance than the unreinforced soil one and
consequently improves the durability of the bricks. Ali et al. (2017) reported that the good range
of the initial rate of water absorption is 0.25-2 kg/(m2xmin) in the case of earth bricks without a
binder (cement, lime, etc.) and ASTM C67 requires a range from 0.39 – 1.18 kg/(m2xmin). This
means that the results found with reinforced soil in this study are in line with standards
recommandations. The results found in this study are similar to those reported by Selsiadevi &
Sujatha (2018) on polypropylene reinforced fibre bricks with a fibre aspect ratio of 80. But the
optimum values found in this study with both 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios are better than those
reported by Selsiadevi & Sujatha (2018). Table 4.4 shows some standards characteristics of earth
bricks versus the current study findings.
63
Table 4.4: Earth bricks characteristics based on standards vs current study findings
Standard recommendation for masonry Raw laterite

Parameter Reinforce soil (0.25% fibre ) Comments
bricks soil
AS/NZS
BS 3921 ASTM C67 Aspect ratio 231 Aspect ratio 600
4455
BS
Compressive requirements
>= 5 >= 2.068 >= 1.15 3.8 6.94 7.23
strength (MPa) achieved with
reinforcement
Plain soil bricks

Water absorpiton in the range of
0.25-0.5 0.39 – 1.18 - 0.42 0.21 0.19
kg/(m2xmin) standards.
Better results
with fibre
inclusion
AS/NZS
Tensile (MPa) - - >= 0.25 0.17 0.38 0.42
requirements
achieved with
fibre inclusion
Raw and
Density of earth
1.5 – 2 1.5– 2 0.9 – 2.2 1.97 2.007 2.01 reinforced
bricks (g/cm3)
bricks in the
range of
standards
64
4.3. Cost of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil bricks
This section presents the benefits of polypropylene reinforced laterite bricks on the one hand. The
cost of a square metre of polypropylene fibre reinforced laterite soil bricks wall and the comparison
against a square metre of interlocking blocks and fired clay bricks wall on the other hand. Optimum
fibre content of 0.25% was retained with both 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios. The benefits of
using polypropylene as earth bricks’ reinforcement are the valorisation and reduction of plastic
wastes around the world, the contribution to reducing the use of imported materials and associated
costs. For instance, from the results of this study, 250 kg of polypropylene will be used to reinforce
every 1ton of laterite soil (0.25%). The composite soil fibre is an environmentally friendly material
that may be an alternative in housing, particularly in Sahel and desert regions, due to its better
durability and low cost. The costs of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks were computed and
then compared to interlocking blocks and fired clay bricks (manufactured at Kenya Clay Products
Ltd, Ruiru). The data are summarized in Table 4.5 and the computation details are given in
Appendix F.
65
Table 4.5: Cost of reinforced bricks at 0.25% fibre content per metre square of walls in Kenya
Brick
Fired
Unreinforced Interlocking reinforced
Items Clay
brick block with 0.25%
brick
fibre
No of bricks per m2 of wall 24 26 36 24
Unit cost of brick (Ksh) 26.94 48 40 41.81
Cost of bricks /m2 of wall (Ksh) 646.56 1248 1440 1003.33
Cost of bonding mortar /m2 of wal 158.8 0 100.8 158.8
Total cost of a m2 of wall (Ksh) 805.36 1248 1540.8 1162.13
Compressive strength (N/mm2) 8.5 5.069
Savings (+) or losing (-) in cost
compared to Fired Clay Blocks (%) 32.58
Savings (+) or losing (-) in cost
compared to interlocking blocks (%) 6.88
As shown Table 4.5 polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks square metre is cheaper than both
interlocking blocks and fired clay bricks ones. With polypropylene reinforced bricks a cost saving
of 32.58% and 6.88% were obtained as compared to fired clay and interlocking blocks per metre
square of wall, respectively. However, in terms of compressive strength interlocking blocks are
better than both polypropylene fibre and fired clay bricks although all fulfilled standards
compressive requirements.
66
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusions
This study was conducted to investigate the performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks
in order to improve the raw soil bricks performance. Two fibre aspect ratios were studied namely
231 (6 mm in length and 0.026 mm in diameter) and 600 (18 mm in length and 0.030 mm in
diameter) fibre aspect ratios. The results have shown considerable improvements on the
mechanical and physical properties as well as the durability with both fibre aspect ratios. The study
revealed that the inclusion of monofilament fibre fills effectively up the voids between the soil
particles in the composite and the following major conclusions can be drawn:
Objective one:
1. The laterite soil used in this was a coarse material with plastic fines (GC) based on USCS
classification.
2. Based on Atterberg limits results, the soil was classified as medium plasticity soil using
plasticity chart.
3. The standard proctor test results indicated a maximum dry density of 1.88g/cm 3 and an
optimum 14.88%. These results are in line with previous studies findings for a laterite soil.
4. The chemical composition test results indicated that the main minerals contained in soil
under study were iron (46.77%) and silica (33.43%). These results are in line with previous
studies findings for a laterite soil.
5. The polypropylene fibre used in this study has a density of 0.91g/cm3, a tensile strength ˃
400 MPa, a young modulus ˃ 3.5 GPa and a burning point at 580˚c. With these properties
confirm that polypropylene fibre is sufficiently flexible and lightweight.
67
Objective two:
1. The compressive strength of the composite bricks improved with both fibre aspect ratios.
The optimum effects were obtained at 0.25% fibre content by the dry weight of the soil
with both fibre lengths corresponding to an increase of 83.42% and 90.26% respectively
with 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios as compared to the unreinforced soil bricks strength.
2. The inclusion of fibre improved the initial rate of water absorption. A reduction of water
absorption rate of 50 and 54.76% was achieved as compared to the unreinforced laterite
bricks at 0.25% fibre content by dry weight with 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios
respectively.
3. With the inclusion of fibre, the unconfined compressive strength increased by 93% and
103% as compared with that of the unreinforced soil at 0.25% fibre content with 231 and
600 fibre aspect ratios respectively.
4. The inclusion of fibre increases the indirect splitting tensile of the composite regardless to
the fibre aspect ratio. At 0.25% fibre content by the dry weight of the soil the tensile
strength increased by 123.53% and 141.18% as compared with that of the unreinforced soil
with 231 and 600 fibre aspect ratios respectively.
5. The addition of fibre changes the specimen’s failure behaviour from brittle with neat soil
to ductile with reinforced soil and therefore prevents the post initial crack development.
Based on the results on indirect split tensile and compressive tests.
68
Objective three:
1. The costs of plain soil and polypropylene fibre reinforced at 0.25% fibre content of a unit
brick were 26.94 and 41.81 (Ksh), respectively.
2. With polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks at optimum fibre content, costs savings of
32.58% and 6.88% were achieved on a square meter wall as compared to fired clay and
interlocking blocks respectively.
5.2. Recommendations
5.2.1. Recommendations for use of the findings
Based on the findings and the standard requirements, the polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks
obtained in this study at the optimum fibre content will serve as non-load bearing earth masonry
bricks based on the standard used recommendations.
5.2.2. Recommendations for further research
Although important findings relating to performance of polypropylene fibres reinforeced masonry

