PERFORMANCE OF FULL SCALE EMBANKMENT ON SOFT CLAY

REINFORCED WITH BAMBOO-GEOTEXTILE COMPOSITE AT THE

INTERFACE

HASNITA BT. HIRMAN

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

 PSZ 19:16 (Pind. 1/07)

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT

Author’s full name : HASNITA BT HIRMAN

Date of birth : 4TH APRIL 1984

Title : PERFORMANCE OF FULL SCALE EMBANKMENT ON SOFT CLAY

REINFORCED WITH BAMBOO- GEOTEXTILE COMPOSITE AT THE
INTERFACE

Academic Session : 2009/2010-1

I declare that this thesis is classified as:

CONFIDENTIAL (Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

Act 1972)*

RESTRICTED (Contains restricted information as specified by the

organization where research was done)*

√ OPEN ACCESS I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

(full text)

I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the purpose
of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.

Certified by:

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR

840404-14-5524 PROF. Dr. AMINATON MARTO

(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.) NAME OF SUPERVISOR

Date : 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 Date : 20TH NOVEMBER 2009

NOTES : * If the thesis is CONFIDENTIAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organisation with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
 “I hereby declare that I have read this project report and in my
opinion this report is sufficient in terms of scope and quality for the award of the
degree of Master of Engineering (Civil-Geotechnics)”

Signature : ....................................................
Name of Supervisor : PROF. DR. AMINATON BT. MARTO
Date : NOVEMBER 2009
PERFORMANCE OF FULL SCALE EMBANKMENT ON SOFT CLAY
REINFORCED WITH BAMBOO-GEOTEXTILE COMPOSITE AT THE
INTERFACE

HASNITA BT. HIRMAN

This project report is submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil – Geotechnics)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

November 2009
 ii

I declare that this project report entitled “Performance of Full Scale Embankment on
Soft Clay Reinforced with Bamboo-Geotextile Composite at the Interface” is the
result of my own work except as cited in the references. The report has not been
accepted for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature of any other
degree.

Signature : ……………………………
Name : HASNITA BT. HIRMAN
Date : 20 NOV 2009
 iii

Dedication
To my beloved mother (Hjh. Latifa Bt. Jalil), my sisters (Haslinda Bt. Hirman,
Hasniza Bt. Hirman, Siti Nadia Bt. Hirman) and my brother (Muhammad Haikal B.
Hirman). Thanks for all your love and supports.
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost I would like to show the most gratitude to Allah S.W.T the
most gracious and merciful for giving me a good health physically, mentally and
spiritually that enable me to complete this master project successfully on time.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr.

Aminaton Marto for her valuable advice and great encouragement as well as for her
excellent guidance, comments and assistance in the completion of this master project.
I am also indebted for the amount of time and effort she has spent reading and
correcting my report. Acknowledgments are also due to Mr. Bakhtiar Affandy
Othman, Mr. Mohd Zulkifli Mohd Hanipiah, Mr. Zulkifly bin Abdul Wahid and all
the technicians of Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), who had patiently provided
assistances during the construction of the embankment and laboratory work.

Finally, I would like to convey my utmost thanks to my beloved family

members for their support, encouragement and motivations during the entire period
of my study in UTM Skudai. Not to forget, special thanks are also due to all my
friends, who have given tremendous support throughout my study and also in the
process of completing this project.
 v

ABSTRACT

Road embankments and other constructions on deposits of natural soft clay is

still a challenge in geotechnical engineering. Construction on soft clays becomes
even more important as urban areas all over the world become more and more
congested. Thus a research on improving the bearing capacity and settlement of this
soil is being conducted using bamboo-geotextile composite (BGC) reinforcement by
strengthening the soil. Besides the BGC reinforced, a control embankment,
constructed without any reinforcement to the soft clay was also constructed in
fulfilling the objectives outlined for the study. The embankments were constructed
with final height of 2.97m and 3.071m for BGC reinforced embankment and control
embankment, respectively. The full scale instrumented embankments have a bottom
width of 16m, length of 10m and side slopes of 1V:2H. This study is aimed at
analysing the performance of BGC reinforced embankment, compared to the control
embankment for about 3 months after the end of construction. It is observed that
during the construction phase, the embankment reinforced with BGC settled 0.26m
while the control embankment settled 0.33m, and caused lateral movement of
2.63mm at 3.5m depth and 4.88mm at 4m depth, for the BGC reinforced
embankment and control embankment, respectively. This is thought to be due to the
imposed loads from the backfill soils had been carried strongly by BGC
reinforcement, hence reducing the settlement of BGC reinforced embankment. For
the consolidation settlement, about 0.204m and 0.201m of settlement occurred
beneath the BGC reinforced embankment and control embankment, respectively
after 103 days of the completion of embankment construction. This shows that the
consolidation rate is about the same. At the final height of embankment, an excess
pore pressure of 20.98kPa was developed under BGC reinforced embankment but
dissipated to 9.86kPa after 103 days. For the control embankment, an excess pore
pressure of 23.47kPa was developed and dissipated to 11.15kPa for the same period.
Incorporating geotextile with bamboo exhibited lower deformations as compared to
the use of geotextile only as a separator as in control embankment. This is due to the
confinement of the soil from the square pattern arrangement of bamboo. The soils are
confined laterally in two directions and form an interlock or ‘pocket’ that creates an
increase stiffness of bamboo. With this situation, the BGC reinforcement tends to
distribute vertical stress evenly and minimize total and differential settlement. Hence,
BGC reinforcement could be said to have a great potential to be used as
reinforcement system in improving the bearing capacity and settlement of soft clay.
The end product of this project can be economically scaled towards cost reduction in
embankment construction, particularly when using locally available materials.
 vi

ABSTRAK

Tambakan jalan dan pembinaan lain di atas lapisan tanah liat lembut masih
menjadi cabaran dalam kejuruteraan geoteknik. Pembinaan sesuatu struktur di atas
tanah liat lembut menjadi lebih penting kerana kawasan bandar di seluruh dunia telah
menjadi lebih padat. Oleh sebab itu, kajian untuk meningkatkan keupayaan galas
tanah ini dijalankan dengan menggunakan tetulang komposit buluh-geotekstil (BGC)
untuk menguatkan tanah. Selain tambakan dengan tetulang BGC, tambakan kawalan,
yang dibina tanpa tetulang pada tanah liat lembut juga dibina untuk memenuhi
objektif kajian ini. Ketinggian akhir tambakan untuk tambakan yang diperkuatkan
oleh BGC adalah 2.97m dan tambakan kawalan adalah sebanyak 3.071m. Tambakan
berskala penuh dibina lengkap bersama dengan instrumen geoteknikal yang bersaiz
16m lebar tapak, 10m panjang dan 1V:2H cerun sisi. Kajian ini adalah bertujuan
untuk menganalisa prestasi tambakan BGC berbanding tambakan kawalan selama
lebih kurang 3 bulan selepas pembinaan tambakan. Semasa fasa pembinaan,
tambakan yang diperkuatkan oleh BGC telah terenap sebanyak 0.26m dan 0.33m
pengenapan berlaku untuk tambakan kawalan, dan ini telah menyebabkan berlakunya
pergerakan sisi pada kedalaman 3.5m adalah 2.63mm dan 4.88mm pada kedalaman
4m, masing-masing bagi tambakan dengan BGC dan tambakan kawalan. Hal ini
dipercayai disebabkan oleh beban tambakan yang dikenakan kepada tanah liat telah
dipegang kuat oleh tetulang BGC, dengan itu dapat mengurangkan enapan dari
berlaku. Di dalam fasa enapan pengukuhan, sebanyak 0.204m dan 0.201m enapan
telah berlaku selepas 103 hari dari pembinaan tambakan masing-masing pada
tambakan dengan tetulang BGC dan tambakan kawalan. Ini menunjukkan bahawa
kadar pengukuhan yang berlaku adalah lebih kurang sama diantara kedua-dua
tambkan. Pada ketinggian akhir tambakan, lebihan tekanan air liang pada tambakan
dengan tetulang BGC adalah 20.98kPa tetapi berkurangan kepada 9.86kPa selepas
103 hari. Bagi tambakan kawalan pula, lebihan tekanan air liang adalah sebanyak
23.47kPa tetapi berkurangan kepada 11.15kPa pada masa yang sama. Dapat
diperkatakan bahawa berlakunya deformasi yang rendah dengan menggabungkan
geotekstil dan buluh, berbanding dengan hanya menggunakan geotekstil sahaja
sebagai pemisah. Oleh kerana itu, tetulang BGC dipercayai mempunyai potensi yang
besar untuk digunakan sebagai bahan penguat dalam tanah liat. Hal ini disebabkan
oleh berlakunya pengurungan tanah daripada penyusunan buluh berbentuk
segiempat. Penyusunan buluh seperti ini dapat mengurung tanah secara lateral dalam
dua arah dan membentuk pasakan atau ‘kocek’ bagi meningkatkan kekakuan buluh.
Tetulang ini berfungsi untuk menyebarkan tekanan menegak secara rata dan
meminimumkan enapan serta-merta. Oleh kerana itu, tetulang BGC dipercayai
mempunyai potensi yang besar untuk digunakan sebagai bahan penguat dalam tanah
liat. Produk akhir dari projek ini boleh menjadi skala ekonomi terhadap pengurangan
kos pembinaan tambakan, khususnya ketika menggunakan bahan-bahan yang boleh
diperolehi secara tempatan.
 vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

THESIS TITLE i
DECLARATION ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT v
ABSTRAK vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
LIST OF SYMBOLS xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES xviii

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Problem Statement 2
1.3 Objective of Study 3
1.4 Scope and Limitation of Study 3
1.5 Significant of Study 7

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 Introduction 8
2.2 Soft Soil 8
2.2.1 Soil Classification 8
2.2.2 Characteristic of Clay Soil 9
2.2.3 Problem of Clay Soil 10
2.3 Bamboo 12
 viii

2.3.1 Species of Bamboo 12

2.3.2 Properties of Bamboo 16
2.3.2.1 Physical Properties 16
2.3.2.2 Mechanical Properties 18
2.3.3 Bamboo in Construction Application 20
2.4 Embankment 21
2.4.1 Introduction 21
2.4.2 Design Consideration of Embankment on Soft 22
Soil
2.4.2.1 Bearing Capacity Failure 22
2.4.2.2 Rotational Failure 23
2.4.2.3 Side Displacement Failure 24
2.4.3 Soft Soil Behaviour under Embankment 24
2.4.3.1 Settlement 24
2.4.3.2 Lateral Movement 27
2.4.3.3 Excess Pore Water Pressure Response 32

3 METHODOLOGY 35
3.1 Introduction 35
3.2 Literature Search 37
3.3 Site Construction Work 37
3.3.1 Site Clearing 37
3.3.2 Installation of Instrumentation 38
3.3.3 Installation of Reinforcement Material 39
3.3.4 Construction of Trial Embankment 40
3.3.5 Data Monitoring and Analysis 40
3.4 Laboratory Work 42
3.4.1 Soil Sample Collection 42
3.4.2 Material Selection 43
3.4.3 Determination of Engineering Properties 43
3.4.4 Soil Testing 43
3.4.4.1 Dry Sieve 45
3.4.4.2 Hydrometer Analysis 45
 ix

3.4.4.3 Specific Gravity 46

3.4.4.4 Atterberg Limit 46
3.4.4.5 Compaction Test 46
3.4.4.6 Oedometer Test 47
3.4.4.7 Triaxial – Unconsolidated Undrained 48
3.4.5 Bamboo Testing 49
3.4.5.1 Bending Test 49
3.4.5.2 Tensile Test 51

4 PROPERTIES OF RESEARCH MATERIALS 54

4.1 Introduction 54
4.2 Properties of Foundation Soil (Soft Clay) 56
4.2.1 Particle Size 56
4.2.2 Atterberg Limit 57
4.2.3 Classification of Clay 58
4.2.4 Oedometer Test 59
4.3 Properties of Embankment Soil (Laterite) 59
4.3.1 Particle Size 59
4.3.2 Atterberg Limit 61
4.3.3 Compaction Test 61
4.3.4 Unconsolidation Undrained Test (UU Test) 62
4.4 Properties of Bamboo 63
4.4.1 Bending Test 64
4.4.2 Tensile Test 68

5 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSSION ON 70

PERFORMANCE OF EMBANKMENTS
5.1 Introduction 70
5.2 Construction History 70
5.3 Deformation on the Embankment 72
5.3.1 Settlement 72
5.3.2 Lateral Movements 78
5.4 Total Stress under Embankment 80
 x

5.5 Pore Pressure Response 82

5.6 Strain Gauges Results 84

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 87

6.1 Introduction 87
6.2 Conclusion 87
6.3 Recommendations for Future Research 89

REFERENCES 90

APPENDICES 94
 xi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Number of genera, species and areas of bamboo forests 13

in some countries (Uchimura, 1977)
2.2 Properties of selected bamboo species (Abang Ali, 1984) 14
2.3 Culm size of some bamboo species (Liese, 1986) 15
2.4 Culm evaluation of different bamboo species 15
(Dannenmann et al., 2007)
2.5 Physical properties of some Malaysian bamboos (FRIM, 17
1995)
2.6 Physical properties of six Philippine bamboos (compiled 17
from various reports: Espiloy et al., 1985) (in Siopongco
and Munandar, 1987)
2.7 Typical materials properties of bamboo compared with 19
mild steel, concrete and timber (Abang Ali, 1984)
2.8 Strengths of some Malaysian bamboos (FRIM, 1995) 19
2.9 Mechanical properties of Indonesian bamboos 19
(Gigantochloa apus,Gigantochloa verticillate and
Dendrocalamus asper) (Siopongco and Munandar, 1987)
2.10 Empirical correlation of lateral deformation on 21 30
embankments, (Tavenas et al., 1979)
3.1 Summary of tests carried out and the standard used 44
3.2 Soil testing on soft clay and laterite 44
3.3 Compaction procedures 47
3.4 Recommended loading stages in Oedometer Test 47
4.1 Details of soil sample 56
4.2 Percentage of soil composition 56
 xii

4.3 List of Atterberg Limit value at different depth 57

4.4 Basic properties of clay 58
4.5 Result of consolidation parameters 59
4.6 Properties of laterite soil 60
4.7 Summary of Unconsolidation Undrained Test 63
4.8 Statistical analysis of bending strength at node condition 65
4.9 Result of bending stiffness analysis of bamboo at node 66
condition
4.10 Result of bending stiffness analysis of bamboo at 66
internode condition
4.11 Result of bending modulus of elasticity analysis of 67
bamboo at node condition
4.12 Result of bending modulus of elasticity analysis of 67
bamboo at internode condition
4.13 Tensile test results of bamboo at node and internode 69
condition
4.14 Comparison on properties of bamboo at node and 69
internode condition
5.1 Summary of embankment performance 84
5.2 Result of bending stress and tensile stress induced in 86
bamboo culm
 xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 Layout of trial embankment with the location of 5

boreholes and instrumentation (plan view)
1.2 Instrument arrangements (cross-section y-y) 6
1.3 Location of strain gauges on bamboo and geotextile 6
2.1 The vegetative part of bamboo (Othman and Malek, 16
2003)
2.2 Simple construction of embankment over weak soil 22
with reinforcement (Holtz, 2001)
2.3 Simple illustration of bearing capacity failures (Ochiai 23
et al, 1996)
2.4 Simple illustration of circular slip failures (Ochiai et al, 23
1996)
2.5 Simple illustration of side displacement failures 24
(Ochiai et al, 1996)
2.6 Typical variations in embankment load and settlement 25
with time(Lerouiel et al., 1990)
2.7 Vertical displacement at the embankment toe versus 26
relative embankment height(Hunter and Fell, 2003)
2.8 Vertical displacement beyond toe versus relative 27
embankment height (Hunter and Fell, 2003)
2.9 Typical relation between maximum horizontal 28
displacement, ym and settlement, s under the center of
the embankment (Lerouiel et al., 1990)
 xiv

2.10 Lateral surface displacements at embankment toe 29

versus relative embankment height (Hunter and Fell,
2003)
2.11 Maximum lateral deformation for the 3m control 31
embankment at Muar Trial compared with the selected
empirical method (Asrul Azam and Huat, 2003)
2.12 Maximum lateral deformation for the 6m control 32
embankment at Muar Trial compared with the selected
empirical method (Asrul Azam and Huat, 2003)
2.13 Relation between pore pressure and vertical total stress 34
caused by an embankment (after Tavenas and Leroueil
1980)
2.14 Relation between depth and coefficient of pore 34
pressure, B1.(Lerouiel et al., 1990)
3.1 Flow chart of research methodology 36
3.2 Site condition before and after site clearing 37
3.3 Installation of inclinometer casing 38
3.4 Installation of piezometer 38
3.5 Installation of pressure cell 38
3.6 Installation of strain gauges on the bamboo culm 39
3.7 Assembly of the bamboo in square pattern 39
3.8 Installation of the geotextile on the bamboo layer 39
3.9 Construction of embankments 41
3.10 Data monitoring for inclinometer and hydrostatic 42
profiler
3.11 Illustration of the bending test on bamboo 50
3.12 Static bending tests on progress 50
3.13 Locations of transducer 50
3.14 Bamboo specimen model for tensile test 52
3.15 Tensile tests on bamboo at node condition 52
4.1 Soil profile of construction site 55
4.2 Particle size distribution of soil between 1m to 4m 57
depth
 xv

4.3 Classification of soil using Plasticity Chart (B.S 58

Standard)
4.4 Particle size distribution of laterite soil 60
4.5 Graph of liquid limit of laterite soil 61
4.6 Compaction curve 62
4.7 Mohr Coulomb circle from UU Test 63
5.1 Construction history 71
5.2 Embankment heights after construction phase 71
5.3 Settlement at the end of construction across base of 74
BGC reinforced embankment
5.4 Settlements at the end of construction across base of 74
control embankment
5.5 Settlement after construction across base of BGC 75
reinforced embankment
5.6 Settlements after construction across base of control 75
embankment
5.7 Settlement on the surface of BGC reinforced 76
embankment
5.8 Settlement on the surface of control embankment 76
5.9 Performance of embankment height with foundation 77
settlement for BGC reinforced embankment
5.10 Performance of embankment height with foundation 77
settlement for control embankment
5.11 Lateral movement profile for BGC reinforced 79
embankment
5.12 Lateral movement profile for control embankment 79
5.13 Total stresses with time 81
5.14 Relationship between total stress and excess pore 81
pressure measured under BGC reinforced embankment
5.15 Excess pore pressure under BGC reinforced 83
embankment
5.16 Excess pore pressure under control embankment 83
5.17 Elongation of strain gauges 86
 xvi

LIST OF SYMBOLS

A : Mean cross-sectional area of bamboo

BGC : Bamboo-Geotextile Composite
cu : Undrained cohesion of soils
Cc : Compression index
Cv : Coefficient of consolidation
Cu : Coefficient of uniformity
Cg : Coefficient of gradation
d : Outer diameter of bamboo
di : Inner diameter of bamboo
D : Total deformed clay thickness
D10 : Effective size
D30 : Diameter finer than 30 %
D60 : Diameter finer than 60 %
eo : Initial void ratio
Eb : Bending modulus of elasticity
Et : Tensile modulus of elasticity
Ft : Maximum tensile load
F : Applied maximum load
Gs : Specific gravity
Hnc : Threshold height of embankment
I : Moment of inertia
IP : Plasticity index
If : Stress influence factor
L : Free span of bamboo
mv : Coefficient of volume change
n : Total number of samples
s : Settlement
 xvii

sm : Maximum settlement
sr : Maximum reconsolidation settlement
su : Undrained shearing settlement
Sd : Standard deviation
Su : Undrained shear strength
wL : Liquid Limit
wP : Plastic Limit
xn : Bending strength of individual samples
ym : Maximum horizontal displacement
ymr : Reconsolidation horizontal displacement
ymu : Horizontal displacement due to undrained shearing
y : Lateral deformation at any depth, z
z : Depth of any point
B : Pore pressure coefficient
B1 : Observed initial pore pressure response
x : Average value of bending strength obtained from all samples
σvo’ : Initial effective stress
σp : Pre-Consolidation pressure
σt : Tensile strength
σc : Bending strength
∆u : Change in pore pressure
∆σv : Change in stress
γd : Dry unit weight
γr : Saturated unit weight
δ : Deflection under the point load
ε : Strain
φu : Undrained angle of shearing resistance
 xviii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Bending Test Data of Bamboo 93
B Tensile Test Data of Bamboo 102
C Location of strain gauges 112
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Soft clays exist in most coastal plains of Peninsular Malaysia. Development

activities on those sites involve problems of stability and excessive settlement. This
type of soil usually causes problems to the civil engineer as it has high
compressibility and low shear strength. For severe cases, it is common to construct a
structure supported on pile to stiffen the underlying stratum. Application by using
piling method is known to be very costly and it is not a practical solution to apply
when there are other soil improvement methods available in the market which is
more economical and can improve the performance of the soil.

