Journal of Natural Fibers

ISSN: 1544-0478 (Print) 1544-046X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjnf20

Coir Geotextiles for Paved Roads: A Laboratory

and Field Study Using Non-Plastic Soil as Subgrade

M. K. Sayida, Sheela Y. Evangeline & M. S. Girish

To cite this article: M. K. Sayida, Sheela Y. Evangeline & M. S. Girish (2019): Coir Geotextiles for
Paved Roads: A Laboratory and Field Study Using Non-Plastic Soil as Subgrade, Journal of Natural
Fibers, DOI: 10.1080/15440478.2019.1568344

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.1568344

Published online: 31 Jan 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjnf20
JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.1568344

Coir Geotextiles for Paved Roads: A Laboratory and Field Study

Using Non-Plastic Soil as Subgrade
M. K. Sayida, Sheela Y. Evangeline, and M. S. Girish
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this paper, pavement proposed on soft subgrade (SG) that requires Coir geotextile; subgrade;
improvement is studied and reported. One of the methods of improvement subbase; surface course;
characteristic deflection;
is reinforcing SG with geotextile. Laboratory studies were conducted on dynamic cone penetration
both paved and unpaved sections, whereas field performance studies were index
conducted only on paved roads. Three types of woven and one type of
nonwoven coir geotextiles were used as reinforcement in the laboratory 关键词
study, out of which one woven geotextile was used in the field. Effects of 椰壳土工布; 路基; 底基层;
reinforcements were studied by placing the geotextiles at different posi- 表面过程; 特征偏转; 动力
tions of the section in the lab model, and cyclic load tests were conducted 触探指数
and resistance to permanent deformation was reported. Field performances
were evaluated by the Benkelman beam deflection (BBD) test, the dynamic
cone penetration (DCP) test, and the field California bearing ratio (CBR) test.
Test results indicate that the reinforced roads have less distress compared
to the unreinforced one. Change in characteristic deflection, DCP indices,
and about 50% improvement in field CBR values were obtained for the
reinforced one.

摘要
本文对软土路基上提出的需要改进的路面进行了研究和报告.其中一种改
进方法是用土工织物加固路基.实验室研究对铺面和未铺面路段进行，而
现场性能研究仅对铺面道路进行.实验室研究采用三种机织物和一种无纺
布椰壳纤维土工织物作为增强材料，其中一种机织土工织物用于野外.在
实验室模型中，通过将土工织物放置在不同截面位置，研究了加筋效
果，并进行了循环荷载试验，报告了加筋对永久变形的抵抗力.通过弯曲
试验、动力触探试验和现场CBR试验，对现场性能进行了评价.试验结果表
明，加筋后的道路与未加筋的道路相比，其受力较小.结果表明，加筋混
凝土的特征变形量、动力触探指数和现场CBR值有50%左右的提高.

Introduction
Development of a nation is closely related to its transportation infrastructure. In an agricultural
country like India, low-volume roads play an important role in mobilizing the rural economy. India
has a road network of 56,03,293 km, including 115,435 km of national highways and 3,935,337 km of
rural roads as on June 2017. Rural roads of India form a substantial portion of the Indian road
network, constituting 70% of the total roads in India (Basic road statistics of India, 2016) .
As rural roads have low traffic intensity with most of them being near agricultural fields, the
available subgrade (SG) for construction is very weak. To strengthen this type of SG, it can be
reinforced by laying geotextiles in between SG and subbase (SB), SB and base course (BC), or

CONTACT M. K. Sayida [email protected] Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering Trivandrum,

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wjnf.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
2 M. K. SAYIDA ET AL.