blocks are reported and discussed in this study, the following recommendations are made:
1. performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced bricks with high fibre aspect ratios and high fibre
content on compressed and compressed stabilized earth bricks.
2. Performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced cement/ binder stabilized masonry blocks
3. Performance of polypropylene reinforced earth bricks, with arranged fibre orientation
69
REFERENCES
¨Ussig, J. ¨ORG M. (2010). Industrial Applications of Natural Fibres.
Abdullah, N. H. H., Aziz, N. H. A., Jaafar, F. F., Osman, N. M., Ahmad, A., & Hamid, S. A.
(2019). Effect of different fibre reinforcement type to the shear strength of soft soil at varying
moisture condition. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1349(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1349/1/012126
Abou Diab, A., Najjar, S. S., Sadek, S., Taha, H., Jaffal, H., & Alahmad, M. (2018). Effect of
compaction method on the undrained strength of fiber-reinforced clay. Soils and Foundations,
58(2), 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.02.013
Achampong, F., Anum, R. A., Boadu, P. F., Djangmah, N. B., & Chegbele, L. P. (2019). Chemical
Stabilization of Laterite Soils for Road construction. 4(11), 2019–2041.
Agbede, I., & Joel, M. (2011). Effect of rice husk ash (RHA) on the properties of Ibaji burnt clay
bricks. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 2(4), 674–677.
https://doi.org/10.5251/ajsir.2011.2.4.674.677
Akbulut, S., Arasan, S., & Kalkan, E. (2007). Modification of clayey soils using scrap tire rubber
and synthetic fibers. 38, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2007.02.001
Al-Neami, M. A., Rahil, F. H., & Al-Ani, Y. H. (2020). Behavior of Cohesive Soil Reinforced by
Polypropylene Fiber. Engineering and Technology Journal, 38(6A), 801–812.
https://doi.org/10.30684/etj.v38i6a.109
Alao, T. O. and Ogunbode, E. B. (2019). Enhancing the performance of walls built with laterite-
cement bricks: a conceptual design and specifications writing approach. August, 508–521.
https://doi.org/10.33796/waberconference2019.35
Albertsson, A. A. A., Du, R. D. K., Kausch, J. F. J. H., Lee, S. K. K., Manners, T. E. L. I., Nuyken,
M. M. O., & Wegner, B. V. G. (2005). Advances in Polymer Science Editorial Board :
70
Alhassan, M. (2008). Potentials of rice husk ash for soil stabilization. 11(4), 246–250.
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/49217/Divyateja_Sarapu-
RHA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Ali, M., Liu, A., Sou, H., & Chouw, N. (2012). Mechanical and dynamic properties of coconut
fibre reinforced concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 30, 814–825.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.068
Ali, N., Din, N., Khalid, F. S., Shahidan, S., Abdullah, S. R., Abdul Samad, A. A., & Mohamad,
N. (2017). Compressive strength and initial water absorption rate for cement brick containing
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) as a substitutional material for sand. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 271(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899X/271/1/012083
Amadi, A. (2019). Evaluation of Coefficient of Permeability on Lateritic Soil Contaminated with

Organic Chemicals. December 2015.
Amer Ali Al-Rawas, & Goosen, M. F. A. (2006). Recent advances in characterization and
treatment.
Amezugbe, F. A. (2013). the Performance of Natural and Synthetic Fibers in Low Strength. 1–75.
Anagnostopoulos, C. A., Tzetzis, D., & Berketis, K. (2014). Shear strength behaviour of
polypropylene fibre reinforced cohesive soils. Geomechanics and Geoengineering, 9(3),
241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2013.804213
Andavan, S., & Pagadala, V. K. (2020). Experimental study on addition of lime and fly ash for the
soil stabilization. Materials Today: Proceedings.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.300
Anggraini, V. (2016). Potential of Coir Fibres as Soil Reinforcement. Pertanika Journal of