In developed countries geotextile is widely used as it is available and

affordable, but in many developing countries geotextile is simply not an option due
to the cost. Due to this problem, there exists a need for more economical and readily
available substitutes for geotextile as reinforcement material in construction
application. Bamboo consists of sections of culms that are hollow cylindrical shells,
which are divided by solid transversal diaphragms called nodes. Like timber, bamboo
has a very high strength parallel to the fibres that run longitudinally along the length
of the bamboo, and low strength perpendicular to the fibres. According to Ghavami
(2005), the bamboo density of the fibres in the shell are more uniform at the base of
the culm than the middle or the top. Besides that, Ghavami states that bamboo is a
functionally graded material, meaning that it varies in composition and structure
gradually over volume, which results in corresponding changes in the properties of
 2

the bamboo. Based on the bamboo’s strength, along with its flexibility, toughness,
lightweightness and economical advantage makes it an exceptional construction
material.

This study will focus on Bamboo-Geotextile Composite (BGC) reinforcement

method to improve the performance of embankment laid on soft clay. The
construction of embankments on soft soils can be a challenging task. In this context,
the use of BGC reinforcement to improve embankment stability became more
effectives and economical form of soil reinforcement technique. Nevertheless, before
applying any method it has to be tested first for its performance. This could be
carried out by constructing trial embankments to monitor the settlement, lateral
movement, pore water pressure, etc within the embankment and the foundation soil,
besides monitoring the deformation of the BGC itself using strain gauges.

1.2 Problem Statement

Clays generally exhibit undesirable engineering properties compared with

those of granular soils. They tend to have lower shear strength and to lose shear
strength further upon wetting or other physical disturbances. They can be plastic and
compressible and they expand when wetted and shrink when dried.

Building embankments and other constructions on deposits of natural soft soil

is still a challenge in geotechnical engineering. Construction on soft soils becomes
even more important as urban areas all over the world become more and more
congested, and thus research on this soil is being conducted using bamboo-geotextile
composite reinforcement to strengthen the soil.

Reinforcement laid in between the embankments and ground surface of soft

foundation soil, thus reduce soft soils displacements due to low bearing capacity of
soft soils, prevent overall failure of the embankment and soft foundation soil, and
prevent sliding failure along the reinforcement surface. Bamboo could be one of the
 3

improvement methods to reinforce underlying soft stratum because it could be found

in abundance in Malaysia besides having high tensile and bending strength. Together
with bamboo, the geotextile is also used to act as a separator to prevent embankment
materials from penetrating into soft ground. So, by conducting full-scale
embankment on soft clay reinforced with bamboo-geotextile composite, new finding
will be developed in particular, the deformation performance of the embankments.

1.3 Objective of Study

The purpose of this study is to determine the performance of the embankment

with or without BGC reinforcement to the soils. Hence, the objectives for this study
are:

1. To determine the properties of foundation soil, embankment soil and

bamboo used in this study.

2. To determine the deformation of bamboo-geotextile composite as a

reinforcement material of soft clay, subjected to static load from trial
embankment.

3. To determine and compare the effect of using bamboo-geotextile

composite as soil reinforcement on the deformation of embankment and
foundation soil with the control embankment.

1.4 Scope and Limitation of Study

The full scale trial embankments had been constructed at Research Centre of
Soft Soil (RECESS), UTHM, Batu Pahat, Johor. This research is lead by Prof. Dr.
Aminaton Marto from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) with a Project No.: 03-
 4

01-06-SF0236 funding by Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation Malaysia

(MOSTI). Besides that, the research is also in collaboration between UTM and
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM), TenCate Geosynthetics Sdn Bhd and
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM). The geotextiles and bamboo were
supplied by TenCate Geosynthetics Sdn. Bhd and FRIM Malaysia respectively, while
UTHM provides the research site and basic facilities for the research purposes.

Geotechnical investigation was conducted by Pakatan Geo Services Sdn. Bhd.

to perform Standard Penetration Test, in-situ vane shear test and extract disturbed
sample at certain depth. Standard laboratory test was carried out on the representative
soil samples extruded from the boreholes by UTHM researchers. While, UTM
researcher conducted laboratory tests on the soil samples which is within 3m depth.

The total dimension of the trial embankment is 57 meter in length, 16 meter

in width and about 3 meter in height and with lateritic soil as backfill material. Three
10 meter length of embankments will be constructed, separated by 5 meter of buffer
zones, as shown in Figure 1.1. The first embankment serves as a control embankment
and the other two are embankment reinforced with high strength geotextile and with
BGC.

Semantan bamboo or its scientific name Gigantochloa scortechinii was used

as a reinforcement material for BGC. Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2 show the designated
locations of instrument for the monitoring purposes while, Figure 1.3 indicates the
locations of strain gauges on the bamboos and geotextiles. Instruments like
piezometer, pressure cells, auto reading settlement system, surface settlement marker,
hydrostatic profiler and inclinometer had been installed to monitor the performance
of embankment reinforced by different reinforcement material, as well as control
embankment.

The scope of this study focuses on the control embankment and embankment
with BGC. Control embankment was constructed on soft soil with a separation
geotextile (TS40) at the interface. While, embankment with BGC was constructed on
 5

soft soil reinforced with bamboo and the geotextile (TS40) laid on top of bamboo for
separation purposes. The performances of bamboos and geotextile are monitored by
the strain gauges attached at selected points. This project analyzed the results from
the geotechnical instrumentation already designed by project leader.

Figure 1.1: Layout of trial embankment with the location of boreholes and
instrumentation (plan view)
 6

Figure 1.2: Instrument arrangements (cross-section y-y)

Figure 1.3: Location of strain gauges on bamboo and geotextile

 7

1.5 Significant of Study

This study plays an important role as it presents the performance of the

proposed BGC reinforced embankment compared to unreinforced embankment.
Thus, it is hoped that this study will give a new alternative for a cost effective
solution for bearing capacity problem of soft clay in Malaysia. Furthermore, benefit
from the application of bamboo and geotextile as reinforcement will lead to convince
the usage of this material in the civil engineering structure. Hence, will generate
more income to the primitive villagers (orang asli) who depends on the selling of
bamboo as their income generation activity.
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

There are circumstances that need to be taken into consideration after the
construction of embankment due to time such as excess pore pressure, settlement,
and lateral movement. There are several factors that contribute on the performance of
full-scale trial embankment such as the types of foundation soils, applied load from
embankment fill and material that will be used as reinforcement. To obtain basic
understanding of this study, literature reviews focuses on three sections which is
classifications of soil, bamboo and embankment.

2.2 Soft Soil

2.2.1 Soil Classification

A soil consists of collection of separate particles of various shapes and sizes.

The particle size analysis is to group these particles into separates ranges of sizes and
so, determine the relative proportions, by dry mass of each size range. Soils may be
separated into three very broad categories: cohesionless, cohesive and organic soils.
In the case of cohesionless soils, the soil particles do not tend to stick together (Liu
and Evett, 2004). On the other hand, cohesive soil particles do tend to stick together
 9

and it is categorized by very small particle size where the main element is due to
effects of surface chemical. Organic soils are typically spongy, crumbly and
compressible. They are undesirable for use in supporting structures.

Based on simple definition, soils can be divided into component with particle
size is usually given in terms of the equivalent particle diameter (Head, 1992):
i. Gravel – particles from 60 mm to 2 mm
ii. Sand - particles from 2 mm to 0.06 mm
iii. Silt - particles from 0.06 mm to 0.002 mm
iv. Clay – particles (clay mineral) smaller than 0.002 mm
v. Fines are particles which pass a 63 µm sieve
vi. Clay Fraction is the percentage of particles smaller than 2µm, as
determined by a standard sedimentation procedure

2.2.2 Characteristic of Clay Soil

Particles forming clay consist of complex minerals which are mostly flat and
plate-like or elongated, and of a size less than 0.002 mm. The most significant
properties of clays are its plasticity and cohesion. Clay soils able to take and retain a
new shape when compressed or moulded (Whitlow, 1995). The size and nature of the
clay mineral particles, together with the nature of the adsorbed layer, controls this
property. Where the average specific surface is high, this plasticity may be extremely
high and the soil extremely compressible.

Cohesive soils generally exhibit undesirable engineering properties compared

with those of granular soils. They tend to have lower shear strength further upon
wetting or other physical disturbances. They can be plastic and compressible and
they expand when wetted and shrink when dried.

Clay soils can creep (deform plastically) over time under constant load,
especially when the shear stress is approaching it shear strength, making them prone
 10

to landslides. They develop large lateral pressures and have low permeabilities. For
these reasons, clay soils are generally poor materials for retaining wall backfills.
Being impervious, however, they make better core materials for earthen dams and
dikes.

With low permeability, cohesive soils compress much more slowly because
of the expulsion of water from the small soil pores is so slow. Hence, the ultimate
volume decrease of the cohesive soil and associated settlement of a structure built on
this soil may not occur until some time after the structure is loaded.

2.2.3 Problem of Clay Soil

Saturated cohesive soil can be susceptible to a large amount of settlement

from structural loads. It is usually the direct weight of the structure that causes
settlement of the cohesive soil. However, secondary influences such as the lowering
of the groundwater table can also lead to settlement of cohesive soils. The soil
parameters normally employed and characterized in soft soil problems are:

i. Classification and Index Properties, and Natural Moisture Content

ii. Undrained Shear Strength (Su)
iii. Pre-Consolidation Pressure (σp)
iv. Compression Index (Cc) and the Coefficient of Volume Change (mv)
v. Coefficient of Consolidation (Cv)

The parameters are very important in analyzing the behavior of this soil so
that it can carry extra loads subjected to the soils. These nature creatures are widely
found in Malaysia along the coastal plains area and with the increasing economic
development over the soil; studies were carried out to determine the typical values of
the soils that can contribute to the failure of the soil structure.
 11

For the soft marine clay in Malaysia, Broms (1990) has reported that typical
moisture contents ranges from 60% to 80%. This is different to what has Ting et al.
(1988) and Chen et al. (2003) reported; where the moisture content is typically about
80% to 130% in Penang area and 50% to 100% in Klang area respectively. Brand et
al. (1989) reported that the Muar clay has the water content as high as 100% and
generally exceeds the liquid limit. It is also very common that the moisture content of
the soft clay especially near to the ground level to be higher than the liquid limit.

The in-situ undrained shear strength, Su of soft clay can be directly measured
using field vane shear test. The Su is generally increasing with depth. Typically the
vane shear test results for clay at Klang areas are about 5kPa at depth 2m to 50kPa at
depth 18m (Chen et al., 2003). This is quite similar to Muar Clay and Juru Clay
where the Su ranges between 10kPa at depth 2m to 35kPa at depth 18m, and 10kPa to
30kPa at depth 12m respectively.

Soil compress elastically under light loads but then as shifts and rearrange to
allow increasing amounts of settlement. This stage of settlement is attributed to
primary consolidation, where the rate of settlement is controlled by the time required
to squeeze the pore water out. The most useful compressibility parameters to monitor
the consolidation process are compression index (Cc), recompression index (Cr) and
coefficient of consolidation (Cv).

The compressibility of the soft layers can also be represented using the
compression ratio (Cc/1+eo). For Juru Trial Embankment, Huat et al., (1995) found
out that the compression ratio is in the region of 0.4 to 0.6 and Ting et al., (1988)
reported that the coastal plain areas of Sarawak and Sabah has the average values of
Cc/1+eo vary within a narrow range from about 0.3 in the upper layers to about 0.1 in
the lower layers. Terzaghi and Peck (1967) proposed an empirical correlation
between Cc and Liquid Limit, wL for clays of low to medium sensitivity and wL up to
100% as follow:

Cc = 0.009 (wL – 10) (2.1)

 12

As for clay from Klang areas, Huat et al. (1995) proposed the following relationship
for Klang Clay.

Cc = 0.005 (wL + 71.8) (2.2)

This is because of the sensitivity for Klang Clay is usually range around 3 to 8 and
higher Cc values are expected. Another important parameter is coefficient of
consolidation, Cv where it measure time taken for a soil to consolidate. Values of Cv
are different with types of soft clay. This is proofed by foundation soil found for Juru
Trial Embankment and Muar Trial Embankment, where the Cv varies from 0.3 to 0.4
m2/year (Huat et al., 1995) and Cv values range up to about 14 m2/year
(Balasubramaniam, 1989) respectively. According to Brand et al., (1989), Rowe
1972 stated that laboratory determined Cv value, however, are underestimate the rate
of settlement, since the laboratory permeabilities are much lower than the field values
because of the soil macro-structure. Hence, in common practice for design Cv values
are multiplied by 3 to 10 of those measured in oedometer tests.

2.3 Bamboo

2.3.1 Species of Bamboo

Bamboo is a group of grass plants naturally found in Asia and Africa. It

grows in abundance in the earths subtropical, tropical and even in temperate
countries and can grow up to 40m with external diameter between 25mm and 300mm
(Tewari, 1993). It is reported that over 75 genera and 1250 species of bamboo occur
in the world, (FAO, 1978) (in Thammicha, 1989). Table 2.1 shows the distribution of
bamboo species in some countries. Regions in Asia are rich in genera and species of
bamboo. The most common genera in China and Japan are Phyllostachys and Sasa,
(Uchimura, 1977) (in Siopongco and Munandar, 1987) whereas genera Bambusa and
 13

Dendrocalamus do in tropical regions such Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand,

(Thammicha, 1989).

Abang Ali (1984) reported that the external diameter of Malaysian bamboos
ranging from 30mm to 111mm with thickness of wall varies between 3mm to 18 mm.
The properties of a selected Malaysia bamboo species are tabulated in Table 2.2.
According to Wong (1995) the bamboo culms diameter and height are ranging from
60mm to 300mm and varies from 0.3m to 36m respectively. While Liese (1986) (in
Thammicha, 1989) stated that the culm diameter ranges from 20mm to 35mm with
height varies up to 35m. Data on culm size for various species is tabulated in Table
2.3. Dannenmann et al., (2007) made a review of culms from different bamboo
species in Northern Laos, as shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.1: Number of genera, species and areas of bamboo forests in some countries
(Uchimura, 1977)
Country Genera Species Area (1000 Ha.)
Africa 8 14 -
Bangladesh - - 100
Burma - 42 2000
India 13 136 5000
Indonesia 9 31 50
Japan 14 635 170
Madagascar 9 30 -
Malaysia 8 52 100
New Guinea - 8 -
PR China 26 235 2500
Philippines 12 49 200
Taiwan 21 130 110
Sri Lanka - 10 -
Thailand 10 34 1000

According to Abang Ali (1984), bamboos are the fastest growing and highest-
yielding renewable natural resources in this region. Bamboo generally takes two to
five years to grow to maturity. This growth period is relatively short when compared
to timber which normally requires at least ten years. Abang Ali (1984) found that
there is one Japanese species of bamboo (Phyllostachys bambusoides) that tends to
grow as fast as 1.2 meters per days. While, Malaysian bamboo can have a daily
 14

increment of 15cm to 18cm (Aminudin and Abd. Latif, 1991) (in Khatib, 2009). This
culm growth is due to differences during the process of growing, where shoot/sprout
elongation takes place day and night; the bamboo of genus Phyllostachys in Japan
grows more during the day, whereas in the tropical region bamboos grow faster
during the night (Thammicha, 1989).

Bamboo is primarily a type of giant grass with woody stems. The stems are
called “shoots” when the plant is young and “culms” or “stems” when the plant is
mature (Iyer, 2002). Each bamboo plant consists of two parts – the “culm” that grows
above the ground and the underground “rhizome” that bears the roots of the plant, as
shown in Figure 2.1. Bamboo usually grows in a group that called “clump”. Bamboo
growing in a clump adds a new shoot around one central culm thereby increasing the
culm size radially. As stated by Aminudin and Abd. Latif (1991) (in Khatib, 2009),
bamboo might have 40 to 50 culms in one clump, which adds 10 to 20 culms yearly.