Scholarly Research Reviews, 2(November 2016), 95–106.
71
Ansell, M. P., & Mwaikambo, L. Y. (2009). The structure of cotton and other plant fibres. In
Handbook of Textile Fibre Structure (Vol. 2). Woodhead Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845697310.1.62
Arnold, R. W. (2004). Classification of Soils. Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment,

4(September), 204–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-348530-4/00003-5
Bakar, M. A. A., Ahmad, S., Kuntjoro, W., & Kasolang, S. (2013). Effect of carbon fibre ratio to
the impact properties of hybrid kenaf/carbon fibre reinforced epoxy composites. Applied
Mechanics and Materials, 393, 136–139.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.393.136
Benziane, M. M., Della, N., Denine, S., & Sert, S. (2019). Effect of randomly distributed
polypropylene fiber reinforcement on the shear behavior of sandy soil. July.
https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2019-0014
Blaya; Pedro Sáez. (2017). Modular Deployable Shelter For Camps. 2(12).
Boulama, M., Michel, R., Ollivier, L., Meynard, J. B., Nicolas, P., & Boutin, J. P. (2005). Au
Niger. 2, 329–333.
Braja, M. Das. (2008). Advance Soil Mechanics.
British Standards Institute. (1990). Soils for civil engineering purposes BS 1377-9:1990. British
Standard Institution, 3(March), 1–42.
Brouwer, P. (2010). Theory of xrf.
BS EN 772-1 (2011). (2011). BSI Standards Publication Methods of test for masonry units Part
11 : Determination of water absorption of aggregate concrete , manufactured stone and natural
action and the initial rate of water. BSI Standards Publication, 1–12.
Calatan, G., Hegyi, A., Dico, C., & Mircea, C. (2016). Determining the Optimum Addition of
72
Vegetable Materials in Adobe Bricks. Procedia Technology, 22(October 2015), 259–265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2016.01.077
Calatan, G., Hegyi, A., Dico, C., & Mircea, C. (2017). Experimental Research on the Recyclability
of the Clay Material Used in the Fabrication of Adobe Bricks Type Masonry Units. Procedia
Engineering, 181, 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.402
Chen, M., Shen, S., Arulrajah, A., Wu, H., & Hou, D. (2015). Geotextiles and Geomembranes
Laboratory evaluation on the effectiveness of polypropylene fi bers on the strength of fi ber-
reinforced and cement-stabilized Shanghai soft clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.05.004
Chen, Z. W., Gibson, W. M., & Huang, H. (2008). High Definition X-Ray Fluorescence: Principles
and Techniques. X-Ray Optics and Instrumentation, 2008, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/318171
Chuitou, I. A. (2020). Structural and hydraulic performance of polypropylene fibre reinforced

earth dam. March. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34924.10887
Clay Bricks - Copy. (1985). 1.
Coutts, R. S. P., & Ni, Y. (1995). Autoclaved bamboo pulp fibre reinforced cement. Cement and
Concrete Composites, 17(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-9465(94)00002-G
ČSN, E. N. (2001). 772-13: Methods of Test for Masonry Units–Part 13: Determination of Net
and Gross Dry Density of Masonry Units (Except for Natural Stone). Czech Republic.
Danso, H. (2017). Experimental Investigation on the Properties of Compressed Earth Blocks

Stabilised with a Liquid Chemical. Advances in Materials, 6(6), 122.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.am.20170606.13
Danso, H., Martinson, D. B., Ali, M., & Williams, J. B. (2015). Physical, mechanical and durability
properties of soil building blocks reinforced with natural fibres. Construction and Building
73
Materials, 101, 797–809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.069
Dauda, A. M., Akinmusuru, J. O., Dauda, O. A., Durotoye, T. O., Ogundipe, K. E., & Oyesomi,
K. O. (2018). Geotechnical properties of lateritic soil stabilized with periwinkle shells
powder. November, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201811.0100.v1
Dave, T. N., Patel, D., Saiyad, G., & Patolia, N. (2020). Use of Polypropylene Fibres for Cohesive
Soil Stabilization. August, 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0890-5_34
Debora, J. D. N., & Miller, D. J. (1992). Expansive soils: Problems and Practice in Foundation
and Pavement Engineering.
Dixit, S., Goel, R., Dubey, A., Shivhare, P. R., & Bhalavi, T. (2017). Natural fibre reinforced
polymer composite materials - A review. Polymers from Renewable Resources, 8(2), 71–78.
https://doi.org/10.1177/204124791700800203
Donkor, P., & Obonyo, E. (2015). Earthen construction materials: Assessing the feasibility of
improving strength and deformability of compressed earth blocks using polypropylene fibers.
Materials and Design, 83, 813–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.06.017
Dutta, R. K., & Gayathri, V. (2012). Effect of addition of treated coir fibres on the compression
behaviour of clay. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 6(4), 476–488.
F. J. Martin, and H. C. D. (1923). Laterite and lateritic soils in Sierra Leone.
Fabiano, E., Reginaldo, S. P., Eder, P. M., Fabricia, C. M. M., Humberto, A., Ailton, T. do V.,
Mayara, P. O. M., Mauro, E. N., & Ildeu, S. M. (2017). Improving geotechnical properties of
a sand-clay soil by cement stabilization for base course in forest roads. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, 12(30), 2475–2481. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar2016.12482
Fajobi, A., Falade, F., Adepelumi, A., & Akindulureni, O. (2014). Evaluation of hydraulic
conductivity of lateritic soils using integrated approach: southwestern Nigeria case study.
International Journal of Advanced Geosciences, 3(1), 1.
74
https://doi.org/10.14419/ijag.v3i1.3552
Fajrin, J., & Sari, N. H. (2018). Tensile properties of lignocellulosic composites: A comparison
analysis between natural fiber composites (NFCs) and medium density fiber (MDF). Jurnal
Spektran, 6(1), 111–116.
Flanagan, T. C., Pandit, A., Taylor, P., & Jockenhövel, S. (2003). Living artificial heart valve
alternatives: A review. European Cells and Materials, 6(0), 28–45.
https://doi.org/10.22203/eCM.v006a04
Freilich, B. J., Li, C., & Zornberg, J. G. (2010). Effective shear strength of fiber-reinforced clays.
9th International Conference on Geosynthetics - Geosynthetics: Advanced Solutions for a
Challenging World, ICG 2010, June, 1997–2000.
García-Gaines, R. A., & Frankenstein, S. (2015). USCS and the USDA Soil Classification System,
ERDC/CRREL TR-15-4. March, 37. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a614144.pdf
Ghavami, K., Toledo Filho, R. D., & Barbosa, N. P. (1999). Behaviour of composite soil reinforced
with natural fibres. Cement and Concrete Composites, 21(1), 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(98)00033-X
Han, C., He, Y., Tian, J., Zhang, J., Li, J., & Wang, S. (2020). Shear strength of polypropylene
fibre reinforced clay. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 0(0), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2020.1798807
Head, K. H. (1982). Manual of soil laboratory testing, volume 2. Permeability, shear strength and
compressibility tests. In Manual of soil laboratory testing, volume 2. Permeability, shear
strength and compressibility tests. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(95)90001-2
Hejazi, S. M., Sheikhzadeh, M., Abtahi, S. M., & Zadhoush, A. (2012). A simple review of soil
reinforcement by using natural and synthetic fibers. Construction and Building Materials, 30,
100–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.045
75
Hossain, M. B., Kumruzzaman, M., & Roknuzzaman, M. (2018). Study of Engineering Behavior
of Coal Mine Waste Generated From Barapukuria Coal Mine As Road Subgrade. Journal of
Civil Engineering, Science and Technology, 9(1), 58–69.
https://doi.org/10.33736/jcest.884.2018
Ishola, K. (2020). Evaluation of Shear Strenght Parameters of Compacted Iron Ore Tailing
Treated Lateritic Soil. 4(2), 49–59.
Issiakou, M. S., Saiyouri, N., Anguy, Y., Fabre, R., Issiakou, M. S., Saiyouri, N., Anguy, Y.,
Gaborieau, C., Fabre, R., Des, E., Latéritiques, M., En, U., Routière, C., Issiakou, M. S.,
Saiyouri, N., & Anguy, Y. (2015). Etude des matériaux latéritiques utilisés en construction
routière au Niger : méthode d ’ amélioration .
Jackson, R. (2015). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. In Environmental & Engineering

Geoscience (Vol. 21, Issue 3). https://doi.org/10.2113/gseegeosci.21.3.247
Jalaei, F., & Jrade, A. (2014). Effect of Polypropylene Fiber Length on the Flexural and
Compressive Strength of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks. Construction Research
Congress 2014, 2008, 140–149.
Jambeck, J., Hardesty, B. D., Brooks, A. L., Friend, T., Teleki, K., Fabres, J., Beaudoin, Y.,
Bamba, A., Francis, J., Ribbink, A. J., Baleta, T., Bouwman, H., Knox, J., & Wilcox, C.
(2018). Challenges and emerging solutions to the land-based plastic waste issue in Africa.
Marine Policy, 96(December 2017), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.041
Jiang, H., Cai, Y., & Liu, J. (2010). Engineering Properties of Soils Reinforced by Short Discrete
Polypropylene Fiber. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 22(12).
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0000129
Kamal, N. L. M., Itam, Z., Sivaganese, Y., & Razak, N. A. (2020). Carbon Dioxide Sequestered
Concrete. International Journal of Integrated Engineering, 12(9), 45–51.
https://doi.org/10.30880/ijie.2020.12.09.006
76
Kamtchueng, B. T., Onana, V. L., Fantong, W. Y., Ueda, A., Ntouala, R. F., Wongolo, M. H.,
Ndongo, G. B., Ze, A. N., Kamgang, V. K., & Ondoa, J. M. (2015). Geotechnical, chemical
and mineralogical evaluation of lateritic soils in humid tropical area (Mfou, Central-
Cameroon): Implications for road construction. International Journal of Geo-Engineering,
6(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-014-0001-0
Karabash, Z., Çabalar, A. F., & Akbulut, N. (2015). The Behavior of Clayey Soil Reinforced With
Waste Aluminium Pieces. In Procedia Earth and Planetary Science (Vol. 15, pp. 353–358).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2015.08.088
Kennedy, C., Prince, L. L., & Okwulehie, K. (2018). Comparative on strength variance of
cement/lime with costus afer bagasse fibre ash stabilized lateritic soil. 6(5), 267–278.
Kılınç, A. Ç., & Seydibeyoğlu, M. Ö. (2017). Natural Fiber Natural fibers Natural fibers.
Kosmas, C. S., Danalatos, N. G., & Moustakas, N. K. (1997). The soils. 21–33.
Kumar, T. S. K., Ponnala, R. P., & Ravi, S. (2018). Behavior of Natural Fiber-Polymer Composites
using Compression Moulding Process. 7(12), 175–177.
Lemougna, P. N., Melo, U. F. C., Kamseu, E., & Tchamba, A. B. (2011). Laterite Based Stabilized
Products for Sustainable Building Applications in Tropical Countries: Review and Prospects
for the Case of Cameroon. 293–305. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3010293
Maddah, H. A. (2016). Polypropylene as a Promising Plastic : A Review. 6(1), 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ajps.20160601.01
Malekzadeh, M., & Bilsel, H. (2012). Effect of polypropylene fiber on mechanical behaviour of
expansive soils. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 17 A(Abduljauwad 1993),
55–63.
Marçal, R., Lodi, P. C., Correia, N. de S., Giacheti, H. L., Rodrigues, R. A., & McCartney, J. S.
(2020). Reinforcing effect of polypropylene waste strips on compacted lateritic soils.
77
Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(22), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229572
Mariko, A. (2003). Caractérisation et suivi de la dynamique de l ’ inondation et du couvert végétal