Table 2.2: Properties of selected bamboo species (Abang Ali, 1984)

Bamboo Species Local Name Source External Wall
Diameter Thickness
(mm) (mm)
Dendrocalamus asper Buluh beting Gurun, Kedah 50-90 6-20
bulu
Bambusa blumeana Buluh duri Gurun, Kedah 40-110 5-12
Bambusa vulgaris var. Buluh kuning Yan, Kedah 30-90 4-18
striata
Dendrocalamus giganteus Buluh betung Kulim, Kedah 90-111 5-10
Bambusa vulgaris Buluh minyak Jeram, 40-75 6-13
Selangor
Bambusa heterostachya Buluh jilan Jeram, 30-45 6-8
Selangor
Schizostachyum Buluh lemang Serdang, 40-70 3-6
brachycladum Selangor
 15

Table 2.3: Culm size of some bamboo species (Liese, 1986)

Species Diameter (cm) Height (m)
Arundinaria alpine 8-10 10-20
Bambusa arundinacea 15-18 26-30
Bambusa longispiculata 6-8 15
Bambusa polymorpha 8-15 16-28
Bambusa vulgaris 5-10 8-18
Cephalostachyum pergacile 5-8 10-15
Dendrocalamus giganteus 30-35 30-35
Dendracalamus hamiltonii 10-15 20-25
Dendracalamus strictus 5-12 8-18
Gigantochloa apus 5-12 12-20
Ochlandra travancorica 2-5 2-6
Oxythenanthera nigro-ciliata 6-10 10-15
Phyllostachys bambusoides 12-20 15-25
Phyllostachys pubescens 10-30 10-35

Table 2.4: Culm evaluation of different bamboo species (Dannenmann et al., 2007)
Species Height Culm Internode Wall
(m) Diameter Length Thickness
(cm) (cm) (cm)
Bambusa pallida 14-17 3-5 30-60 0.2-0.6
Bambusa tulda 12-14 2-4 45-50 0.4-0.7
Dendrocalamus asper 14-16 4-7 Up to 100 0.4-0.7
Dendrocalamus membranaceus 12-18 3.6-4 30-50 0.3-0.6
Gigantochloa apus 16-18 4.5 40-50 0.1-0.2
 16

Figure 2.1: The vegetative part of bamboo (Othman and Malek, 2003)

As illustrated in Figure 2.1, a series of nodes and internodes constitutes the

whole culm length. The culm is divided into segments by nodes. The nodes separate
the culm into several sections termed internodes. At each node, there is a tranverse
wall which completely separates the cavity of one internode from the next. Culm
wall thickness varies from thin to thick while other culms are nearly solid inside with
a large diameter at the base which decreases progressively up to the top (Siopongco
and Munandar, 1987).

2.3.2 Properties of Bamboo

2.3.2.1 Physical Properties

The amount of moisture in bamboo varies within and between the species,
height and age of the living culm. The moisture content has a similar influence on the
strength of the bamboo as it has in timber. Generally, in the dry condition the
strength is higher than in the green condition. For some Malaysia bamboos, moisture
content is about 30% to 130%. However the density of bamboo varies from about
0.5g/cm3 to 0.9g/cm3 with the outer culm having a far higher density than the inner
 17

part. Moisture content and density of selected species of bamboo are tabulated in
Table 2.5.

Table 2.5: Physical properties of some Malaysian bamboos (FRIM, 1995)

Species Moisture content (%) Density (g/cm3)
Buluh Duri 57 - 97 0.43 – 0.60
Buluh Minyak 79 – 118 0.27 – 0.57
Buluh Galah 92 – 132 0.44 – 0.58
Buluh Betong 28 – 105 0.55 – 0.78
Buluh Semantan 79 – 108 0.47 – 0.60
Buluh Beting 30 – 77 0.65 – 0.94

According to Siopongco and Munandar, (1987), the differences in moisture

content due to seasons are greater than variations due to age. Internodes contain 2%
to 7% more moisture than the nodes. Green moisture content of six Philippine
species studied ranged from 95% to 174% with an average of 125% and their relative
density or specific gravity varied from 0.461 to 0.626 averaging 0.542, as tabulated
in Table 2.6. As reported in 1983 DBR experiment (in Siopongco and Munandar,
1987), the specific gravity of three species of Indonesian bamboo (Gigantochloa
apus, Gigantochloa verticillata and Dendrocalamus asper) ranged between 0.67 to
0.72 with moisture content ranged in between 10.04% to 10.81%.

Table 2.6: Physical properties of six Philippine bamboos (Espiloy et al., 1985)
(in Siopongco and Munandar, 1987)
Scientific Name Moisture Content (%) Specific Gravity
Bambusa blumeana 136 0.503
Bambusa vulgaris 95 0.626
Dendrocalamus latiflorus 108 0.575
Gigantochloa aspera 119 0.547
Gigantochloa levis 117 0.541
Schizostachyum lima 174 0.461
 18

2.3.2.2 Mechanical Properties

The strength of bamboo depends on the species and on its age, moisture
content, density and culm height. The mechanical properties of bamboo vary with the
age of the bamboo and the height of the culm, as mentioned by Chauhan (2000) (in
Li, 2004). However, higher moisture content will decrease the strength of bamboo
(Prawirohatmodjo 1990) (in Lybeer, 2005). The strength of this material also related
to its density. The density of bamboo varies approximately from 0.5 to 0.9 g/cm³ but
can differ considerably within the culm (increase with the height of the culm) and
between species (Siti & Abd. Latif 1992; Jamaludin et al. 1995; Kabir et al. 1996;
Subyakto 1996) (in Lybeer, 2005).

As the bamboo becomes older, the strength properties increase. This is

probably due to the hardening of the culm walls as the bamboo matures in about 3 to
5 years, by which time it would reached its maximum strength (Lee et al., 1997) (in
Khatib, 2009). On the other hand, Wong (1995) states that culms take 2 to 6 years to
mature which depends on the species. According to Limaye, (1952) (in FRIM, 1995),
young bamboo with higher moisture content shows greater increase in strength on
drying than the older culms.

Abang Ali (1984) presented a comparison between bamboo and the more
common engineering materials, as tabulated in Table 2.7. It was found that bamboo
is very strong in tension, with a few species having tensile strength as high as that for
mild steel. The ratio of tensile to compressive strength of bamboo can be as high as
seven times. FRIM (1995) has conducted an experiment on selected Malaysian
bamboo to evaluate the mechanical properties of bamboo, as shown in Table 2.8. The
bending stress at proportional limit was ranged from 21MPa to 49MPa and it shows
the differences in static bending strengths of specimens (Table 2.8). For the three
species of Indonesian bamboos (Gigantochloa apus,Gigantochloa verticillata and
Dendrocalamus asper) where the age of bamboo was more than three years were
tested to assess its mechanical properties and Table 2.9 shows the test results
(Siopongco and Munandar, 1987). It can be seen that bamboo has more strength in
tension compared to bending strength. According to Ghavami (2005), the tensile
 19

strength of bamboo is relatively high and can reach 370MPa. This makes bamboo an
attractive alternative to steel in tensile loading applications.

Table 2.7: Typical materials properties of bamboo compared with mild steel,
concrete and timber (Abang Ali, 1984)
Material Ultimate Strength (N/mm2) Tensile-Compressive Modulus of
Tension, Compression, Strength ratio, Elasticity
σt σc σt/σc (kN/mm2)
Mild Steel 480 - 1.0 210
Concrete 2-4 25-55 0.1 10-17
Timber 20-110 50-100 1.1 8-13
Bamboo 180-440 38-65 4.8-7.1 7-20

Table 2.8: Strengths of some Malaysian bamboos (FRIM, 1995)

Species Compression Static bending
Parallel to Modulus of Modulus of Stress at
grain (MPa) rupture (MPa) elasticity proportional
(MPa) limit (MPa)
Buluh Duri 19.5 – 28.5 43.1 – 156.4 2.6 – 5.6 21.2 – 38.9
Buluh Minyak 20.5 – 30.0 46.1 – 78.4 4.1 – 8.1 28.7 – 42.6
Buluh Betong 28.3 – 34.6 48.9 – 122.4 3.8 – 8.8 32.2 – 46.8
Buluh Semantan 21.6 – 32.3 35.9 – 68.9 3.7 – 5.9 31.1 – 42.2
Buluh Beting 37.3 – 42.8 37.6 – 119.4 3.7 – 6.5 35.7 – 48.7

Table 2.9: Mechanical properties of Indonesian bamboos (Gigantochloa apus,

Gigantochloa verticillata and Dendrocalamus asper)
(Siopongco and Munandar, 1987)
Properties Range
Tensile strength 118-275MPa
Bending strength 78.5-196MPa
Compression strength 49.9-58.8MPa
Modulus of Elasticity in Tension 8.73-31.38GPa
Modulus of Elasticity in Bending 5.59-21.18GPa
Tensile strain 3.7-24.4kPa
 20

2.3.3 Bamboo in Construction Application

Bamboo for housing and other construction purposes is a renewable and

versatile material. In places where it grows abundantly, it is readily available at
relatively low cost especially in the rural areas. It is lightweight, and therefore, easy
to handle, transport and erect. It also has high strength-to-weight ratio which can be
efficiently utilized in various function in construction application.

Ghavami (2005) stated that durability of bamboo as an engineering material

varies with the type of species, age, conservation condition, treatment and curing. A
research on bamboo reinforcing bars of beam was conducted to overcome the steel
and concrete structures deterioration caused mainly by the corrosion of the steel
reinforcement. Comparisons were made between a steel reinforced concrete column
after 10 years and bamboo reinforced concrete beam tested in 1979 then has been
exposed to open air for 15 years. (Ghavami, 1988) (in Ghavami, 2005). It was
reported that the bamboo segment of the beam reinforcement, treated against insects
as well as for bonding with concrete, is still in satisfactory condition after 15 years.
The test results showed that the ultimate applied load to the bamboo reinforced beam
was increased up to 400% as compared with concrete beam without reinforcement.
Therefore, bamboo reinforced concrete structures can be applied in low cost housing
construction.

Using geosynthetics as building materials in reinforced embankment on soft

ground and reinforced slope are very costly. Bamboo has same attributes (e.g. tensile
strength) as geosynthetics and it also has desirable properties (e.g. high shear strength
and bending resistance) which geosynthetics do not possess, making it prime
candidate to replace geosynthetics in these applications (Douglas, 1988). Irsyam et
al., (2008) has conducted a trial embankment on soft ground reinforced by Bamboo
pile-mattress. From their field observation, the embankment showed adequate
stability against slope failure and bearing capacity failure and actual settlement was
also close to predicted settlement. Hence, bamboo pile-mattress system is proven to
be reliable as ground reinforcement and to distribute settlement more uniformly and
the calculation method was fit with actual condition.
 21

2.4 Embankment

2.4.1 Introduction

Embankment construction is an essential element of any highway and railway

construction. The problem arises when the embankment passes through soft ground
condition such as soft clay. In that case the soil is subject to settlement or stability
problem due to lack bearing capacity of foundation soil. Traditionally, there are
options for stabilizing the soft soil which is by driving deep foundations through the
unsuitable soils thereby avoiding them altogether, excavate and replace the soft soils
with suitable soils, stabilize the soft soils with injected additives or wait until natural
consolidation occur. The methods mentioned are very costly and require a long time
to strengthen the soft foundation soil. To overcome these difficulties, soil
reinforcement was introduced as one of alternative way in embankment construction
over soft clay that proud to be more efficient than other method. Soil reinforcement is
a technique where soil been strengthened by tensile elements such as metal rods or
strips, non-biodegradable fabrics (geotextile or geogrid), granular materials and
bamboo (Das, 2004 and 2006). According to Ochiai et al., (1996), bamboo sheet
reinforcements are able to mobilize reaction forces within the ground due to their
flexural rigidity. In techniques such as “rope sheet” reinforcement, the geosynthetic
generally requires anchorage to adjacent stable ground to support the tensile loads
generated in the reinforcement. However, geotextile or geonet reinforcement may
work fairly well without anchorage if the ground conditions are better.

The beneficial effects of reinforced soil may be considered in terms of both

technical benefits and economic benefits. Technically, the presence of reinforcement
in the soil helps to reduce the forces in the soil which cause failure and helps also to
increase the forces in the soil which resist failure, meanwhile with reinforcement the
construction time can be reduced because only the material need be imported to job
site. Another major application for reinforced soil is to improve the short term
stability of embankments constructed over soft foundation soils, as shown in Figure
 22

2.2. The purpose of the reinforcement is to maintain equilibrium until consolidation

can occur in the soft foundation soil. The foundations strengthen with time during
consolidation and finally support the embankment loading without need for the
reinforcement.

Figure 2.2: Simple construction of embankment over weak soil with reinforcement
(Holtz, 2001)

2.4.2 Design Consideration of Embankment on Soft Soil

The design and construction of embankments on soft foundation soils is a

very challenging geotechnical problem. Without adequate soil reinforcement, the
embankment may fail during or after construction such as deep seated sliding wedge,
or circular failure, lateral spreading or bearing capacity failure. As with ordinary
embankment on soft soils, the basic design approach for a reinforced embankment is
to design against failure. The ways in which embankments constructed on soft
foundations can fail in three possible modes of failure which is bearing capacity
failure, rotational failure and side displacement failure (Terzaghi et al., 1996 and
Holtz, 2001).

2.4.2.1 Bearing Capacity Failure

Bearing capacity is the capacity of soil to support the loads applied to the
ground. Soft foundations supporting embankments may fail in bearing capacity
during or soon after construction when capacity of lay embankment exceed the
 23

capacity of foundation soil. Method by applying soil reinforcement can contribute

toward a solution to these problems. Reinforced soil were placed beneath the
embankment improves stability by increasing the forces resisting failure and help to
hold the embankment together while the foundation strength increases through
consolidation. Figure 2.3 illustrates bearing capacity failure.

Figure 2.3: Simple illustration of bearing capacity failures (Ochiai et al, 1996)

2.4.2.2 Rotational Failure

Rotational failure also known as circular slip failure. These types of failure
normally occur at the edge of embankment and this is due to the driving forces is
greater than the resisting forces. Rotational slope and/or foundation failures can be
resisted by the use of reinforcement with adequate tensile strength and embankment
fill with adequate shear strength. Thus, the tensile strength of the reinforcement must
be sufficiently high to control the large unbalanced rotational moment because failure
can occurs through the embankment, foundation layer and the reinforcement. Figure
2.4 illustrates circular slip failure.

Figure 2.4: Simple illustration of circular slip failures (Ochiai et al, 1996)
 24

2.4.2.3 Side Displacement Failure

Excessive horizontal sliding of embankments and foundation soils may occur

from large lateral earth pressures caused by embankment soils. These forces are
determined from the embankment height, slopes and fill material properties. During
construction, the embankment would resist these modes of failure through shear
forces developed along the embankment-foundation interface. Where reinforcements
are used between the soft foundation and the embankment, the reinforcement will
increase the resisting forces of the equilibrium. Reinforced soil may fail by fill
material sliding off the reinforcement surface. These failures can be prevented by
specifying the soil reinforcement that meets the required tensile strength. Figure 2.5
illustrates side displacement failure.

Figure 2.5: Simple illustration of side displacement failures (Ochiai et al, 1996)

2.4.3 Soft Soil Behaviour under Embankment

2.4.3.1 Settlement

The settlement of foundation soil (clay soil) that occurred during and after
construction of embankment is due to the applied loads with time, as shown in Figure
2.6. In the first phase, the foundation soil is in overconsolidated condition and has
high rate of consolidation. Therefore, the settlement is small and increases linearly
with increasing of embankment load (OP’). The clay soils becomes normally
 25

consolidated stage when height of embankment is greater than critical height

(H>Hnc) and start to respond in undrained condition. As illustrated in Figure 2.6,
settlement of P’A’ occurred when the rate of consolidation is decreasing. Finally,
after the end of construction the consolidation settlement decreased at lower rate with
time (A’D’). However, settlement under the center of the embankment does not
provide an indication for an impending failure condition. The reason for this is
considered to be that in most cases the settlement monitoring point under the center
of the embankment is not located within the failure zone (Hunter dan Fell, 2003).

Figure 2.6: Typical variations in embankment load and settlement with time
(Lerouiel et al., 1990)

Research conducted by Hunter and Fell (2003) shows that the vertical
deformation at the toe of the embankment versus the relative embankment height, as
shown in Figure 2.7. Meanwhile, Figure 2.8 presents the vertical deformation
behaviour beyond the embankment toe (approximately 5 m distance beyond the toe).
In all cases the monitoring point beyond the toe was located within the eventual
failure zone.

The vertical displacement at and particularly beyond the toe of the

embankment is a good indicator of an impending failure condition. For measurement
points beyond the toe, negligible vertical deformations were usually observed during
the initial period of embankment construction, and the impending failure condition
was identifiable by heave movements or large increases in the rate of heave
movement with increasing embankment height. These observations apply to a wide
 26

variety of soil types from low sensitivity, ductile high plasticity clays to highly
sensitive, low plasticity clays and silts. Works by Hunter and Fell (2003) shows that
for the highly sensitive, low plasticity clay foundations (St. Alban and James Bay)
the amount of vertical deformation is relatively small (up to 10–15 mm) up to
approximately 90% of the eventual embankment failure height.

Figure 2.7: Vertical displacement at the embankment toe versus relative

embankment height (Hunter and Fell, 2003)
 27

Figure 2.8: Vertical displacement beyond toe versus relative embankment height
(Hunter and Fell, 2003)

2.4.3.2 Lateral Movement

Asrul Azam and Huat (2003) defined lateral movement as horizontal outward
flow of soil when subjected to shear stresses which increase at the different rate with
vertical settlement due to the anisotropic behavior of the soil. Embankment of limited
width induces vertical settlement and lateral deformation of the foundation soil
whereas large fill areas will experience significant vertical settlement. According to
Asrul Azam and Huat (2003), Duncan and Poulos (1981) categorized lateral
deformation for embankment as follows:

i. Deformation within the foundation soil which is relatively softer than the
embankment itself (for example deformations of road embankment on soft
clay as foundation), and
ii. Deformation within the embankment when the foundation soil is relatively
stiffer (more significant when dealing with dam’s foundation where stiffer
foundation is expected).

Lateral movement of foundation soil at the edge of the embankment shows

the same behavior as the settlement (Figure 2.9). During construction phase,
 28

overconsolidated and drained condition causes the horizontal displacement lower

than settlement (OP’). This is happen when the effective stress path approach to Ko
condition (zero lateral strain). The lateral movement arises at the same rate as vertical
movement when the construction is completed where the clays will respond at
normal consolidation undrained condition. In the end, the lateral movement is less
than settlement when long term consolidation of the foundation soil takes place
(A’D’).

The observed lateral displacements at the toe of the embankments are shown
in Figure 2.10. From the observations, Hunter and Fell (2003) summarized that:

i. In most cases an increase in the rate of lateral displacement relative to the

embankment height occurs at about the threshold height, Hnc, determined
from the pore pressure response, which is in agreement with the interpretation
of the behavior of embankments on soft ground to limit state theory.
ii. A further increase in the rate of lateral surface displacement occurs in most of
the case studies analyzed at relative embankment heights of 70–90%. It is
considered that this behavior is an indication of an impending failure
condition.
iii. For 11 of the 12 cases analyzed, the lateral surface displacement is a good
indicator of impending failure. These cases cover a broad range of soil types
from brittle to ductile and low to high plasticity.

Figure 2.9: Typical relation between maximum horizontal displacement, ym and

settlement, s under the center of the embankment (Lerouiel et al., 1990)
 29

According to Hunter and Fell (2003), for embankment constructed at

relatively slow rates (Muar Embankment constructed at rates of 0.02– 0.055 m/day)
the lateral surface displacement was a good indicator of the impending failure, but for
the embankments constructed at more rapid rates (Rio de Janiero at 0.1 m/day and
King’s Lynn at 0.67 m/day) the lateral surface displacement was not such a good
indicator.