dans le Delta intérieur du Niger ( Mali ) par télédétection . May, 1–318.
Martin, F. J., & Doyne, H. C. (1930). Laterite and lateritic soil in Sierra Leone, II. The Journal of
Agricultural Science, 20(1), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600088675
Mbumbia, L., Mertens De Wilmars, A., & Tirlocq, J. (2000). Performance characteristics of
lateritic soil bricks fired at low temperatures: A case study of Cameroon. Construction and
Building Materials, 14(3), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00024-6
McIntyre, J. E. (2005). Synthetic fibres : nylon , polyester , acrylic , polyolefin.
Menon, J. (2018). Strength evaluation of laterite soil stabilized using polymer fibers. 9(2), 227–
234.
Menon, J., & Ravikumar, M. S. (2018). Strength evaluation of laterite soil stabilized using polymer
fibers. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(2), 227–234.
Menon, J., & Ravikumar, M. S. (2019). Evaluation of Laterite Soil Stabilized using Polymer Sack
Fibers. 6, 682–685.
Mohod, M. V. (2015). Performance of Polypropylene Fibre Reinforced Concrete. 12(1), 28–36.

https://doi.org/10.9790/1684-12112836
Morel, J. C., Pkla, A., & Walker, P. (2007). Compressive strength testing of compressed earth
blocks. Construction and Building Materials, 21(2), 303–309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.08.021
Mostafa, M., & Uddin, N. (2015). Effect of banana fibers on the compressive and flexural strength
of compressed earth blocks. Buildings, 5(1), 282–296.
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings5010282
78
Mrema, A. L. (2017). Earth Building in Tanzania – Use of Soil Stabilized Bricks and Blocks. 91,
399–404.
Mustapha, A. M., & Alhassan, M. (2012). Chemical, physico-chemical and geotechnical properties
of lateritic weathering profile derived from granite basement. Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 17 P, 2265–2274.
Nath, A. J., Lal, R., & Das, A. K. (2018). Fired Bricks: CO 2 Emission and Food Insecurity .
Global Challenges, 2(4), 1700115. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201700115
Nortcliff, S. (2012). of Soil. https://doi.org/10.1002/14356007.b07
Ogunsanwo, O. (1989). Some geotechnical properties of two laterite soils compacted at different
energies. Engineering Geology, 26(3), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-
7952(89)90013-6
Olgun, M. (2013). Effects of polypropylene fiber inclusion on the strength and volume change
characteristics of cement-fly ash stabilized clay soil. c(4).
Oliveira, P. J. V., Correia, A. A. S., Teles, J. M. N. P. C., & Custódio, D. G. (2016). Effect of fibre
type on the compressive and tensile strength of a soft soil chemically stabilised. Geosynthetics
International, 23(3), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.15.00040
Olivry, J.-C. (1994). Fonctionnement hydrologique de la cuvette lacustre du Niger et essai de

modélisation de l’inondation du delta intérieur. Quelques Données Préliminaires Sur
l’environnement et La Qualité Des Apports Du Niger Au Sahel, 1, 27–43.
Omotoso, A. A., Sasitharan, N., Anna, A., Kannan, R., Riduan, Y., & Samiullah, S. (2017).
Comparison of Strength Between Laterite Soil and Clay Comparison of Strength Between
Laterite Soil and Clay Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks ( CSEBs ). April.
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201710301029
Omrani, F., Wang, P., Soulat, D., Ferreira, M., & Ouagne, P. (2017). Analysis of the deformability
79
of flax-fibre nonwoven fabrics during manufacturing. Composites Part B: Engineering, 116,
471–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.003
Otoko, G. R. (2014). Dependence of shear strength and compressibility of tropical lateritic soils
on clay content. International Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, 2(2), 1–9.
Oyelami, C. A., & Rooy, J. L. Van. (2016). A review of the use of lateritic soils in the
construction/development of sustainable housing in Africa: A Geological Perspective.
Journal of African Earth Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2016.03.018
Paik, I., & Na, S. (2019). Comparison of carbon dioxide emissions of the ordinary reinforced
concrete slab and the voided slab system during the construction phase: A case study of a
residential building in South Korea. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(13).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133571
Patel, S. K., & Singh, B. (2014). Unconfined Compressive Strength Behaviour of Fibre-Reinforced
Lateritic Soil. 1(4), 93–98.
Paulinus, A. P., Kennedy, C., & Barine, N. B. (2018). Available online www.jsaer.com Research
Article Performance of Expansive Soils Stabilized with Costaceae Lacerus Bagasse Fibre
Ash and Cement Composition. 5(10), 119–127.
Plé, O., & Lê, T. N. H. (2012). Effect of polypropylene fiber-reinforcement on the mechanical
behavior of silty clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.11.004
Prakash, K., Sridharan, A., Thejas, H. K., & Swaroop, H. M. (2012). A Simplified Approach of
Determining the Specific Gravity of Soil Solids. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
30(4), 1063–1067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-012-9521-6
Rajapakse, R. (2016). Design of driven piles.
Rao, M. M. (2019). Effect of Aspect Ratio of Fiber in HDPE Reinforced Concrete. 8(09), 164–
80
171.
Rawat, S., Sharma, U., Vikal, V., & Sayeed, M. (2018). A study of soil response using
polypropylene as reinforcement. 4, 125–129.
Riza, F. V., Rahman, I. A., Mujahid, A., & Zaidi, A. (2010). A brief review of Compressed
Stabilized Earth Brick (CSEB). CSSR 2010 - 2010 International Conference on Science and
Social Research, January, 999–1004. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSSR.2010.5773936
Rohit, K., & Dixit, S. (2016). A review - future aspect of natural fiber reinforced composite.
Polymers from Renewable Resources, 7(2), 43–60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/204124791600700202
Sadcstan. (2014). Rammed Earth Structures. Code of Practice. Thc 03. Sadcstan Tc 1/Sc 5/Cd Sazs
724, 39.
Saing, Z., Samang, L., Harianto, T., & Patanduk, J. (2017). Study on characteristic of laterite soil
with lime stabilization as a road foundation. International Journal of Applied Engineering
Research, 12(14), 4687–4693.
Selsiadevi, S., & Ramani Sujatha, E. (2018). Physical, Mechanical and Durability Properties of
Soil Building Blocks Reinforced with Synthetic Fibre. International Journal of Engineering
& Technology, 7(3.12), 201. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i3.12.16024
Siyamak, S., Ibrahim, N. A., Abdolmohammadi, S., Wan Yunus, W. M. Z., & Rahman, M. Z. A.
B. (2012). Effect of fiber esterification on fundamental properties of oil palm empty fruit
bunch fiber/poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) biocomposites. International Journal of
Molecular Sciences, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms13021327
Smith, C. W., Hadas, A., Dan, J., & Koyumdjisky, H. (1985). Shrinkage and Atterberg limits in
relation to other properties of principal soil types in Israel. Geoderma, 35(1), 47–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(85)90055-2
81
Snigdha V. K, Jesna Varghese, & Remya U. R. (2016). The Effect of Polypropylene Fibre on the
Behaviour of Soil Mass with Reference to the Strength Parameters. International Journal of
Engineering Research And, V5(03), 781–784. https://doi.org/10.17577/ijertv5is031301
Sreekumar, M. G., & Nair, D. G. (2013). stabilized lateritic blocks reinforced with fibrous coir
wastes. 4(2), 23–32.
Sutcu, M., Alptekin, H., Erdogmus, E., Er, Y., & Gencel, O. (2015). Characteristics of fired clay
bricks with waste marble powder addition as building materials. Construction and Building
Materials, 82, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.055
Taallah, B., Guettala, A., Guettala, S., & Kriker, A. (2014). Mechanical properties and
hygroscopicity behavior of compressed earth block filled by date palm fibers. Construction
and Building Materials, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.058
Taha, M. M. M., Feng, C. P., & Ahmed, S. H. S. (2020). Influence of Polypropylene Fibre (PF)
Reinforcement on Mechanical Properties of Clay Soil. Advances in Polymer Technology,
2020, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9512839
Tajuddin, M., Ahmad, Z., & Ismail, H. (2016). A review of natural fibers and processing operations
for the production of binderless boards. BioResources, 11(2), 5600–5617.
https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.11.2.Tajuddin
Tang, C., & Gu, K. (2011). Strength behaviour of polypropylene fiber reinforced cement stabilized
soft soil. Tumu Gongcheng Xuebao/China Civil Engineering Journal, 44(SUPPL. 2).
Teja, M. S. (2016). Soil Stabilization Using Polypropylene Fiber Materials. 18906–18912.

https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2016.0509055
Testad, I., Corbett, A., & Aarsland, D. et al. (2013). ORE Open Research Exeter. Journal of
Cleaner Production.
Transport Research Laboratory. (1993). A guide to the structural design of bitumen-surfaced roads
82
in tropical and sub-tropical countries. Overseas Road Note 31, 3.
Vignesh, N. P., Arunachelam, N., Mahendran, K., & Dinesh Kumar, B. (2021). A Study on
Polymeric Fibre Reinforced Stabilized Mud Blocks. IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, 1026(1), 012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899x/1026/1/012010
Viswanadham, B. V. S., Phanikumar, B. R., & Mukherjee, R. V. (2009). Effect of polypropylene

tape fibre reinforcement on swelling behaviour of an expansive soil. Geosynthetics
International, 16(5), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2009.16.5.393
Vodounon, Nounagnon A, Kanali, C., Mwero, J., & Djima, M. O. A. (2019). Splitting Tensile
Strength , Physical and Durability Properties of Cement Stabilized Earth Block Reinforced
with Treated and Untreated Pineapple Leaf Fibre. 8(2), 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jmsr.v8n2p49
Vodounon, Nounagnon Appolinaire. (2018). Analysis of engineering properties of laterite bricks