Figure 2.10: Lateral surface displacements at embankment toe versus relative

embankment height (Hunter and Fell, 2003)

Asrul Azam and Huat (2003) presented the empirical correlation of lateral
deformation analyses from previous researchers (Mesri et al. (1994), Tavenas et al.
(1979) and Bourges and Mieussens (1979)) Empirical method normally correlates
maximum lateral deformation, ym to the maximum settlement, sm. However, Mesri et
 30

al. (1994) correlates undrained shear strength of soil with maximum lateral
deformation as follows:



  (2.3)


Where, Su is undrained shear strength of foundation soil and ym is maximum lateral

deformation within the foundation depth.

Tavenas et al., (1979) suggested that to separate lateral deformation into two major
stages which are during construction phase and after construction phase. They
concluded the empirical correlation based on observation on 21 embankments, as
shown in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10: Empirical correlation of lateral deformation on 21 embankments,

(Tavenas et al., 1979)
Maximum lateral deformation Empirical correlation
During construction phase,
-reconsolidation horizontal displacement, ymr ymr=(0.18±0.09)sr
-horizontal displacement due to undrained shearing, ymu ymu=(0.91±0.2)su

After construction phase ymc=0.2sr+su

*sr = maximum reconsolidation settlement
*su = undrained shearing settlement

Bourges and Mieussens (1979) expressed normalized deformation with depth in

cubic empirical correlations as follows:

Y = 1.78Z3 – 4.72Z2 + 2.21Z + 0.71 (2.4)

where,
Y=y/ym= (lateral deformation at any depth, z)/(maximum lateral deformation)
Z=z/D= (depth of any point, z)/(total deformed clay thickness)
 31

Studies on lateral deformation analysis using empirical method for two

selected embankments (3m and 6m Muar Trial) and compared with the available
inclinometers reading by Asrul Azam and Huat (2003) have shown that for 3m Muar
Trial, the deformation shape does not meet any agreement and it thought to be due to
the consolidation stage of upper and lower 10m of the clay layer, as illustrated in
Figure 2.11. From the figure, the calculated maximum lateral deformation at end of
construction is 143.6mm at depth 5.5m but the actual maximum lateral deformation
is 147.4mm at depth 5m. The ratio between maximum lateral deformation and
maximum settlement using empirical method proposed by Tavenas is 0.2, while for
actual behavior is ranges 0.13 to 0.2. Asrul Azam and Huat (2003) have presented the
calculated maximum lateral movement for 6m Muar Trial is much larger than the
observed. As shown in Figure 2.12, the maximum lateral deformation calculated is
191.98mm at 6.5m depth against the actual is 129.84mm at 3.5m depth. For this
embankment the ratio between maximum lateral deformation and maximum
settlement is ranging from 0.10 to 0.13 which very low as compared to 0.2 used in
the empirical method. Asrul Azam and Huat (2003) had concluded that empirical
method does not gives considerably good indication to predict lateral deformation
because of the complexity of clay behavior during the deformation process.

Figure 2.11: Maximum lateral deformation for the 3m control embankment at Muar
Trial compared with the selected empirical method (Asrul Azam and Huat, 2003)
 32

Figure 2.12: Maximum lateral deformation for the 6m control embankment at Muar
Trial compared with the selected empirical method (Asrul Azam and Huat, 2003)

2.4.3.3 Excess Pore Water Pressure Response

The pore water pressure response during construction of embankment is in

accordance with the increasing vertical total of the embankment, as shown in Figure
2.13. In the early stage, change in pore pressure, ∆u is less than change in stress, ∆σv
and the values of pore pressure coefficient, B=∆u/∆σv varies with depth in the clay
due to isochrones relation as illustrated in Figure 2.14. At some stage in the
construction process, the pore pressure generated (at a specific piezometer) is
observed to increase to an incremental B value of approximately 1. According to
Hunter and Fell (2003), Leroueil et al. (1978) had interpreted this to be where the
critical vertical stress at the piezometer is equivalent to the pre-consolidation pressure
(P’ in Figure 2.13). The embankment height at which this occurred they termed the
“threshold embankment height” or critical embankment height, Hnc. Equation (2.5)
defines the threshold height.



  2.5
 1 
 
 33

where at a given depth below the central portion of the embankment σp′ is the pre-
consolidation pressure; σvo’ is the initial effective stress; γr is the saturated unit weight
of the embankment soil, If is the stress influence factor (for the applied load, defined
using Osterberg Chart); and B1 is the observed initial pore pressure response
(determined from Figure 2.14).

With further loading, in undrained condition with the clay in a normally

consolidated condition, the excess pore pressure response is typically at an
incremental B value of approximately 1 (B2 in Figure 2.13) or ∆u=∆σv. In this stage
of the loading, the clay is characterized by high compressibility and a low coefficient
of consolidation, Cv resulting in low rates of excess pore pressure dissipation.
Leroueil et al. (1978) (in Hunter and Fell, 2003) analyzed that in most of the cases
the rate of construction was sufficiently high that negligible excess pore pressure
dissipation occurred. As a result, at the end of construction under stable embankment
(A’ in Figure 2.13) the pore pressure is given by

∆    
 
  (2.6)

With further loading the soil reaches a localized failure condition, and Bf > 1
is observed (Figure 2.13). A localized failure occurs where the effective stress
conditions in a portion of the foundation reach the failure surface (it is generally
initiated at a zone in the foundation below the embankment slope and toe). Complete
failure of the embankment does not necessarily occur once a localized failure
condition is reached as the localized failure zone is supported by the surrounding
unfailed soil. Reports by Hunter and Fell (2003) on the excess pore pressure response
of 13 well-monitored embankments on soft ground that were constructed to failure
stated that in most cases, shows that the excess pore pressure response does not
provide an indication of the impending failure because the piezometer is generally
not located within the localized failure zone.
 34

Figure 2.13: Relation between pore pressure and vertical total stress caused by an
embankment (after Tavenas and Leroueil 1980)

Figure 2.14: Relation between depth and coefficient of pore pressure, B1
(Lerouiel et al., 1990)
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This project is divided into two main categories which are site construction
woks and laboratory works. This chapter discusses the research methodology that
includes testing material samples and analysis of data performed in this study. As
well as, preparation on literature search were carried out to determine basic
understanding of constructing the full scale embankment, behavior of soft soil and
performance of the embankment.

The research work started with the construction of full scale embankment, so
that monitoring process can be conducted to achieve the objective of the study. After
site clearing process, the sub-base was prepared at 150mm from the existing ground
level so that the site will be cleared from peat soil and roots. The geotechnical
instrumentations were installed at the designated location before the installation of
reinforcement materials were laid on the sub-base. Then, a 3m thick lift of
embankment was placed on the reinforcement material. Finally, monitoring process
was carried out to evaluate the performance of the embankment.

The laboratory works begin with the soil sample collection and selection of
the materials namely geotextile and bamboo. Sample of materials were then tested to
determine their characteristics, which mainly carried out using established methods
in accordance with British Standard (BS) and/or the American Society of Testing
Mateial (ASTM). All parameters were then used in modeling process to predict the
 36

performance of the embankment. Laboratory testing was conducted in the

Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory and Structure Engineering Laboratory at the
Faculty of Civil Engineering, UTM. The research methodology exercised to carry out
this study is presented in the form of a flow chart as illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Flow chart of research methodology

 37

3.2 Literature Search

Literature search were carry out to determine basic understanding of

constructing the full scale trial embankment. It is necessary to have some knowledge
on the behavior of soft soil, the reinforcement that will be used which is bamboo and
geotextile and geological condition of the proposed site. All information are based on
journals, conference proceeding, books and internet sources. Meanwhile, site visit
were also conducted at UTHM to have general view of the site. This phase also
focuses on the past research such as Muar trial embankment to identify and overcome
incoming problems. Determination of instrumentation is another case to obtain a
good data analysis from monitoring work.

3.3 Site Construction Work

3.3.1 Site Clearing

For site clearance and preparation for construction, first is to determine the
area for construction and do setting out to provide proper construction area. Finally,
preparing the site by clearing, grubbing and stripping of top soil to make preparation
for instrument installation. Figure 3.2 shows site condition before and after clearing.

Before After

Figure 3.2: Site condition before and after site clearing

 38

3.3.2 Installation of Instrumentation

After the entire site clearing process was done, geotechnical instrumentations
were installed at the designated location. There are several geotechnical
instrumentation to be installed at the embankment such as piezometer, settlement
gauges, inclinometer, hydrostatic profiler and the instrumentations was connected to
the data logger for monitoring purposes. Figure 3.3 to Figure 3.5 shows installation
of geotechnical instrumentation.

Figure 3.3: Installation of inclinometer casing

Figure 3.4: Installation of piezometer

Figure 3.5: Installation of pressure cell

 39

3.3.3 Installation of Reinforcement Material

The reinforced soil installation was constructed by the following procedure:

i) Install the strain gauges at selected point on bamboo and geotextile to monitor
the deformation of the materials (Figure 3.6).
ii) Assembly of the bamboo in square pattern on the existing ground (Figure 3.7).
iii) Installation of the geotextile on the bamboo layer (Figure 3.8).

Figure 3.6: Installation of strain gauges on the bamboo culm

Figure 3.7: Assembly of the bamboo in square pattern

Figure 3.8: Installation of the geotextile on the bamboo layer

 40

3.3.4 Construction of Trial Embankment

The trial embankment was constructed by the following procedure (Figure 3.9):

i) Laterite soil was imported from nearby site as backfill material for the
embankment.
ii) Eleven (11) tones of smooth-wheel roller compactor had been used to compact
the fill soil and the embankment was compacted in eight layers where the
proposed height of embankment is 3 meter. For first layer, 900mm height of
embankment were constructed to avoid reinforcement material from damage
and with an advancing seven layers with 300mm until it reach about 3m. The
degree of compaction was checked by taking the sample using core cutter and
speedy moisture tester for each layers of compaction.
iii) Install the settlement marker on top of embankment.

3.3.5 Data Monitoring and Analysis

There are several aspects that need to be considered in data monitoring and
analysis. Soil instrumentation had to be calibrated to ensure that the instruments are
in good condition. After that is the monitoring process from instrumentation to
computer through data logger for analyzing data. From monitoring process, lateral
displacement, pore water pressure at different depth, settlement of foundation and
settlement of embankment can be determined to evaluate the performance of the trial
embankment. Figure 3.10 shows example of data monitoring for inclinometer
reading to evaluate horizontal displacement. Analysis to the collected data had been
carried out to find the behavior of the whole structure through time. It will be
presented in a graph for easier interpretation.
 41

(a) Imported soil for backfilling process (b) Leveling process

Core cutter

(c) Compaction process (d) Check the degree of compaction

using core cutter

Settlement Marker

(e) Measure moisture content using (f) Installation of settlement marker on

speedy moisture tester top of embankment.

Figure 3.9: Construction of embankments

 42

a b

Figure 3.10: Data monitoring for (a) Inclinometer and (b) Hydrostatic Profiler

3.4 Laboratory Work

3.4.1 Soil Sample Collection

Undisturbed samples of clay at different depth were taken from a borehole

(BH1 in Figure 1.1) using wash boring for the determination of foundation soil
properties. Collection of undisturbed clay samples were conducted by Pakatan
GeoServices Sdn. Bhd for depth between 5m to 34m. Seven undisturbed samples had
been obtained. These samples were tested by UTHM researcher. For a depth between
the ground level and 5m depth, six samples were taken at different levels, two each
from three locations (PS1, PS2 and PS3 in Figure 1.1), using hand operated piston
samplers. Each location represents the respective center of the three embankments
constructed in this project. The undisturbed samples obtained using thin tube
samplers were sealed tightly using wax at both ends of the samplers and transported
to the laboratory using vibration-free container. These samples were then subjected
to various testing as described later in this chapter.
 43

3.4.2 Material Selection

To achieve the intentions and the aim of this research, a careful selection of
materials had been carried out. The study is to use geotextile alone as a separator and
bamboo-geotextile composite system as reinforcement to increase the ultimate
bearing capacity of soft clay layer. Thus the materials used in this study had been
selected which are Semantan Bamboo and Geotextile TS40.

3.4.3 Determination of Engineering Properties

Two types of material had been tested which is soil and bamboo. There are
two categories of soil involved in the proposed work that is foundation soil, (soft
clay) and embankment soil, (laterite). In determining the engineering properties of
the materials used in this research, the British Standard Methods of Test of Soil for
Civil Engineering purposes (BS1377:1990) and the respective American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards were referred, depending upon the
suitability and availability of the equipment in the laboratory. However, in the
absence of the standard method, reference were made to earlier work by other
researchers, but modified accordingly. The summary of the tests carried out and the
standard used is as shown in Table 3.1.

3.4.4 Soil Testing

The physical properties of soils were determined by carrying out tests on

samples of soil in a laboratory. These tests can be divided into two main categories.
First is classification test which indicate the general type of soil and the engineering
category to which it belongs. Second category was tests for the assessment of the
engineering properties, such as shear strength, compressibility and permeability. Soil
samples taken from the site shows the real situation of the site condition. It is
 44

important to determine the parameters of the soil so that prediction to the behavior of
the soil in the future can be made. Soil tests conducted for both soft clay and laterite
is tabulated in Table 3.2.

Table 3.1: Summary of tests carried out and the standard used
Material Name of test/Parameters Standard/Method used
Clay Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit BS 1377:Part2:1990:4,5
Specific Gravity BS 1377:Part2:1990:8
Grain Size Analysis
- Sieve BS 1377:Part2:1990:9
- Hydrometer BS 1377:Part2:1990:9
Odoemeter Test BS 1377:1975:Test 17
Consolidation Undrained Test BS 1377:1975
Laterite
Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit BS 1377:Part2:1990:4,5
Specific Gravity BS 1377:Part2:1990:8
Grain Size Analysis
- Sieve BS 1377:Part2:1990:9
- Hydrometer BS 1377:Part2:1990:9
Compaction Test BS 1377:Part4:1990:3
Unconsolidation Undrained Test BS 1377:1975
Bamboo Bending Test ASTM A370
Tensile Test -

Table 3.2: Soil testing on soft clay and laterite

Type of soil Soft clay Laterite
Engineering classification:

Grain size analysis √ √

Atterberg limits √ √
Hydrometer test √ √
Specific gravity √ √
Engineering properties:

Compaction test √
Consolidation Undrained test, CU √
Unconsolidation Undrained test, UU √
Oedometer test √
 45

3.4.4.1 Dry Sieve

The sample of sand was placed on a tray and is allowed to dry overnight in an
oven maintained at 105oC - 110oC. After drying, the sample was allowed to cool and
their weights are measured. The sieves used for sieving the samples were 5mm,
3.35mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 600µm, 425µm, 300µm, 212µm, 150µm and 63µm. sieves
are nested together with the largest aperture sieve at the top and the receiving pan
under the smallest aperture sieve at the bottom.

Mechanical sieve shaker were used and is shaken for 10 minutes for all
particle smaller than each aperture size to pass through. After shaking, the mass of
soil retained in each sieve was measured.

As for clay, the procedure for the test is similar but only involved five sieves
size. The sizes were 600µm, 425µm, 300µm, 212µm, 150µm and 63µm, where the
test were carried out after sedimentation test (using hydrometer) on particles passing
63µm.

3.4.4.2 Hydrometer Analysis

The principle of hydrometer analysis is based on Stoke’s Law and the test
was conducted to measure the density of soil, pretreated in a suspension in water at
various intervals of time. Hence, to determine the distribution of particle size on fine
grain of soil having size smaller than 63µm. the procedure of this test is explained in
detail in BS 1377:Part2:1990:9.5.
 46

3.4.4.3 Specific Gravity

Specific gravity is defined as a density of material divided by density of

water. The specific gravity, Gs were determined using small pycnometer method;
hence it is accurate measurement of the density of particle heavier than water. This
method is suitable for soils consisting of particles finer than 2mm and distilled water
was used as the density bottle fluid. The test procedure is in accordance to BS
1377:Part2:1990:8.3.

3.4.4.4 Atterberg Limit

The Atterberg Limit is used to correlate soil strata occurring in different areas
of a site or to investigate in detail the variations of soil properties which occur within
a limit zone. There were two test carried out for Atterberg Limit Test which is Liquid
Limit, wL and Plastic Limit, wP in accordance to BS 1377:Part2:1990:4.3,5.3.

The Plasticity Index, IP is the numerical difference between Liquid Limit and
Plastic Limit, IP = wL – wP where value of IP will categorized the plasticity of the
soils using plasticity chart.

Clay samples were prepared for testing from its natural state. While, samples
of sand are sieved passing 425µm then it was mixed with distilled water and were
leave for 24 hours to mature before proceeding with the test.

3.4.4.5 Compaction Test

Compaction test was carried out using multiple soil batches, where five or
more representative specimens for test are prepared. ‘Light’ and ‘Heavy’ compaction
test were conducted to find a compatibility with site compaction result such as the
 47

optimum moisture content and maximum dry density. Both compaction tests were
carried out as described in BS 1377:Part4:1990:3.5 and BS 1377:Part4:1990:3.5
respectively. The procedure used for two types of British Standard Compaction Test
is summarized in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Compaction procedures

Types of test Mould Rammer No. of Blows per
Mass(kg) Drop(mm) layers layer
BS ‘Light’ One Litre 2.5 300 3 27
BS ‘Heavy’ One Litre 4.5 450 5 27

3.4.4.6 Oedometer Test

The oedometer consolidation test is used for the determination of the

consolidation characteristics of soils of low permeability. The two parameters
normally required are coefficient of consolidation, Cv and coefficient of
compressibility, mv. The test was carried out using DS7 software where data are
collected automatically by data logger. This software states that the next load
increment is applied for every 24 hours using recommended loading stages with the
pressure suggested in the British Standards with normal procedure is to double the
pressure at new stage. Table 3.4 shows the recommended loading stages with
suggested disposition of hanger weight due to 10:1 beam ratio, used in oedometer
test.

Table 3.4: Recommended loading stages in Odoemeter Test

Pressure on Specimen – BS 1377:1975 Suggested Disposition of Hanger Weight
(kPa) (kg)
25 0.5
50 1
100 2
200 4
400 8
800 16
 48

The test generally follows the procedure given in BS 1377:1975, Test17. The
apparatus referred to, incorporating a fixed ring type of oedometer cell with a test
specimen 50mm diameter and 20mm high.

3.4.4.7 Triaxial – Unconsolidated Undrained

This test method covers determination of the strength and stress-strain

relationships of a cylindrical specimen of either undisturbed or remolded soil.
Specimens are subjected to a confining fluid pressure in a triaxial chamber. No
drainage of the specimen is permitted during the test. The specimen is sheared in
compression without drainage at a constant rate of axial deformation.

In this test method, the compressive strength of a soil is determined in terms

of the total stress, therefore, the resulting strength depends on the pressure developed
in the pore fluid during loading. In this test method, fluid flow is not permitted from
or into the soil specimen as the load is applied, therefore the resulting pore pressure,
and hence strength, differs from that developed in the case where drainage can occur.

By using the compacted specimens, where the degree of saturation is less than
100 %, consolidation may occur when the confining pressure is applied and during
shear, even though drainage is not permitted. Therefore, if several partially saturated
specimens of the same material are tested at different confining stresses, they will not
have the same undrained shear strength. Thus, the Mohr failure envelope for
unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests on partially saturated soils is usually curved.
The unconsolidated undrained triaxial strength is applicable to situations where the
loads are assumed to take place so rapidly that there is insufficient time for the
induced pore-water pressure to dissipate and for consolidation to occur during the
loading period.
 49

3.4.5 Bamboo Testing

In this research, bamboo was used as one of the reinforced soil material on
one of the trial embankment. However, the guidelines of the design and construction
of the embankment using the above reinforcing materials have not been well-
established. To achieve the objective of the research, first is to determine the bamboo
properties and finally design consideration can be made.

Semantan bamboo was supplied by FRIM with two types of diameter

approximately 40 mm and 80 mm and the following laboratory tests were conducted
to obtain the mechanical properties of bamboo; tensile strength and bending strength.
The tensile strength test was carried out for the bamboo to determine the tensile
strength at the node and internodes. Meanwhile, bending test was conducted to obtain
the bending strength at the node and internodes subjected to point load.

3.4.5.1 Bending Test

Bending test was conducted at structure laboratory and for the preparation,
samples of bamboo were cut into 1.2m long as well as the supports were designed to
support both end of bamboo while loads are applied. The test was carried out at node
and internode of bamboo, as shown in Figure 3.1. Meanwhile, three transducers were
placed under the bamboo to monitor the displacement during applied loads. Figure
3.2 illustrates condition of bending test were conducted; location of bamboo support,
location of transducers and static applied load.

The bamboo was placed between two supports but both ends were not
restrained. This is to ensure that the bamboo was free to follow the bending action
during the test. A vertical loading was subjected to the center of 1.0m span of
bamboo with 0.5kN increment of loads. In addition, the transducers were placed
underneath the bamboo at the center of 1.0m span and at 0.25m apart from the
support, to measure displacement while loads are applied. Figure 3.3 explains
 50

location of transducers with support at both end and point load in the middle of the
span.

Figure 3.11:
3.1 Illustration of the bending test on bamboo

Figure 3.12:
3. Static bending tests on progress

Figure 3.13: Locations of transducer

 51

The bending stress is calculated using Equation 3.1 as mentioned by (Jansen

2000) and Equation 3.2 as described in beam formulas of circular hollow section:


. .

  2 3.1
6

with

1

       3.2
64

where F is the applied maximum load, L is the free span, d is the outer diameter, di is
the inner diameter and I is the moment of inertia.

The calculation for bending modulus of elasticity using Elastic-curve

equations for prismatic beams for a concentrated load at midspan of a simply
supported beam. The bending modulus of elasticity is calculated using Equation 3.3.


  3.3
48 

where F is the applied maximum load, L is the free span, I is the moment of inertia,
and δ is the deflection under the point load.

3.4.5.2 Tensile Test

Tensile tests were conducted in accordance to the ASTM A370 Standards

using INSTRON-5567 machine. The test was carried out at node and internode of
bamboo with various lengths and thickness of specimen. Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5
illustrate the bamboo specimen model and the schematic diagram of tensile test
 52

respectively. The specimen was placed in the testing machine and load was applied.
Graph of load versus extension were plotted automatically and give result for
maximum load and extension at break. The stress obtained at highest applied force is
the Tensile Strength. The tensile strength, σt has been calculated using the following
formula (Jansen, 2000):



  3.4


where Ft is the maximum tensile load at which the piece fails and A is the mean
cross-sectional area.

Figure 3.14: Bamboo specimen model for tensile test

Figure 3.15: Tensile tests on bamboo at node condition

 53

The calculation for tensile modulus of elasticity using basic formula to find
the elasticity of the material. The tensile modulus of elasticity is calculated using
Equation 3.5.


  3.3


where σt is tensile strength, and ε is the strain.

 CHAPTER 4

PROPERTIES OF RESEARCH MATERIALS

4.1 Introduction

Earlier chapter discussed several materials used in this study which are
undisturbed soft clay, lateritic soil and bamboo. Analysis of the test results especially
the engineering properties of these materials are discussed in this chapter. Figure 4.1
shows a soil profile of the construction site, prepared from the geotechnical
investigation that was conducted by Pakatan GeoServices Sdn. Bhd. while Table 4.1
indicates the details of undisturbed soil sample taken at various depth and location.

Based on the soil boring test using wash boring drilling machine and in-situ
test results conducted by Pakatan Geo Services Sdn. Bhd., it can be concluded that
the sub-surface soils consist of very soft to soft SILT/CLAY soils to a depth of
22.5m, followed by a firm to very stiff, SILT/CLAY soils to a depth of 30m below
ground surface. From the in-situ vane shear test, the undrained shear strength of soft
soil is found to be between 17kPa and 20kPa at 3m and 6m depth, respectively. The
deep boring work was terminated at a depth of 34.81m below ground surface after
reaching 3 consecutive Standard Penetration test (SPT), N values equal to 50. At this
level the soils can be described as hard, whitish grey, SILT/CLAY soils. On
completion of the work, the ground water level was found to be at about 0.2 to 0.5m
below the existing ground.
 55

0 TOP SOIL, Brown, CLAY with parts of roots

2 Very soft to soft, Reddish brown and dark grey mottled, SILT
with traces of sand
N=2
4 Su=17kPa

6 Dark greenish grey, SILT with traces of fine sand

Su=20kPa

10

12

14 Dark grey, SILT with traces of fine sand

Reduce Level (m)

16

18

20 Dark grey, SILT with some fine sand

22
Firm, whitish grey, brown and white mottled, SILT with traces of sand
N=6
24
Stiff, whitish grey and brown spotted, SILT with parts of clay and
traces of sand
26 N=14
N=17
28 Very stiff, white and brown mottled, SILT with traces of sand
N=21
N=28
30
Hard, white and brown mottled, SILT with traces of sand
32

34
N=50/160mm

Figure 4.1: Soil profile of construction site

 56

Table 4.1: Details of soil sample

Sample S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
No. UD2 UD1 UD2 UD2 UD1 UD1
Location PS3 PS1 PS1 PS2 PS2 PS3
Depth (m) 4 1 2 4 1.5 2

4.2 Properties of Foundation Soil (Soft Clay)

4.2.1 Particle Size

From the combination of dry sieve analysis and hydrometer, the soil
composition had been identified and it is summarized in Table 4.2 while Figure 4.2
shows a complete grain size distribution of soil particle. Based on British Standard
sieve sizes, soil particles smaller than 0.002mm are designated as clay. The shapes of
graph are different with each other and this is due to the different location and depth
of sample, as tabulated in Table 4.1. Some of the sample contained more clay rather
than silt and it could be seen that total average of six samples consist of 60% clay,
29% silt and 11% fine sand, as shown in Table 4.2. Based on the shape of graph the
soil is classified as silty clay.

Table 4.2: Percentage of soil composition

Percentage (%)
Soil Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve Sieve
Composition Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis
(S1) (S2) (S3) (S4) (S5) (S6)
Sand 5 9 20 8 11 15
Silt 32 30 25 36 25 24
Clay 63 61 55 56 64 61
 57

Particle Size Distribution

110

100

90

80
Percent Passing (%)
70 S1 (4m)

60 S2 (1m)

50
S3 (2m)
40
S4 (4m)
30
S5 (1.5m)
20

10 S6 (2m)

0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle Size (mm)

Figure 4.2: Particle size distribution of Soil between 1m to 4m depth

4.2.2 Atterberg Limit

Three samples at different depth were tested on the plasticity of the soil. The
data is tabulated in Table 4.3. The Liquid Limit, wL of clay is found to be in between
60% to 85% and the Plastic Limit, wP ranges between 32% to 34%, hence giving the
Plasticity Index, IP values that varies from 29% to 52%.

Table 4.3: List of Atterberg limit value at different depth

Sample Depth (m) wL (%) wp (%) IP (%)
S5 1.5 86 34 52
S6 2 61 32 29
S4 4 71 34 37
 58

4.2.3 Classification of Clay

As obtained from the Atterberg Limits, the soils can be classified using
Plasticity Chart, as shown in Figure 4.3. Thus, from this chart the soil can be
classified as clay or silt of high plasticity based on the ‘A’ line region. This is due to
the high liquid limit of the soils that ranges between 60% and 86%. The basic
properties of clay are summarized in Table 4.4.

Figure 4.3: Classification of soil using Plasticity Chart (BS Standard)

Table 4.4: Basic properties of clay

Parameter Value
Colour Dark Grey
Specific Gravity, Gs 2.68
Consistency Test
Liquid Limit, wL (%) 60 - 85
Plastic Limit, wP (%) 32 - 34
Plasticity Index, IP (%) 29 - 52
Classification Group Symbol
Unified Soil Classification System:
-S5 (1.5m) CH
-S6 (2m) MH
-S4 (4m) MV
 59

4.2.4 Odoemeter Test

Six samples (Table 4.1) with different depth and location are tested to find the
properties of the consolidation parameters. Table 4.5 shows the result from
oedometer test. The compression Index, Cc of the samples is in the range of 0.16 to
1.04 that indicates that the soils are highly compressible. The coefficient of
consolidation, Cv. and coefficient of permeability, k are in the range of 1.2 to
3.5m2/year and 1.03x10-10 to 3.3x10-10 m/s, respectively. These show that the
consolidation settlement will take a long period to complete due to very low
permeability of the soil.

Table 4.5: Result of consolidation parameters

Sample Initial Compression Pre- Coefficient of Coefficient of Coefficient
void Index, Cc Consolidation Compressibility, Consolidation, of
ratio, Pressure, σp mv Cv permeability,
eo (kPa) (m2/MN) (m2/year) k x10-10 (m/s)
S1 2.41 1.0376 43 0.8231 1.246 3.19
S2 2.50 0.259 20 0.7230 1.482 3.33
S3 2.11 0.1637 19 0.3829 1.874 2.23
S4 2.20 0.423 100 0.2219 3.487 2.41
S5 1.21 0.318 190 0.1170 2.553 0.93
S6 2.53 0.8791 100 0.5538 1.177 2.03

4.3 Properties of Embankment Soil (Laterite)

4.3.1 Particle Size

Figure 4.4 shows the particle size distribution of the fill soil used for the
construction of the embankment. From the figure, the effective grain size, D10 is
0.1mm where, the particle size corresponding to 10% finer. 90% of the particle size
with the diameter finer the 60% and 30% are D60 = 0.8mm and D30 = 0.37mm
respectively. Hence, the uniformity coefficient of the soil, Cu is 2.16 and gradation
coefficient, Cu is 1.71. The properties of laterite soils are tabulated in Table 4.6.
 60

100

90

Cumulative Percentage Passing

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Particle Size,mm

Figure 4.4: Particle size distribution of laterite soil

Table 4.6: Properties of laterite soil

Parameter Value
Effective size, D10 0.1
Diameter finer than 30 % , D30 0.37
Diameter finer than 60 % , D60 0.8
Coefficient of uniformity,
  
 8.0


Coefficient of gradation,
  
 

 
1.71

Natural water content, w 21%

Bulk unit weight, γb 18 kN/m3
Compaction Test - Proctor
-Maximum Dry unit weight, γd (Modified Proctor) 16.6 kN/m3
-Optimum Moisture Content 20%
Compaction Test - Modified
-Maximum Dry unit weight, γd (Standard Proctor) 14.5 kN/m3
-Optimum Moisture Content 25.3%
 61

4.3.2 Atterberg Limit

Figure 4.5 shows the liquid limit of laterite soil at 20mm cone penetration.
The Liquid Limit, wL of laterite is 69% and the Plastic Limit, wP is 33%, hence give
the Plasticity Index, IP values of 36%.

28

26
Penetration of cone,mm

24

22

20

18

16

14

12
64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82

Moisture Content, %

Figure 4.5: Graph of liquid limit of laterite soil

4.3.3 Compaction Test

Figure 4.6 shows two shape of graph of laboratory compaction result which is
from Modified Proctor test and Standard Proctor test. Heavy compaction test were
carried out to achieve 90% compaction at site. The dry unit weight value achieved
from site compaction is 15.19kN/m3 with 26% moisture content and modified proctor
reached the 90% compaction. The maximum dry unit weight from Modified Proctor
test is 16.6kN/m3 with optimum moisture content of 20%, as shown in Figure 4.6.
While Standard Proctor test give a value of dry unit weight and optimum moisture
content are 15kN/m3 and 25.3% respectively.
 62

20
Zero air void
19
Modified
18 Standard
3
D ry D en sity , k N / m 3 17 Sd max =16.6kN/m

16

w op t = 2 0 %
zero air void
Sd max =15kN/m3
15

w o pt = 2 5 .3 %
14

13

12

11

10
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Moisture Content, %

Figure 4.6: Compaction curve

4.3.4 Unconsolidation Undrained Test (UU Test)

The results of UU test were presented in Table 4.7. Firstly, the soils were
compacted to achieve 90% compaction on site. Then, three sample of compacted soil
are taken and each samples were tested with different cell pressure; 50kPa, 100kPa
and 200kPa and give the maximum corrected deviator stress of 506 kPa, 543kPa and
678kPa respectively. Shear strength was developed from both cell pressure and the
deviator stress with a value of 253kPa, 271kPa and 339kPa. Figure 4.7 illustrates a
series of Mohr coulomb circle from different cell pressure. As a conclusion, the shear
strength properties of undrained cohesion, cu and undrained angle of shearing
resistance, φu are 136.8kPa and 23.54o respectively.
 63

Table 4.7: Summary of Unconsolidation Undrained Test

Sample Cell Max. Corrected Strain at Mode of Failure Shear
Pressure Deviator Stress failure (%) Strength
(kPa) (kPa)
Maximum Deviator Stress
Sample 1 50.4 506kPa 17.9 or Maximum allowed 253
Strain
Maximum Deviator Stress
Sample 2 100.3 543kPa 20.4 or Maximum allowed 271
Strain
Maximum Deviator Stress
Sample 3 198.7 678kPa 20.5 or Maximum allowed 339
Strain

Figure 4.7: Mohr Coulomb circle from UU Test

4.4 Properties of Bamboo

The bamboos supplied by FRIM, has two different outer diameters of 80mm
and 40mm; and inner diameter of 68mm and 32mm respectively. The node spacing
of bamboo generally varies between 300mm to 500mm. The moisture content of
tested bamboos has an average of 20%. The bending and tensile tests carried out to
the bamboos reveal the results as in the following sections.
 64

4.4.1 Bending Test

The results of bending tests at a specific span length seem to vary

significantly. The results obtained show a great different between maximum and
minimum values. Hence to get a representative result, a statistical analysis using the
standard deviation has been used to eliminate the data outside the range of 99%
confident level. An example of the analysis is shown in Table 4.8 for tests on
bamboo at node condition. The analyses are as follows:

Standard Deviation,

1


      4.1
1


where,
n = total number of samples
xn = bending strength of individual samples
x = average value of bending strength obtained from all samples

Hence,

1
   44229.12  70.1
10  1

    99.57  70.1  29.47

 $   99.57 $ 70.1  169.67

Thus, the 99% of confident level is between 29.47 MPa to 169.67 MPa. The
summary of bending stiffness analysis of bamboo at node condition is shown in
Table 4.9.
 65

By the same method, the bending stiffness values of the internodes of bamboo
material obtained from series of laboratory tests are summarized in Table 4.10. From
the results, it can be seen that the failure bending strength varies between node and
internode condition. It can be concluded that the average failure bending strength at
node condition is less than internode value of average failure bending strength which
is 48.75 MPa.

Average Bending Modulus of Elasticity, Eb of Semantan Bamboo tested in

static bending using center point loading on full round culm varied from 16.06 GPa
(at node) to 22.81 GPa (at internode), as shown in Table 4.11 and Table 4.12. The
values of these properties are summarized using standard deviation method, Equation
4.1 because it shows a great different between maximum and minimum values of Eb.

Table 4.8: Statistical analysis of bending strength at node condition

Sample Failure Bending Strength, Average of Bending
No. load σb Strength,
(kN) (MPa)

xn x (xn -x)2
1 6.2 43.01 3199.00
2 4.5 31.22 4672.02
3 5.5 38.15 3771.85
4 5.4 37.46 3857.54
5 6 41.62 99.57 3357.86
11 3.9 175.22 5723.50
12 4.8 215.66 13476.78
14 3.8 170.73 5063.88
15 2.5 112.32 162.66
18 2.9 130.29 944.04
Total= 995.68 44229.12
 66

Table 4.9: Result of bending stiffness analysis of bamboo at node condition

Sample Failure load Bending Strength, Bending Strength New average of
No. (kN) σb (Representative), Bending Strength
(MPa) σb (MPa)
(MPa)
1 6.2 43.01 43.01
2 4.5 31.22 31.22
3 5.5 38.15 38.15
4 5.4 37.46 37.46
5 6 41.62 41.62 43.41
11 3.9 175.22 -
12 4.8 215.66 -
14 3.8 170.73 -
15 2.5 112.32 112.32
18 2.9 130.29 130.29
Total= 995.68 434.07

Table 4.10: Result of bending stiffness analysis of bamboo at internode condition

Sample Failure load Bending Strength, Bending New average of
No. (kN) σb Strength Bending Strength
(MPa) (Representative), (MPa)
σb
(MPa)
6 6.8 47.17 47.17
7 6.4 44.40 44.40
8 7.4 51.33 51.33
9 4 27.75 -
10 4.1 184.21 - 48.75
13 3.7 166.24 166.24
16 1.8 80.87 80.87
17 4.5 202.18 -
Total= 804.14 390.00
 67

Table 4.11: Result of bending modulus of elasticity analysis of bamboo at node

condition
Sample Failure load Bending Modulus Bending New average of
No. (kN) of Elasticity, Eb Modulus of Bending Modulus
(MPa) Elasticity of Elasticity, Eb
(Representative), (GPa)
Eb
(MPa)
1 6.2 10243.88 10243.88
2 4.5 9308.03 -
3 5.5 20771.00 20771.00
4 5.4 9123.76
5 6 14355.88 14355.88 16.06
11 3.9 77013.62 -
12 4.8 84877.64 -
14 3.8 76711.24 -
15 2.5 50071.95 50071.95
18 2.9 65146.42 65146.42
Total= 417623.43 160589.14

Table 4.12: Result of bending modulus of elasticity analysis of bamboo at internode

condition
Sample Failure load Bending Modulus Bending New average of
No. (kN) of Elasticity, Eb Modulus of Bending Modulus
(MPa) Elasticity of Elasticity, Eb
(Representative), (GPa)
Eb
(MPa)
6 6.8 9212.88 9212.88
7 6.4 16245.34 16245.34
8 7.4 18783.67 18783.67
9 4 9363.88 9363.88 22.81
10 4.1 102065.11 -
13 3.7 87974.01 87974.01
16 1.8 40893.72 40893.72
17 4.5 113532.42 -
Total= 398071.03 182473.50
 68

4.4.2 Tensile Test

The tensile strength values at nodes and internode of bamboo material

obtained from a series of laboratory tests are summarized in Table 4.13.