reinforced with pineapple leaf fibres. September.
Volkoff, B. (1956). Red and lateritic soils : world scenario.
Waves, S. (1976). Pedogenesis and Engineering Principles.
Waziri, B. S., Lawan, Z. A., Mala, M., Shehu Waziri, B., Alhaji Lawan, Z., & Mala, aji. (2013).
Properties of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks (CSEB) For Low- Cost Housing
Construction: A Preliminary Investigation. International Journal of Sustainable Construction
Engineering & Technology, 4(2), 2180–3242.
http://penerbit.uthm.edu.my/ojs/index.php/IJSCET
Yasin, I., & Priyanto, A. (2019). Analysis of bamboo mechanical properties as construction eco-
friendly materials to minimizing global warming effect. IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, 535(1), 0–9. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/535/1/012001
83
Zaimoglu, A. S. (2010). Freezing-thawing behavior of fine-grained soils reinforced with
polypropylene fibers. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 60(1), 63–65.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2009.07.001
Zaimoglu, A. S., & Yetimoglu, T. (2012a). Strength Behavior of Fine Grained Soil Reinforced
with Randomly Distributed Polypropylene Fibers. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
30(1), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9462-5
Zaimoglu, A. S., & Yetimoglu, T. (2012b). Strength Behavior of Fine Grained Soil Reinforced
with Randomly Distributed Polypropylene Fibers. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
30(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9462-5
Zhu, J., Gao, Z., Kowalik, M., Joshi, K., Ashraf, C. M., Arefev, M. I., Schwab, Y., Bumgardner,
C., Brown, K., Burden, D. E., Zhang, L., Klett, J. W., Zhigilei, L. V., Van Duin, A. C. T., &
Li, X. (2019). Unveiling Carbon Ring Structure Formation Mechanisms in Polyacrylonitrile-
Derived Carbon Fibers. ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces, 11(45), 42288–42297.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b15833
84
APPENDICES
85
Appendix A: Particle size distribution test results
Table 5.1: Particle size distribution data
Sieve size Soil retained on Cumulative retained Soil retained Soil passing
(mm) sieve (g) (g) on sieve (%) sieve (%)
38.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.00
25.4 21.3 21.3 4.264 95.74
19.1 66.0 87.4 17.472 82.53
9.52 50.8 138.1 27.625 72.37
4.76 80 218.0 43.603 56.40
2.00 57.5 275.5 55.102 44.90
0.84 42.7 318.3 63.651 36.35
0.42 14.2 332.4 66.486 33.51
0.25 8.5 340.9 68.179 31.82
0.105 9.2 350.1 70.025 29.98
0.074 4.1 354.2 70.838 29.16
0.034 16.8 371.0 74.19 25.81
0.024 1.5 372.5 74.50 25.50
0.017 2.5 375.0 75.00 25.00
0.013 17.2 392.2 78.44 21.56
0.009 5.1 397.3 79.45 20.55
0.006 6.1 403.3 80.67 19.33
0.005 6.1 409.4 81.88 18.12
0.003 3.5 413.0 82.59 17.41
0.002 4.0 417.0 83.40 16.60
0.001 6.1 423.1 84.62 15.38
86
Appendix B: Standard compaction test results
Table 5.2: Standard compaction test results
Diameter of Mould (cm) 10 Weight of Hammer (kg) 2.5

Free Fall of Hammer
Height of Mould (cm) 12.7 (cm) 30
Volume of Mould (cm3) 997.86 Hammer Blows per Soil Layer 27
Number of Layers in
Weight of Mould (g) 4126.90 Mould 3
Corrected wt of mould (g) 4535.05
Test Run No. 1 2 3 4 5
Wt of Mould + Soil (g) 5864.7 5948.1 6077.1 6088.5 6074
Corrected wt of mould + soil
(g) 6444.73 6536.37 6678.13 6690.66 6674.73
Wet Density of Soil (g/cm3) 1.91 2.01 2.15 2.16 2.14
Moisture Content (%) 11.40 12.84 14.52 15.79 16.69
Dry Density of Soil (g/cm3) 1.72 1.78 1.88 1.87 1.84
Moisture Determination
Tin No 24 9 18 4 8
Tin + Wet Soil ma, g 113.40 96.30 87.78 92.82 95.06
Tin + Dry Soil mb, g 102.76 86.4 77.84 81.46 82.82
Tin only m c, g 9.42 9.30 9.36 9.52 9.50
Moisture Content % 11.40 12.84 14.52 15.79 16.69
87
Appendix C: Unconfined compressive strength test and shear test results
Appendix C1 : Table 5.3: Unconfined compressive strength results
Unconfined compressive strength (MPa)

Fibre content (%)
Aspect ratio 231 Aspect ratio 600
0 0.32 0.32
0.05 0.52 0.52
0.1 0.59 0.6
0.15 0.61 0.63
0.2 0.62 0.64
0.25 0.62 0.65
0.3 0.60 0.65
0.4 0.56 0.58
Appendix C2: Table 5.4: Shear paramaters test results
Cohesion KPa Angle (º)

Fibre content (%)
Aspect ratio 231 Aspect ratio 600 Aspect ratio 231 Aspect ratio 600
0 28.40 28.4 28.45 28.45
0.05 28.30 33.41 29.48 28.64
0.1 29.35 33.77 30.83 29.66
0.15 31.17 35.12 31.74 31.31
0.2 31.19 35.39 31.82 32.37
0.25 31.23 35.31 33.41 33.07
0.3 30.31 37.41 34.75 33.68
0.4 29.91 37.55 35.57 37.92
88
Appendix D: Permeability test and splitting tensile strength test results
Appendix D1: Table 5.5: Permeability test results
Coefficient of permeability (cm/s)