After analyzing the data statistically, the average results of tensile strength are
found to be quite distinct between internode and node conditions. The average tensile
strength at node conditions is 48.23 MPa while, at the internode a condition is 93.55
MPa. These values are obtained from Equation 4.1. Similar pattern of results are also
recorded for the average of tensile modulus of elasticity value (Et), where significant
different between node and internode value appears.

The value of Et at node and internode condition are 2.72 GPa and 3.80 GPa
respectively. In this case, it also can be said that the internodes and nodes condition
of bamboo have significant effect to influences the tensile stiffness of bamboo
mattress.

Comparison between bending test and tensile can be concluded in Table 4.14.
The table presents bamboo properties of strength and modulus of elasticity. At node
condition, the strengths of bamboo do not show great different compared to internode
condition, where significant different values appeared. For modulus of elasticity
properties, values of node and internode condition also indicate great different values
of bending and tensile test analysis.
 69

Table 4.13: Tensile test results of bamboo at node and internode condition
Type Maximum Tensile New average Tensile New average of
load Strength, of Tensile Modulus of Tensile
(kN) σt Strength, Elasticity, Modulus of
(MPa) σt Et Elasticity, Et
(MPa)
(GPa) (GPa)
10.95 116.33 4.668
15.9 206.86
15.7 190.29 6.115
Node 11.08 171.64 48.23 2.42
1.78 24.08
1.93 31.62
1.78 28.01 2.931
7.09 97.91 5.675
15.58 175.00 5.985
15.17 227.86 7.232
20.8 279.66
Interno 8.66 166.75 93.55 5.240 3.80
de
2.04 41.20 3.309
2.21 44.06 4.841
1.75 32.84

Table 4.14: Comparison on properties of bamboo at node and internode condition

Properties Node Internode
Bending Strength, σb 43.41 MPa 48.75 MPa
Tensile Strength, σt 48.23 MPa 93.55 MPa
Bending Modulus of Elasticity, Eb 16.06 GPa 22.81 GPa
Tensile Modulus of Elasticity, Et 2.42 GPa 3.80 GPa
Tensile, EA 342 kN 348.04 kN
 CHAPTER 5

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ON EMBANKMENT PERFORMANCE

5.1 Introduction

The analysis was carried out for embankment reinforced with Bamboo-
Geotextile Composite (BGC) and control embankment (unreinforced) to observe the
superiority of the BGC reinforced embankment over unreinforced embankment. This
chapter primarily discusses the effect of combining bamboo and geotextile to be a
composite reinforcement, compared to the use of geotextile alone as a separator in
embankment construct over soft clay. The data obtained are from monitoring works,
where the selected instrumentations were placed at designated location, as shown
earlier in Figure 1.1, Figure 1.2 and Figure 1.3. Hence, the results of measurements
up to 11th September 2009, that is after 120 days from the start of construction are
used to analyze the embankment performance. However, there are also data that
cannot be read by the geotechnical instrumentation such as the auto reading
settlement system because it stopped give readings since the start of the construction.

5.2 Construction History

The analysis was carried out based on the data obtained from monitoring
works, started from 14th May 2009 until 11th September 2009. 14th May 2009 is the
start of construction of the embankment, therefore is taken as zero day of monitoring.
Initial plan was to construct the embankments, so that at the end of construction, the
height of the embankment above the existing ground level would be 3.0m. However,
 71

the measured fill height of bamboo reinforced embankment is only 2.970m and fill
height of control embankment is 3.071m. Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 illustrate the
construction history of both embankments measured at the center of the
embankments. The initial plan was also to construct the embankment as quickly as
possible with backfill compacted to 90% of maximum dry density. However, the
planned rate of filling at each stages and the duration of the rest periods could not be
fulfilled due to the weather conditions and earthworks requirements. Fill thickness is
the embankment height plus the settlements occurred during the construction of the
embankment which was measured using hydrostatic profiler. The performance of
embankments after 120 days of construction has been summarized and tabulated as
shown in Table 5.1.

3.5

2.5
Fill Thickness (m)

1.5

1
Control Emb.
0.5 BGC

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Time - Days

Figure 5.1: Construction history

3.5

3
Fill Height (m)

2.5

Control Emb.
BGC
2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time - Days

Figure 5.2: Embankment heights after construction phase

 72

5.3 Deformation on the Embankment

5.3.1 Settlement

Figure 5.3 to Figure 5.6 illustrate the settlement across the base of the
embankments at different times obtained by using hydrostatic profiler. It is found that
at any instant, the settlements are almost directly proportional to the embankment
thickness. During construction phase (immediate settlement), the foundation soil of
BGC reinforced settled 0.258m (at the center of the embankment), while foundation
soil under the center of unreinforced embankment settled 0.331m, as illustrated in
Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4.

A measurement using hydrostatic profiler at the bottom of the embankments

show that throughout 120 days of monitoring the settlement, it is found that BGC
reinforced embankment settled with total settlement of 0.462m at the centerline of
the embankment (Figure 5.5) while for the control embankment it was 0.532m
(Figure 5.6). When bamboo is laid in a square pattern, they forms an interlock or
‘pocket’ that creates an increase stiffness of bamboo, which distributed vertical
pressure evenly and could minimize differential settlements. Its central portion
supports the embankment against downwards displacement by mobilizing tensile
resistance of horizontal ribs and compressive resistance of vertical ribs of bamboo
that could prevent a catastrophic failure. As for the geotextile, besides acting as a
separator and filter between the backfill material and soft clay layer, it also acts
locally as a ‘tension membrane’ between the bamboo interlocks, thereby reducing
localized stress in the soft foundation clay. This explains the reason of settlement is
much smaller for BGC reinforced embankment compared to the control
embankment.

Settlement marker was used as an instrumentation to monitor the

embankment performance. Two (2) settlement markers were installed for each
embankment, 0.5m away from the shoulders of the surface embankment and one (1)
 73

at the center of the embankment, as illustrated in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8. Data of
embankment settlement was collected since 4th June 2009 which is the day after end
of construction and is taken as zero day of embankment monitoring. Maximum
settlement is taken at the center of the embankment. Hence, the maximum settlement
of the surface of BGC reinforced embankment and control embankment is 0.454m
and 0.555m respectively.

Performance of embankment height due to the settlement of the foundation

soil is illustrated in Figure 5.9 and Figure 5.10 respectively for BGC reinforced
embankment and control embankment. Immediate settlement of 0.258m occurred in
BGC reinforced embankment is less than unreinforced embankment of 0.331m. As
distinct to these cases, it is believed that BGC reinforcement is able to bear the
applied loads since the construction start due to the buoyancy effect of bamboo grids.
Therefore, reduces lateral movement because of the uniform load distribution exist
under the BGC reinforcement (these are discussed in the following section).

Comparing the settlement of foundation soil with the surface of embankment,

the different shows the settlement of backfill material itself. Hence, 0.94m backfill
material settled for BGC reinforced embankment while 0.135m for control
embankment. This may be due to the fact that the backfill for control embankment
could not be compacted as good as in BGC reinforced embankment.

From the observation, the primary consolidation settlement occurred for 103
days after end of construction under BGC reinforced embankment was 0.204m, while
it was 0.201m for unreinforced embankment. The settlement values are quite similar
which probably due to about similar amount of excess pore pressure occurs under
both embankments. Excess pore pressure dissipation of 11kPa was observed under
BGC reinforced embankment while for unreinforced embankment it was 12kPa
(from day 18 until day 120).
 74

Settlement across base of BGC Reinforced Embankment

cL

4m

Embankment

16m

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3
Settlement (m)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8
Day 1
0.9
Day 17
1.0
Distance (m)

Figure 5.3: Settlement at the end of construction across base of BGC reinforced
embankment

Settlement across base of Control Embankment

cL

4m

Embankment

16m

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3
Settlement (m)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8 Day 1

0.9 Day 17

1.0
Distance (m)

Figure 5.4: Settlements at the end of construction across base of control embankment
 75

Settlement across base of BGC Reinforced Embankment

cL

4m

Embankment

16m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3
Settlement (m)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9
Day 17 Day 23 Day 26 Day 42 Day 92 Day 120
1.0
Distance (m)

Figure 5.5: Settlement after construction across base of BGC reinforced

embankment

Settlement across base of Control Embankment

cL

4m

Embankment

16m

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3
Settlement (m)

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9
Day 17 Day 23 Day 26 Day 42 Day 92 Day 120
1.0
Distance (m)

Figure 5.6: Settlements after construction across base of control embankment

 76

Settlement of Embankment
(BGC Reinforced Embankment)

cL
0.5m 3m 0.5m

Embankment

16m

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0.0

-0.5
Settlement (m)

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day5 Day 6 Day 14 Day 28 Day 40 Day 55 Day 99
-3.0

Figure 5.7: Settlement on the surface of BGC reinforced embankment

Settlement of Embankment
(Control Embankment)
cL

0.5m 3m 0.5m

Embankment

16m

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
0.0

-0.5
Settlement (m)

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 14 Day 28 Day 40 Day 55 Day 99
-3.0

Figure 5.8: Settlement on the surface of control embankment

 77

Figure 5.9: Performance of embankment height with foundation settlement for BGC
reinforced embankment

Figure 5.10: Performance of embankment height with foundation settlement for

control embankment
 78

5.3.2 Lateral Movements

The periodic lateral movement profiles of the inclinometer placed at the toe of
the embankment are illustrated in Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12. Maximum lateral
movements, recorded until day 120, both occurred at depth of 4.5m. The values are
8.07mm for BGC reinforced embankment and 11.19mm for control embankment, as
shown in Figure 5.11 and Figure 5.12. However, the movements for both
embankments differ significantly during the construction of embankment.

During the construction of BGC reinforced embankment, there is no

significant lateral movement observed until the embankment reached 2.4m height.
After that, it increased rapidly till the end of construction (Day 17) with the
maximum value of lateral movement recorded at 3.5m depth was 2.63mm. This is
thought to be due to the imposed load of fill soil were carried strongly by bamboo
until the construction reach 2.4m height. Bamboo then starts to bend to support the
additional loading until it reaches 3.0m. After 9.5m depth the lateral movements is
negligible, as shown in Figure 5.11. This is because the high strength of soil might be
able to withstand the overburden pressure causing no lateral movement. Similarly for
control embankment, after the depth of 10.5m there is no significant movement
observed, as shown in Figure 5.12. However, during the construction phase of
unreinforced embankment, lateral movement increased gradually with the
embankment height and achieved maximum horizontal movement of 4.88mm at 4m
depth, as shown in Figure 5.12. The movements become greater with time during the
period of constant loading and the maximum lateral movement exhibits 11.19mm at
4.5m depth.
 79

Lateral Movement, (mm)

-2
1 Days

7 Days

8 Days

9 Days
-4 10 Days

13 Days

17 Days
Depth, (m)

21 Days

22 Days
-6
23 Days

24Days

25 Days

26 Days
-8 27 Days

35 Days

42 Days

49 Days

71 Days
-10
92 Days

107 Days

120 Days

-12

LATERAL MOVEMENT PROFILE

(BAMBOO REINFORCED EMBANKMENT)

Figure 5.11: Lateral movement profile for BGC reinforced embankment

Lateral Movement, (mm)

-15.0

-10.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0
-5.0

0.0

5.0

-2 1 Days

7Days

8 Days

9 Days

-4 10 Days

13Days

17 Days

21Days

-6 22 Days
D e pth, (m )

23 Days

24 Days

25 Days

-8 26 Days

27 Days

35 Days

42 Days
-10 49 Days

71Days

92 Days

107 Days
-12 120 Days

-14

LATERAL MOVEMENT PROFILE

(CONTROL EMBANKMENT)

Figure 5.12: Lateral movement profile for control embankment

 80

5.4 Total Stress under Embankment

A vertical stress due to overburden pressure was monitored from two pressure
cells that have been placed under the BGC reinforced embankment and control
embankment. The stresses measured from this two pressure cells differ obviously.
The highest vertical pressure measured by PC2 (under BGC reinforced embankment)
was 36.18kPa, as shown in Figure 5.13 is less than the theoretical estimate of
53.46kPa (unit weight of fill soil of 18kN/m3 multiply by the embankment height of
2.97m). This is because of the placement of BGC reinforcement that carries the
embankment loads. Therefore, reduces stress on the foundation soil and would also
reduce immediate settlement. The vertical stress from PC3 (under control
embankment) of 166kPa was however, significantly high. It is also found that there
appears to be some missing data during the monitoring process and this might be
caused by the unstable flow of electric current supply to the data logger. For PC3, the
recorded data shows malfunction of the instrumentation after 70 days of monitoring.

Figure 5.14 illustrates the total pressure and the excess pore pressure
(piezometer at 3m depth) relationship with time for BGC reinforced embankment. It
appears that both pressures increased with the embankment height (as time
increases). However, the build-up of excess pore pressure is small because the clay is
still overconsolidated and would dissipate relatively quickly. However, the clay
would become normally consolidated when increase in pore pressure would be
similar to the applied stress increase, and dissipation would be much slower.
 81

Total Stress - Days

300
During
Construction After Construction
Total Stress (kPa) 250

200
PC3

150

Control Embankment
100
Bamboo Reinforced

PC2
50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time - Days

Figure 5.13: Total stresses with time

Pressure - Days
(Bamboo Reinforced)
During
70 Construction
After Construction

60
Total Stress

50 Excess PWP (at 3m depth)

Pressure (kPa)

40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time - Days

Figure 5.14: Relationship between total stress and excess pore pressure measured
under BGC reinforced embankment
 82

5.5 Pore Pressure Response

The variation of excess pore pressure with time beneath centers of the BGC
reinforced embankment and unreinforced embankment are shown graphically in
Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.16. Three (3) pore pressure data had been collected at
various depths (3m, 5m and 7m) beneath the center of embankment. During
construction phase of BGC reinforced embankment, the excess pore pressure
increase proportionally with the embankment height and achieved maximum value of
20.98kPa (for piezometer at 3m depth) which is 15.22kPa less than the overburden
pressure of the embankment (36.18kPa). Whereas, excess pore pressure after 103
days (day 120) was recorded at 9.86kPa (for piezometer at 3m depth) and 6.18kPa
(for both piezometer at 5m and 7m), as shown in Figure 5.15. As mentioned in
previous section, increased in pore pressure are very quickly during the construction
and dissipation take place at slower rate with time when the increase in pore pressure
would be similar to the applied stress increase.

At the end of construction, excess pore pressure under control embankment is

23.47kPa (for piezometer at 3m depth) and excess pore pressure after 103 days (day
120) was recorded at 11.15kPa (for piezometer at 3m depth), as shown Figure 5.16.
Comparing the excess pore pressure under both embankments, there is insignificant
different in the variation of pore pressure. The percentage of pore water pressure
dissipated (day 18 until day 120) for control embankment was 52 % and 53% for
BGC reinforced embankment which is quite similar.

From Figure 5.15 and Figure 5.16, there are several missing data caused by
inaccurate data, automatically collected by data logger, due to insurgence of power
supply. However, from the data obtained, it is observed that the piezometer located at
greater depth does not obviously affected by overburden exerted to the foundation
soil.
 83

Bamboo Reinforced
50
During
45 Construction After Construction

Excess Pore Pressure (kPa) 40

35

30

25 P2-3m
P2-5m
20 P2-7m
15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Time - Days

Figure 5.15: Excess pore pressure under BGC reinforced embankment

Control Embankment
50
During
45 Construction
After Construction

40
Excess Pore Pressure (kPa)

35

30 P3-3m
P3-5m
25
P3-7m
20

15

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Time - Days

Figure 5.16: Excess pore pressure under control embankment

 84

Table 5.1: Summary of embankment performance

Parameter BGC Reinforced Control
Embankment Embankment
DEFORMATION
Observed
a) Settlement under the
embankment
- Immediate Settlement (End 0.258 m 0.331 m
of Construction)
- Consolidation Settlement 0.204 m 0.201 m
(103 days after construction)
- Total Settlement 0.462 m 0.532 m
b) Settlement Marker
- Total Settlement 0.454 m 0.555 m
c) Lateral Movement (Maximum)
- End of Construction 2.63 mm at 3.5 m 4.88 mm at 4 m
depth depth
- 103 days after construction 8.07 mm at 4.5m 11.19mm at 4.5m
depth depth
TOTAL PRESSURE
- End of Construction 36.18 kPa 166.27 kPa (??)
- 103 days after construction 38.02 kPa -

EXCESS PORE PRESSURE

At 3m depth
- End of Construction 20.98 kPa 23.47 kPa
- 103 days after construction 9.86 kPa 11.15 kPa
At 5m depth
- End of Construction 16.48 kPa 20.8 kPa
- 103 days after construction 6.13 kPa 7.19 kPa
At 7m depth
- End of Construction 16.71 kPa 20.8 kPa
- 103 days after construction 6.18 kPa 8.54 kPa

5.6 Strain Gauges Analysis

Strain gauges were attached to the culm to measure stresses induced in the
bamboo. A total of 30 strain gauges, or 15 pairs, were placed at the designated
position along the bamboo culm, and 14 strain gauges were attached on the
geotextile, as shown in Figure 1.3. These strain gauges allowed strain changes on the
reinforcement material (bamboo culms and geotextile) to measured using strain
 85

meter. The detection is achieved via a set of wire leads emerged from the sloping
surface of the embankment. However, a number of these gauges were lost, usually by
detachment from their wire leads, during their embedment and maybe due to the
chemical interaction between soil and strain gauge. Only three (3) gauges still
recording the data at bamboo which is, B-042(Top), B-043(Bottom) and B-
053(Bottom).

Gauges B-042(T) and B-043(B) are a pair gauges placed near the centerline
of base embankment and gauge B-053(B) were placed near the edge of embankment,
as illustrated earlier in Figure 1.3 an also in Appendix C. During construction phase,
the elongation recorded for gauges near the centerline of base embankment were
greater than elongation occurred near the edge of embankment. As can be seen in
Figure 5.17, elongation of gauges at bottom position of bamboo made by B-043(B)
was 0.000358mm which is higher than B-053(B) of 0.000244mm. At the end of
construction, gauge B-042(T) elongate 0.00045mm smaller than gauge B-043(B) of
0.000358mm elongation.

Stresses induced in the bamboo culm could be obtained from the measured
strain value multiply with the appropriate Young’s modulus value already
determined in the laboratory, i.e. σ=ε × E, where σ is stress induced in bamboo
culm, ε is measured strain value and E is Young’s modulus of bamboo obtained from
laboratory test (taken in the form of average value). For an example, tensile stress
induced in the bamboo culm at the end of construction is summarize as follow:

Bending stress,
σb = ε × Eb
= 0.000358 × 19.4GPa
= 6.95MPa
 86

Tensile stress,
σt = ε × Et
= 0.000358 × 3.11GPa
= 1.11MPa

From the calculation, bending stress induced in the bamboo culm is much
higher than tensile stresses which exceed 83.3%. It also indicates that both stresses
are less than bending strength and tensile strength, respectively that was obtained
from laboratory test (refer Table 4.14). Hence, during the construction of the
embankment, the BGC reinforcement has successfully functioned as reinforcement to
carry the external load from the embankment. Results of bending stress and tensile
stress for three (3) observed gauges are tabulated in Table 5.2.

Elongation (mm) - Days

0.0008
During
Construction
After Construction
0.0006

0.0004
Elongation (mm)

0.0002

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
-0.0002

-0.0004
B-043
-0.0006 T-042
B-053
-0.0008
Time - Days

Figure 5.17: Elongation of strain gauges

Table 5.2: Result of bending stress and tensile stress induced in bamboo culm
Strain gauge T042 B043 B053
Stresses (kPa) σb σt σb σt σb σt
End of construction 8.73 1.40 6.97 1.11 4.73 0.76
After 103 days 0.16 0.02 6.79 1.09 4.62 0.74
*σb is bending stress
*σt is tensile stress
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Introduction

This study has been successfully conducted in fulfilling the objectives

outlined at the very beginning of the study. The performance of bamboo-geotextile
composite (BGC) reinforced embankment and unreinforced (control) embankment
was evaluated. The embankments were constructed for 17 days and regular
monitoring was conducted beginning from the first day of the construction until day
120. This chapter presents the conclusion of the results obtained and gives some
recommendations for further study.

6.2 Conclusion

The BGC reinforcement system has generally been used to improve soft
foundation soil to carry light construction on it. Form this study, it has been proved
that it can be extended to the construction of embankment on soft soil whereby the
bamboo acts principally as a reinforcement material while geotextile as a filter and
separator. In bamboo-geotextile composite system, good tensile strength and bending
stiffness of bamboos were exploited together with geotextile to minimize and affect
well distribution of overburden exerted on the soft subsoil through bending and
tension developed in the system. The result shows significant improved in both
vertical and lateral movement of foundation soil under the bamboo-geotextile
 88

reinforced embankment compared to just using the geotextile alone as separator

(control embankment). The conclusions of this study are indicated in the followings:

i. The types of foundation soil obtained from the site are a combination of clay
and fine silt with high plasticity index ranges from 29% to 52%. The
undrained shear strength of soft soil is found to be between 17kPa and 20kPa
at 3m and 6m depth, respectively. The soils are highly compressible with
compression index, Cc is in the range of 0.16 to 1.04. Based on high value of
coefficient of consolidation and low permeability of the soils, it is anticipated
that the consolidation settlement will take a long period to complete. For, the
backfill soil it has an undrained cohesion of greater than 100kPa and
undrained angle of shearing resistance, φu of 23.54o when compacted to 90%
relative density. The bulk unit weight of laterite soil is 18kN/m3 with natural
moisture content of 21%.

ii. The tensile strength, bending strength and modulus of elasticity, of the
bamboo at internode condition were found to be greater than at node
condition. This is due to the cells in the internodes are axially oriented that
make it strong whereas the directions of the cell-elements in the nodes are
arranged perpendicular to the previous ones to provide the transverse
interconnection. This is thought that the internodes and nodes condition of
bamboo have significant effect to influence the stiffness of bamboo grids.

iii. In BGC reinforced embankment, the stresses induced in bamboo are found to
be much lower than the maximum strength of bamboo obtained from
laboratory tests. It shows that the BGC reinforcement is successfully
functioned as reinforcement to carry the external load from the embankment.
Hence, BGC reinforcement has a great potential to be used as reinforcement
system in soft clay.

iv. The effect of placing the Bamboo-Geotextile Composite reinforcement is

significant to the foundation soil deformation. Deformation observed from
 89

BGC reinforced embankment shows improvement of the BGC as

reinforcement compared to control embankment. During construction, the
settlement occurred under BGC reinforced embankment is lower than the
control embankment. The same also occurred for settlement after the
construction of both embankments. This is due to the confinement of the soil
from the square pattern arrangement of bamboo that creates an increase
stiffness of bamboo. Hence, the BGC reinforcement tends to distribute
vertical stress evenly and minimize total and differential settlements.

6.3 Recommendations for Future Research

At present, the usage of bamboo in construction application has been

conducted widely by researchers. The results from bamboo experiment proved that it
is one of the stronger materials that can be found abundance in the world. Some
suggestions for the future investigation are given below:

i. The same study need to be conducted on the spacing between the bamboos.
This is to find the appropriate spacing in enhancing the usage of bamboo as a
reinforcement material to strengthen the embankment structure.

ii. This study was conducted limited to the constant load which is the self-
weight of the embankment. Extended study should be carried out on dynamic
loading due to vehicles movement.

iii. The same study should be conducted with other species of bamboo to
improve further the study on bamboo in the construction application in
Malaysia.
 90

REFERENCES

Abang Ali A.A. (1984). Use of Bamboo as Scaffolding Material. University

Pertanian Malaysia, Malaysia.
Asrul Azam, A., and Huat, B.B.K. (2003). Lateral Deformation Analysis – A Brief
Review on The Empirical Method. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference
on Advances in Soft Soil Engineering and Technology. July 2-4, Malaysia, pp.
353-360.
Brand, E. W. and Premchitt, J. (1989). Moderator’s Report for the Predicted
Performance of the Muar Test Embankment. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Trial Embankments on Malaysian Marine Clays. November 6-8,
Kuala Lumpur, pp. 32-49.
British Standard Institution. (1990). British Standard Methods of Tests for Civil
Engineering Purposes, Part 2: Classification Test. London : BS 1377.
Broms, B. B. (1990). Soil Improvement Methods for Malaysia Soft Soil. Symposium
on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Engineering II. November 1, Kuala
Lumpur.
Chen, C. S. and Tan, S. M. (2003). Some Engineering Properties of Soft Clay from
Klang area. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Advances in Soft
Soil Engineering and Technology. July 2-4, Malaysia, pp. 79-87.
Dannenmann, B. M. E., Choocharoen, C., Spreer, W., Nagle, M., Lies, H., Neef, A
and Nagle, M. (2007). The potential of Bamboo as a Source of Renewable
Energy in Northern Laos. Proceeding International Agricultural Research for
Development. October, 9-11, Tropentag, pp. 1-5.
Das, B.M. (2004). Principles of Foundation Engineering. (5th Edition). Thomson
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Das, B.M. (2006). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. (6th Edition). Thomson
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Douglas, R. A. (1988). Bamboo Inclusions in Soil Structures. Proceedings of the
International Bamboo Workshop. November 14-18, Cochin, pp. 294-300.
 91

Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM) (1995). Planting and Utilization of

Bamboo in Peninsular Malaysia. FRIM, Malaysia.
Ghavami, K. (2005). Bamboo as reinforcement in structural concrete elements.
Cement & Concrete Composites 27. pp. 637–649.
Head, K.H. (1992). Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing. Volume 1: Soil Classification
and Compaction Test. 2th.ed. London: Pentech Press Limited Graham Lodge.
Head, K.H. (1988). Manual of Soil Laboratory. Volume 2: Permeability, Shear
Strength and Compressibility Test. London: Pentech Press Limited Graham
Lodge.
Head, K.H. (1986). Manual of Soil Laboratory. Volume 3: Effective Stress Tests.
London: Pentech Press Limited Graham Lodge.
Holtz, R.D. dan Kovacs, W.D. (1981). An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.
New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Huat, B.B.K., Othman, K., and Jaffar, A.A. (1995). Geotechnical Properties of
Malaysian Marine Clays. Journals of Institute engineers Malaysia. Vol.56, pp.
23-33.
Hunter, G. dan Fell, R. (2003). Prediction of impending failure of embankments on
soft ground. Canada Geotechnical Journal Vol. 40, pp. 209–220.
Irsyam, M., Krisnanto, S., and Wardhani, S.P.R. (2008). Instrumented Full Scale Test
And Numerical Analysis To Investigate Performance Of Bamboo Pile-Mattress
System As Soil Reinforcement For Coastal Embankment On Soft Clay. Science
Press Beijing and Springer-Verlag GmbH Berlin Heidelberg Geotechnical
Engineering for Disaster Mitigation and Rehabilitation. pp. 165-170.
Iyer, S. (2002). Guidelines for building Reinforced Masonry in Earthquake-prone
areas in India. Master Thesis, Faculty of The School of Architecture, University
of Southern California.
Janssen, J.J.A. (2000). Determination of Physical and Mechanical Properties of
Bamboo. International Network on Bamboo and Rattan, Proceeding
International Conference of Building Official. 1 April, California, pp. 1-25.
Khatib, A. (2009). Bearing Capacity Of Granular Soil Overlying Soft Clay
Reinforced With Bamboo-Geotextile Composite At The Interface. PhD. Thesis
Department of Geotechnics and Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
 92

Leroueil, S., Magnan, J.P. dan Tavenas, F. (1990). Embankments on soft ground.
West Sussex, England. Ellis Horwood.
Li, X. (2004). Physical, Chemical, And Mechanical Properties Of Bamboo And Its
Utilization Potential For Fiberboard Manufacturing. Master Thesis, Faculty of
the Louisiana State University and Agriculture and Mechanical College.
Liu, C. and Evett, J.B. (2004). Soils and Foundations. Sixth Edition. Singapore:
Prentice-Hall.
Lybeer, B. (2005). Age-related anatomical aspects of some temperate and tropical
bamboo culms. Faculteit Wetenschappen, Universiteit Gent.
Ochiai, H., Watari, Y., and Tsukamoto, Y. (1996). Soil Reinforcement Practice for
Fills Over Soft Ground in Japan. Geosynthetics International, Vol.3, No.1, pp.
31-48.
Othman, A.R and Malek, J. (2003). Garis Panduan Perladangan Buluh di Malaysia.
FRIM Technical Information, Handbook No. 33.
Siopongco, J.O. and Munandar M. (1987). Technology Manual on Bamboo as
Building Material. Regional Network in Asia for Low-Cost Building Materials
Technologies and Construction System. Forest Products Research and
Development Institute, Phillipine.
Tavenas, F., Mieussens, C. and Bourges, F. (1979). Lateral Displacements in Clay
Foundations Under Embankments. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol. 16, No.
3, pp. 532-550.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R.B (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Thammicha, S. (1989). Bamboo. Proceedings of A Workshop on Design and
Manufacturing of Bamboo and Rattan furniture. Jakarta, Indonesia, pp. 1–12.
The Malaysian Highway Authority (1989a). Proc. of the International Symp. On
Trial Embankments on Malaysian Marine Clays. Kuala Lumpur. Vol. 1.
The Malaysian Highway Authority (1989b). Proc. of the International Symp. On
Trial Embankments on Malaysian Marine Clays. Kuala Lumpur. Vol. 2.

Ting, W.H., Wong, T.F. and Toh, C.T. (1988). Design Parameters for Soft Ground in
Malaysia. Journal of Southeast Asian Geotechnical Society. Vol. 19 No.1.

Whitlow, R. (1995). Basic Soil Mechanics Third Edition. Addison Wesley Longman
Limited, England.
 93

Wong, K.M. (1995). The Bamboos of Peninsular Malaysia. Forest Research Institute
Malaysia (FRIM) in Collaboration with Forest research Centre, Forestry
Department, Sabah, Malaysia. Malayan Forest Records, No. 41.
 94

APPENDIX A

Bending Test Data of Bamboo

 95

Bending Test Data

B1 B2 B3
Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 1.9 1.54 1.93 0.7 2.2 1.91 2.15 0.4 1.1 1.01 0.84
1.2 3.59 3.08 3.31 1 1.8 1.65 1.45
1 3.39 2.78 3.42
1.5 4.19 3.61 3.83 1.5 2.59 2.27 2.08
1.5 4.79 3.91 4.72
1.9 4.93 4.23 4.46 2.1 3.38 2.85 2.69
2 5.79 4.78 5.6 2.6 6.19 5.23 5.45
2.5 6.69 5.58 6.36 2.6 3.98 3.27 3.14
3 6.89 5.78 6.01
3 4.48 3.6 3.51
3.1 7.58 6.34 7.07 3.4 7.58 6.32 6.55
3.7 5.28 4.13 4.09
3.5 8.48 7.13 7.81 4 8.28 7.01 7.25
4 5.78 4.43 4.46
4 9.27 7.78 8.45 4.4 9.07 7.66 7.92
4.9 10.07 8.41 8.66 4.4 6.27 4.78 4.84
4.5 10.07 8.38 9.03
4.5 11.19 9.12 9.36 5 7.01 5.29 5.38
5 10.96 9.16 9.81
4.3 12.76 9.97 10.32 5.5 7.67 5.74 5.89
5.5 11.86 9.84 10.5
4.5 13.56 10.48 10.89
5.8 12.76 10.7 11.32
4.3 16.93 12.81 13.51
6 13.35 11.25 11.9
2.4 19.91 14.44 15.18
6.3 14.64 12.17 12.87
6.3 15.54 12.85 13.61
6.2 15.84 13.12 13.88
5.9 15.84 13.1 13.87

B4 B5 B6
Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.4 0.8 1.25 1.14 0.4 1.79 1.61 2.07
0.5 2.61 2.11 2.83 1 1.9 2.26 2.05 1 4.5 3.8 5.16
1 4.28 3.53 4.24 1.6 2.92 3.15 2.83 1.4 6.29 5.32 7.4
1.5 5.58 4.69 5.28 2 3.5 3.72 3.23 1.9 7.82 6.57 9.15
2 6.47 5.52 6 2.5 4.49 4.52 3.74
2.4 9.53 7.94 11.1
2.9 5.11 5.1 4.28
2.5 7.47 6.39 6.74 3 11.1 9.16 12.69
3.5 5.98 5.8 4.97
3 8.57 7.43 7.67 3.6 12.3 10.13 13.83
3.9 6.68 6.4 5.55
3.5 9.56 8.34 8.43 4 13.1 10.81 14.61
4.5 7.51 7.1 6.24
4 10.46 9.18 9.19 5 8.31 7.76 6.91 4.4 14.09 11.54 15.41
5.5 9.08 8.39 7.54 4.9 14.92 12.23 16.13
4.4 11.39 10.01 9.92
6 9.97 9.06 8.23 5.4 15.89 12.99 16.87
4.9 12.88 11.32 11.12 6 17.19 13.95 17.82
5.4 14.75 12.83 12.53 6.4 18.38 14.84 18.67
4.7 18.7 15.66 15.32 6.8 19.77 16 19.78
4.4 20.69 16.99 16.67 5.6 21.17 16.97 20.76

B7 B8 B9
Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 1.1 1.16 1.08 0.6 1.79 1.83 1.65 0.5 1.2 1.25 0.96
1 2 2.08 1.92 1 2.69 2.74 2.51 1 2.2 2.33 1.81
1.5 3.92 3.92 3.63 1.5 3.3 3.34 2.64
1.6 3 2.98 2.74
2 4.4 4.34 3.5
2 3.6 3.61 3.3 2 5.08 4.99 4.69
2.5 5.5 5.33 4.35
2.5 4.39 4.32 3.94 2.5 6.07 5.91 5.6
3 6.63 6.37 5.27
3 5.09 4.97 4.54 2.9 7.26 6.97 6.7
3.5 7.99 7.66 6.54
3.5 5.78 5.6 5.12 3.4 9.05 8.54 8.23 3.6 8.39 7.88 6.64
4 6.58 6.26 5.74 3.3 15.01 13.35 13.12 4 10.09 9.26 7.95
4.6 7.58 7.14 6.59 3.7 16.07 14.31 12.8
5 8.37 7.79 7.21
5.4 9.27 8.54 7.94
5.2 12.65 11.17 10.44
 96

B10 B11 B12

Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.5 2.19 2.04 1.83
0.4 1.6 1.61 1.25 0.5 1.99 1.77 1.56
0.9 3.51 3.21 2.92
1.1 3.29 3.2 2.54 1 3.99 3.48 3.06
1.5 5.27 4.71 4.31
1.5 4.29 4.17 3.35 1.5 5.58 4.92 4.31 2.1 6.97 6.05 5.56
2 7.31 6.43 5.63 2.5 8.26 7.15 6.6
2 5.58 5.35 4.34
2.4 8.97 7.85 6.88 2.9 9.65 8.27 7.67
2.5 6.68 6.39 5.23
2.9 10.79 9.38 8.25 3.5 11.34 9.62 8.97
3 7.78 7.33 6.03 3.9 13.03 10.96 10.23
3.4 12.95 11.15 9.87
3.5 8.97 8.49 7.01 4.3 15.12 12.68 11.8
3.9 16.93 14.22 12.77
3.9 10.37 9.7 8.06 3.5 20.44 16.47 15.21 4.8 18 15.88 14.28
4.1 11.96 11.05 9.24 4.3 16 16.2 14.28
4.1 12.18 11.28 9.43
3.3 14.84 13.39 11.02

B13 B14 B15

Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0.5 1.51 1.36 1.29 0.5 2.1 1.85 1.67
0.5 1.99 1.72 1.63
1 2.91 2.62 2.47
1 3.79 3.19 3.05 1 4.22 3.64 3.36
1.5 3.98 3.51 3.35
1.5 5.76 4.85 4.65 1.5 6.42 5.46 5.09
2 5.28 4.7 4.42
2.5 6.47 5.76 5.43 2 7.27 6.1 5.84 2 8.62 7.28 6.82
3 7.8 6.91 6.51 2.5 11.08 9.23 8.73
2.5 9.07 7.59 7.28
3.4 9.46 8.35 7.87 2.5 18.04 14.02 13.84
3 10.86 9.08 8.72
3.7 13.36 11.81 11.14 2.4 19.02 14.62 14.77
3.4 13.05 10.83 10.4
3.6 17.91 14.95 14.13
3.8 17.26 13.91 13.44
3.1 23.77 18.27 18.18