Fibre content (%)
0 2.58x10-2 2.58x10-2
0.025 9.86x10-3 5.73 x10-3
0.05 1.76 x10-3 4.75 x10-5
0.1 6.14 x10-4 1.21 x10-5
0.2 4.38 x10-4 8.30 x10-6
0.25 1.27 x10-5 8.26 x10-6
0.3 1.58 x10-5 7.43 x10-6
Appendix D2: Table 5.6: Tensile strength results
Tensile strength (MPa)

Fibre content (%)
0 0.17 0.17
0.05 0.25 0.28
0.1 0.29 0.36
0.15 0.31 0.38
0.2 0.35 0.39
0.25 0.38 0.41
0.3 0.35 0.40
0.4 0.31 0.37
89
Appendix E: Compressive strength test and dry density results
Appendix E1: Table 5.7: Compressive strength test results
Fibre content Compressive strength (MPa)

(%) Aspect ratio 231 Aspect ratio 600
0 3.80 3.80
0.05 4.84 5.83
0.1 5.35 5.95
0.15 5.96 6.68
0.2 6.63 7.09
0.25 6.97 7.23
0.3 6.84 6.70
0.4 5.83 6.58
Appendix 2: Table 5.8: Dry density data
Fibre content (%) Dry density of bricks (g/cm)

0 1.97 1.97
0.05 1.99 2.00
0.1 1.99 2.01
0.15 2.01 2.01
0.2 2.01 2.01
0.25 2.00 2.01
0.3 1.98 1.98
0.4 1.97 1.97
90
Appendix F: Initial water absorption rate test and cost analysis of a unit brick
Appendix F1: Table 5.9: Initial water absorption rate
Initial rate of water absorption

Fibre content kg/(m²xmin)
(%)
0 0.42 0.42
0.05 0.38 0.37
0.1 0.34 0.30
0.15 0.30 0.26
0.2 0.22 0.20
0.25 0.19 0.19
0.3 0.18 0.17
0.4 0.17 0.15
Appendix F 2: Table 5.10: Cost of a unit brick reinforced at 0.25% fibre by dry weight of soil
with 6 and 18 mm length fibre
Brick reinforced with 0.25% fibre by dry weight of soil

Material Quantity Unit Cost (Ksh) Total Cost (Ksh)
Laterite soil 240 Kg 2 480
Polypropylene fibre 0.025 Kg 900 22.5
Labour 1 Half day 250 250
Total cost for 18 bricks 752.5
Price of one brick 41.81
91
Appendix G: Unified soil classification system procedure
92
Appendix H: Plasticity chart
93
Appendix I: Chemical composition of the soil
94
Appendix J: Ruiru clay products LTD catalogue
95

Polypropylene Fibre Reinforced Laterite Soil and Bricks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Polypropylene Fibre Reinforced Laterite Soil and Bricks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAN AFRICAN UNIVERSITY, INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCES,

TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION P.O.BOX 62000-00200,

PERFORMANCE OF POLYPROPYLENE FIBRE REINFORCED LATERITE SOIL

Nourou Mahaman Lawali Salaou

Science in Civil Engineering (Structural Option).

Signature: Date: 22/09/2021

Mahaman Lawali Salaou Nourou

This thesis has been submitted with my approval as University supervisor;

Signature: Date: 20/09/2021

Dr. Charles Kabubo

Prof Zachary Abiero Gariy

Signature: Date: 16/09/2021

Dr. Joseph Thuo

Department of Civil Engineering, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology, Kenya

I dedicate this work to God the Almighty.

MDD Maximum dry density

OMC Optimum moisture content

PPFRS Polypropylene fibre reinforced soil

PL Maximum applied load Length

T Tensile splitting strength

IWA Initial rate of water absorption

ρ Dry density of the bricks

PET Polyethylene Terephthalate

USCS Unified Soil Classification System

CSEB Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks

Accessibility to energy-efficient, cost-effective, and environmentally friendly materials is one

LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS/ACRONYMS ......................................... V

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. XII

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. XIV

CHAPTER ONE ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.1. Background of the Study ............................................................................................. 2

1.2. Statement of the Problem............................................................................................. 4

1.3. Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Research questions....................................................................................................... 5

1.5. Justification of the study .............................................................................................. 5

1.6. Scope and limitations of study ..................................................................................... 6

1.6.1. Scope ...................................................................................................................... 6

1.6.2. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 6

CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 7

LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1. Expansive soils....................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Fibres ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1. Natural Fibres......................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1.1. Sisal fibres ........................................................................................................ 11

2.1.1.2. Coconut (coir) fibre.......................................................................................... 12

2.1.1.3. Palm fibres ....................................................................................................... 12

2.1.1.4. Bamboo ............................................................................................................ 13

2.1.1.5. Sugarcane ......................................................................................................... 13

2.1.1.6. Challenges with the use of Natural Fibres ....................................................... 13

2.1.2. Synthetic fibres .................................................................................................... 15

2.1.2.1. Polypropylene fibre .......................................................................................... 16

2.1.2.2. Polypropylene fibre aspect ratio ...................................................................... 17

2.1.2.3. Nylon fibre ....................................................................................................... 18

2.1.2.4. Polyester (PET) fibres ...................................................................................... 18

2.1.2.5. Synthetic fibres in summary ............................................................................ 19

2.3. Empirical Review ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1.3. Polypropylene fibre reinforced soils .................................................................... 21

2.1.4. Fibre reinforced earth bricks ................................................................................ 25

2.4. Summary of literature review and research gap ........................................................ 27

2.5. Conceptual framework............................................................................................... 29

CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................... 30

MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................................... 30