B16 B17 B18

Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm Load, kN D1, mm D2, mm D3, mm
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5 3.29 2.97 2.89 0.7 1.96 1.77 1.63 0.5 2.56 2.21 2.06
1 6.57 5.91 5.72 1 2.65 2.44 2.24 0.9 4.58 3.17 3.73
1.5 10.28 9.02 9 1.2 3.08 2.64 2.59 1.5 6.96 5.96 5.65
1.8 13.14 11.6 11.46 1.5 3.88 3.58 3.26 2 9.03 7.7 7.33
1.8 13.34 12.08 12 2 5.14 4.7 4.26 2.5 11.52 7.72 9.26
1.8 14.04 12.36 12.29 2.7 6.94 6.36 5.78 2.9 11.52 12.5 11.89
1.7 14.63 12.84 12.98 2.8 7.18 6.57 5.98 2.8 15.3 12.61 11.91
3 7.73 7.02 6.4
3.4 8.82 8 7.29
3.6 9.22 8.37 7.62
4 10.31 9.28 8.47
4.2 11.3 10.31 9.28
4.4 11.84 10.61 9.71
4.5 12.2 10.88 9.97
4.5 12.5 11.13 10.2
 97

Bending Test Data

Bending Diameter
Test for of Inner
Sample bamboo Bamboo, Diameter, Maximum Displacement
No. sample d di Length load at break
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm)
1 At node 80 68 1000 6.2 13.12
2 At node 80 68 1000 4.5 10.48
3 At node 80 68 1000 5.5 5.74
4 At node 80 68 1000 5.4 12.83
5 At node 80 68 1000 6 9.06
6 At Internode 80 68 1000 6.8 16
7 At Internode 80 68 1000 6.4 8.54
8 At Internode 80 68 1000 7.4 8.54
9 At Internode 80 68 1000 4 9.26
10 At Internode 40 32 1000 4.1 11.28
11 At node 40 32 1000 3.9 14.22
12 At node 40 32 1000 4.8 15.88
14 At node 40 32 1000 3.8 13.91
15 At node 40 32 1000 2.5 14.02
18 At node 40 32 1000 2.9 12.5
13 At Internode 40 32 1000 3.7 11.81
16 At Internode 40 32 1000 1.8 12.36
17 At Internode 40 32 1000 4.5 11.13
BENDING TEST RESULT (node)

i. Bending Strength
Diameter Bending
Bending of Inner Average of Strength New average of
Test for Bamboo, Diameter, Maximum Displacement Moment of Bending Bending Representative, Bending
Sample bamboo d di Length load at break Inertia Strength, σb Strength, σb Strength, σb
No. sample (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (m4) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
xn x (x n - x)
2

1 At node 80 68 1000 6.2 13.12 9.61063E-07 43.01 3199.00 43.01

2 At node 80 68 1000 4.5 10.48 9.61063E-07 31.22 4672.02 31.22
3 At node 80 68 1000 5.5 5.74 9.61063E-07 38.15 3771.85 38.15
4 At node 80 68 1000 5.4 12.83 9.61063E-07 37.46 3857.54 37.46
5 At node 80 68 1000 6 9.06 9.61063E-07 41.62 99.57 3357.86 41.62 43.41
11 At node 40 32 1000 3.9 14.22 7.41919E-08 175.22 5723.50
12 At node 40 32 1000 4.8 15.88 7.41919E-08 215.66 13476.78
14 At node 40 32 1000 3.8 13.91 7.41919E-08 170.73 5063.88
15 At node 40 32 1000 2.5 14.02 7.41919E-08 112.32 162.66 112.32
18 At node 40 32 1000 2.9 12.5 7.41919E-08 130.29 944.04 130.29
TOTAL = 995.68 44229.12 434.07

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, S d = √1/(10-1) x 44229.12 = 70.10

x - S d = 29.47
x + S d =

98
169.67
ii. Bending Modulus of Elasticity Bending
Diameter Average of Modulus of New average of
Bending of Inner Bending Bending Elasticity Bending
Test for Bamboo, Diameter, Maximum Displacement Moment of Modulus of Modulus of Representative, Modulus of
Sample bamboo d di Length load at break Inertia Elasticity,Eb Elasticity Εb Elasticity, Eb
No. sample (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (m4) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
xn x (x n - x)
2

1 At node 80 68 1000 6.2 13.12 9.61063E-07 10243.88 993413422.1 10243.88

2 At node 80 68 1000 4.5 10.48 9.61063E-07 9308.03 1053282234
3 At node 80 68 1000 5.5 5.74 9.61063E-07 20771.00 440636312.5 20771.00
4 At node 80 68 1000 5.4 12.83 9.61063E-07 9123.76 1065277187
5 At node 80 68 1000 6 9.06 9.61063E-07 14355.88 41762.34 751114353 14355.88 16.06
11 At node 40 32 1000 3.9 14.22 7.41919E-08 77013.62 1242652795
12 At node 40 32 1000 4.8 15.88 7.41919E-08 84877.64 1858928703
14 At node 40 32 1000 3.8 13.91 7.41919E-08 76711.24 1221425550
15 At node 40 32 1000 2.5 14.02 7.41919E-08 50071.95 69049640.76 50071.95
18 At node 40 32 1000 2.9 12.5 7.41919E-08 65146.42 546814903.5 65146.42
TOTAL = 417623.43 9242595101 160589.14

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, S d = √1/(10-1) x 9242595101 = 32046.14

x - S d = 9716.20
x + S d = 73808.48

99
BENDING TEST RESULT (internode)

i. Bending Strength
Diameter Bending
Bending Test of Inner Average of Strength New average
Sample for bamboo Bamboo, Diameter, Maximum Displacement Moment of Bending Bending Representative, of Bending
No. sample d di Length load at break Inertia Strength, σb Strength, σb Strength, σb
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (m4) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
xn x (x n - x) 2
6 At Internode 80 68 1000 6.8 16 9.61063E-07 47.17 2845.92 47.17
7 At Internode 80 68 1000 6.4 8.54 9.61063E-07 44.40 3149.66 44.40
8 At Internode 80 68 1000 7.4 8.54 9.61063E-07 51.33 2419.17 51.33
9 At Internode 80 68 1000 4 9.26 9.61063E-07 27.75 5295.49
10 At Internode 40 32 1000 4.1 11.28 7.41919E-08 184.21 100.52 7004.01 48.75
13 At Internode 40 32 1000 3.7 11.81 7.41919E-08 166.24 4318.93 166.24
16 At Internode 40 32 1000 1.8 12.36 7.41919E-08 80.87 385.95 80.87
17 At Internode 40 32 1000 4.5 11.13 7.41919E-08 202.18 10335.04
TOTAL = 804.14 35754.18 390.00

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, S d = √1/(8-1) x 35754.18 = 71.47

x - S d = 29.05
x + S d = 171.99

100
ii. Bending Modulus of Elasticity
Bending
Diameter Average of Modulus of New average
Bending Test of Inner Bending Bending Elasticity of Bending
Sample for bamboo Bamboo, Diameter, Maximum Displacement Moment of Modulus of Modulus of Representative, Modulus of
No. sample d di Length load at break,δ Inertia Elasticity,Eb Elasticity Εb Elasticity, Eb
(mm) (mm) (mm) (kN) (mm) (m4) (MPa) (MPa) (GPa)
xn x (x n - x) 2
6 At Internode 80 68 1000 6.8 16 9.61063E-07 9212.88 1643977655 9212.88
7 At Internode 80 68 1000 6.4 8.54 9.61063E-07 16245.34 1123157295 16245.34
8 At Internode 80 68 1000 7.4 8.54 9.61063E-07 18783.67 959463302.2 18783.67
9 At Internode 80 68 1000 4 9.26 9.61063E-07 9363.88 1631756170 9363.88
10 At Internode 40 32 1000 4.1 11.28 7.41919E-08 102065.11 49758.88 2735941791 22.81
13 At Internode 40 32 1000 3.7 11.81 7.41919E-08 87974.01 1460396063 87974.01
16 At Internode 40 32 1000 1.8 12.36 7.41919E-08 40893.72 78591099.51 40893.72
17 At Internode 40 32 1000 4.5 11.13 7.41919E-08 113532.42 4067064688
TOTAL = 398071.03 13700348064 182473.50

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, S d = √1/(8-1) x 13700348064 = 44240.17

x - S d = 5518.71
x + S d = 93999.05

101
 102

APPENDIX B

Tensile Test Data of Bamboo

TENSILE TEST DATA

Tensile
Tensile Test Diameter of Maximum Extension at Modulus of
Sample for bamboo Bamboo, d Length Width Thickness Area load break Stress, σt Strain, δ Elasticity, E
2
No. sample (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (kN) (mm) (MPa) (GPa)
1 At node 80 500 11.65 8.08 94.13 10.95 12.46 116.33 0.02492 4.668
4 At node 80 500 12.58 6.11 76.86 15.9 14.37 206.86 0.02874 7.198
6 At node 80 384 11.38 7.25 82.51 15.7 11.95 190.29 0.031119792 6.115
9 At node 80 381 10.6 6.09 64.55 11.08 8.65 171.64 0.022703412 7.560
3 At Internode 80 500 12.81 6.95 89.03 15.58 14.62 175.00 0.02924 5.985
10 At Internode 80 392 10.29 6.47 66.58 15.17 12.35 227.86 0.031505102 7.232
15 At Internode 80 414 11.9 6.25 74.38 20.8 13.15 279.66 0.031763285 8.805
5 At node 40 300 13.54 5.46 73.93 1.78 13.48 24.08 0.044933333 0.536
12 At node 40 390 11.92 5.12 61.03 1.93 6.6 31.62 0.016923077 1.869
13 At node 40 385 12.15 5.23 63.54 1.78 3.68 28.01 0.009558442 2.931
14 At node 40 386 12.15 5.96 72.41 7.09 6.66 97.91 0.017253886 5.675
2 At Internode 40 500 12.22 4.25 51.94 8.66 15.91 166.75 0.03182 5.240
7 At Internode 40 392 12.38 4 49.52 2.04 4.88 41.20 0.01244898 3.309
8 At Internode 40 390 11.53 4.35 50.16 2.21 3.55 44.06 0.009102564 4.841
11 At Internode 40 389 12.45 4.28 53.29 1.75 7.71 32.84 0.019820051 1.657

103
 104

Tensile Test Graph

Machine: INSTRON-5567
5567
Standard: ASTM A370

SAMPLE -T1 SAMPLE -T2

SAMPLE -T3 SAMPLE -T4

SAMPLE -T5 SAMPLE -T6

SAMPLE -T7 SAMPLE -T8

 105

SAMPLE -T9 SAMPLE -T10

SAMPLE -T11 SAMPLE -T12

SAMPLE -T13 SAMPLE -T14

SAMPLE -T15
TENSILE TEST RESULT (node)

i. Tensile Strength
Bending Diameter
Test for of Average of Tensile Strength New average of
Sample bamboo Bamboo, Maximum Extension Tensile Tensile Representative, Tensile Strength,
No. sample d Length Width Thickness Area load at break Strength, σt Strength, σt σt
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm2) (kN) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
xn x (x n - x)
2

1 At node 80 500 11.65 8.08 94.13 10.95 12.46 116.33 63.74 116.33
4 At node 80 500 12.58 6.11 76.86 15.9 14.37 206.86 9705.62
6 At node 80 384 11.38 7.25 82.51 15.7 11.95 190.29 6715.67
9 At node 80 381 10.6 6.09 64.55 11.08 8.65 171.64 4006.51 171.64
5 At node 40 300 13.54 5.46 73.93 1.78 13.48 24.08 108.34 7100.58 48.23
12 At node 40 390 11.92 5.12 61.03 1.93 6.6 31.62 5885.76
13 At node 40 385 12.15 5.23 63.54 1.78 3.68 28.01 6452.97
14 At node 40 386 12.15 5.96 72.41 7.09 6.66 97.91 108.85 97.91

TOTAL = 866.74 40039.70 385.87

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, Sd = √1/(8-1) x 40039.7 = 75.63

x - S d = 32.71
x + S d = 183.97

106
ii. Tensile Modulus of Elasticity
Average of New average of
Diameter Tensile Tensile Tensile Tensile Modulus Tensile
Sample of Maximum Extension Strength, Modulus of Modulus of of Elasticity Modulus of
No. Bamboo, d Length Width Thickness Area load at break σt Strain, δ Elasticity, Et Elasticity, Representative, Εt Elasticity, Et
2
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (kN) (mm) (MPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
xn x (x n - x) 2

1 80 500 11.65 8.08 94.13 10.95 12.46 116.33 0.02492 4.668 0.010 4.67
4 80 500 12.58 6.11 76.86 15.9 14.37 206.86 0.02874 7.198 6.911
6 80 384 11.38 7.25 82.51 15.7 11.95 190.29 0.03111979 6.115 2.390 6.11
9 80 381 10.6 6.09 64.55 11.08 8.65 171.64 0.02270341 7.560 8.948
5 40 300 13.54 5.46 73.93 1.78 13.48 24.08 0.04493333 0.536 4.57 16.264 2.42
12 40 390 11.92 5.12 61.03 1.93 6.6 31.62 0.01692308 1.869 7.291
13 40 385 12.15 5.23 63.54 1.78 3.68 28.01 0.00955844 2.931 2.684 2.93
14 40 386 12.15 5.96 72.41 7.09 6.66 97.91 0.01725389 5.675 1.223 5.67
TOTAL = 36.550 45.72 19.39

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, Sd = √1/(8-1) x 45.72 = 2.56

x - S d = 2.01
x + S d = 7.12

107
iii. Tensile Modulus of Elasticity x Area (EA)
Tensile Average of
Diameter Tensile Modulus of Tensile Tensile Modulus
Sample of Maximum Extension Strength, Elasticity x Modulus of of Elasticity New average of
No. Bamboo, d Length Width Thickness Area load at break σt Strain, δ Area (EA) Elasticity, Representative, Εt Tensile (EA)
2
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (kN) (mm) (MPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
xn x (x n - x) 2
1 80 500 11.65 8.08 94.13 10.95 12.46 116.33 0.02492 439.406 189083.501 439.41
4 80 500 12.58 6.11 76.86 15.9 14.37 206.86 0.02874 553.236 301035.625 553.24
6 80 384 11.38 7.25 82.51 15.7 11.95 190.29 0.03111979 504.502 249933.324 504.50
9 80 381 10.6 6.09 64.55 11.08 8.65 171.64 0.02270341 488.032 233737.050 488.03
5 40 300 13.54 5.46 73.93 1.78 13.48 24.08 0.04493333 39.614 342.00 1228.185 39.61 342.00
12 40 390 11.92 5.12 61.03 1.93 6.6 31.62 0.01692308 114.045 11985.144 114.045
13 40 385 12.15 5.23 63.54 1.78 3.68 28.01 0.00955844 186.223 32998.195 186.22
14 40 386 12.15 5.96 72.41 7.09 6.66 97.91 0.01725389 410.922 165122.882 410.92
TOTAL = 2735.981 1185123.90 2735.98

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, Sd = √1/(8-1) x 1185123.9 = 411.46

x - S d = -69.47
x + S d = 753.46

108
TENSILE TEST RESULT (internode)

i. Tensile Strength
Diameter
Bending Test of Average of New average of
Sample for bamboo Bamboo, Maximum Extension at Tensile Tensile Tensile Strength Tensile Strength,
No. sample d Length Width Thickness Area load break Strength, σt Strength, Representative, σt σt
2
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (kN) (mm) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
xn x (x n - x)
2

3 At Internode 80 500 12.81 6.95 89.03 15.58 14.62 175.00 1354.44 175.00
10 At Internode 80 392 10.29 6.47 66.58 15.17 12.35 227.86 8039.53 227.86
15 At Internode 80 414 11.9 6.25 74.38 20.8 13.15 279.66 20013.32
2 At Internode 40 500 12.22 4.25 51.94 8.66 15.91 166.75 815.19 166.75
7 At Internode 40 392 12.38 4 49.52 2.04 4.88 41.20 138.20 9408.99 41.20 93.55
8 At Internode 40 390 11.53 4.35 50.16 2.21 3.55 44.06 8860.92 44.06
11 At Internode 40 389 12.45 4.28 53.29 1.75 7.71 32.84 11099.42
TOTAL = 967.37 59591.81 654.86

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, Sd = √1/(7-1) x 59591.81 = 99.66

x - S d = 38.54
x + S d = 237.85

109
ii. Tensile Modulus of Elasticity
Average of New average
Tensile Tensile Tensile Modulus of Tensile
Sample Diameter of Maximum Extension Tensile Modulus of Modulus of of Elasticity Modulus of
No. Bamboo, d Length Width Thickness Area load at break Strength, σt Strain, δ Elasticity, Et Elasticity, Representative, Εt Elasticity, Et
2
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (kN) (mm) (MPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
xn x (x n - x) 2

3 80 500 12.81 6.95 89.03 15.58 14.62 175.00 0.02924 5.985 0.475 5.98
10 80 392 10.29 6.47 66.58 15.17 12.35 227.86 0.031505102 7.232 3.751 7.23
15 80 414 11.9 6.25 74.38 20.8 13.15 279.66 0.031763285 8.805 12.313
2 40 500 12.22 4.25 51.94 8.66 15.91 166.75 0.03182 5.240 0.003 5.24
7 40 392 12.38 4 49.52 2.04 4.88 41.20 0.01244898 3.309 5.30 3.946 3.31 3.80
8 40 390 11.53 4.35 50.16 2.21 3.55 44.06 0.009102564 4.841 0.207 4.841
11 40 389 12.45 4.28 53.29 1.75 7.71 32.84 0.019820051 1.657 13.239
TOTAL = 37.069 33.94 26.61

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, Sd = √1/(7-1) x 33.94 = 2.38

x - S d = 2.92
x + S d = 7.67

110
iii. Tensile Modulus of Elasticity x Area (EA)
Tensile Average of
Modulus of Tensile Tensile Modulus New average
Sample Diameter of Maximum Extension Tensile Elasticity x Modulus of of Elasticity of Tensile
No. Bamboo, d Length Width Thickness Area load at break Strength, σt Strain, δ Area (EA) Elasticity, Representative, Εt (EA)
2
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm ) (kN) (mm) (MPa) (GPa) (GPa) (GPa)
xn x (x n - x)
2

3 80 500 12.81 6.95 89.03 15.58 14.62 175.00 0.02924 532.832 278294.4 532.83
10 80 392 10.29 6.47 66.58 15.17 12.35 227.86 0.031505102 481.509 226779.5 481.51
15 80 414 11.9 6.25 74.38 20.8 13.15 279.66 0.031763285 654.844 421913.3 654.84
2 40 500 12.22 4.25 51.94 8.66 15.91 166.75 0.03182 272.156 71214.4 272.16
7 40 392 12.38 4 49.52 2.04 4.88 41.20 0.01244898 163.869 348.04 25145.5 163.87 348.04
8 40 390 11.53 4.35 50.16 2.21 3.55 44.06 0.009102564 242.789 56403.0 242.789
11 40 389 12.45 4.28 53.29 1.75 7.71 32.84 0.019820051 88.294 6888.806 88.29
TOTAL = 2436.293 1086638.86 2436.29

Therefore,

Standard Deviation, Sd = √1/(7-1) x 1086638.86 = 425.57

x - S d = -77.52
x + S d = 773.61

111
 112

APPENDIX C

Location of strain gauges

 113

Location of strain gauges attach on bamboo and geotextile (TS40)