within the SG. Major functions of geotextiles in roads include filtration, separation, and reinfor-
cement. Benefits of reducing BC thickness are realized if the cost of the geotextiles is less than the
cost of the reduced BC material. In developing countries like India, cost and availability of
geotextiles are the major constraining factors for the construction of reinforced soil structures.
High cost of geotextiles and environmental protection requirements make it important to explore
alternative natural products to make the construction cost efficient and eco-friendly (Rawal and
Anandjiwala 2007; Sarsby 2007). The benefits of using reinforcements in flexible pavements
depend largely on the quality and thickness of the granular base and location of the geo-
synthetics within the pavement structure along with other factors, such as mechanical properties
of the reinforcement material, SG strength, nature of interaction between soil and geotextiles, and
magnitude of the applied load (Al-Qadi et al. 2007). Non woven geotextile and geogrid can be
placed at the fill SG interface. Cyclic load tests conducted show that the number of cycles of load
that could be carried by the reinforced one is more than the unreinforced one for a particular rut
depth (Ennio, Luiz, and Antunes 2010). A series of laboratory model tests conducted on planar
synthetic geotextile reinforced sand bed under static and cyclic loading showed a significant
improvement in characteristic of footings under cyclic loads after the first few cycles. The footing
settlement was improved by increasing the mass of reinforcement in sand, and maximum
settlement was noticed after 10 cycles (Moghaddas, Tafreshi and Dawson 2010). Cyclic plate
load tests were conducted to analyze the performance of the geogrid reinforced unpaved section
by observing the resilient and permanent deformations, stresses, and strains. These showed that
the optimum depth of placing the geogrids in order to minimize the permanent deformation and
resilient modulus was 50 mm compared to larger depths of 100 mm and 150 mm. It was also
reported that geogrid reinforcement with the least layer thickness was able to reduce the
deformation by 50% compared to the unreinforced section of maximum thickness. The SG strain
of the reinforced one was reduced by 400% compared to the unreinforced one (Suku, Sudheer,
and Sivakumar, Babu 2017). The impregnation of the tack coat on geotextiles and geogrids
improves the mechanical and hydraulic properties of geo-synthetics (Correia and Zornberg 2014).
Natural geotextiles like coir and jute are gaining importance because of their eco-friendliness and low
cost with reasonable durability. High lignin content of coir fiber, extracted from the husk of coconut
fruit, make it more strong and durable. It has been reported that models reinforced with coir geotextiles
improve the bearing capacity of kaolinite (Venkatappa and Dutta 2006). Woven coir geotextiles placed
within the BC of unpaved roads with sufficient fill thickness above the geotextile layer will mobilize
frictional resistance at the interface of reinforcement and fill soil, which will prevent damage to the
reinforcement due to traffic (Subaida, Chandrakaran, and Sankar 2009). Durability study and plate load
test on coir geotextile reinforced soft SG soil show that the properties are comparable to those of
intermediate- to high-density polypropylene-based geotextiles and are capable of improving the stiffness
and load-bearing capacity of soft SGs. The physical and hydraulic properties of these coir geotextiles are
quite comparable to those of nonwoven synthetic geotextiles and have good transmissivity properties, so
they can be used for unpaved roads with low traffic intensity. It was also reported that coir fibers have
a life span of about four years (Rajagopal and Ramakrishna 2009). California bearing ratio (CBR) tests
conducted on four types of soil with and without coir geotextile showed that the CBR value can be
increased by about 1.5–2.2 times that of soil. Maximum improvement has been reported when it is placed
at a depth of 0.2 times the height of the specimen (Vinod and Minu 2010). While placing a geotextile
between the weak SG soil and the aggregate fill, it will act as a support membrane and provide local
reinforcement and a physical barrier to the intermixing of the aggregate and SG soil. It will also provide
sufficient friction to limit lateral sliding of the aggregate and restrain the SB from downward and lateral
movement in the rut and the SG soil from upward and lateral movement between the ruts. Using
geotextiles in rural road construction improves the quality of rural roads, increases the life span of the
road, and reduces the cost of repair. Geotextiles also allow the road to withstand natural climatic events
like floods or monsoon destruction and help balance the local ecosystem with the use of natural
geotextiles such as jute (Leao et al. 2012).
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 3

Static and cyclic load tests conducted on unpaved laboratory model sections reinforced with woven and
nonwoven coir geotextiles have reported a considerable improvement in bearing capacity, reduced plastic
deformation, increased traffic benefit ratio, and reduced resilient modulus (Sayida, Sheela, and Girish 2014).
Studies on the load-carrying capacity of jute geotextile reinforced and unreinforced roads found an increase
in the load-carrying capacity by about 1.5–7 times than that of the unreinforced one (Khan, Huq, and
Hossain 2014). The use of natural geotextiles such as coir and jute retards the reflection cracking in highways
and it was found that woven geotextiles meet the minimum specification required for pavement fabric,
whereas nonwoven geotextiles do not meet such requirements (Sudarsanan et al. 2018).
A 3D finite-element analysis simulated to evaluate the effect of jute geotextile interlayer on the
performance of flexible pavements showed that jute geotextile placed at three different positions
decreases the stress and displacement at the top of the SG. The reduction in these parameters due to
jute geotextile is more at higher wheel pressure. The bearing capacity of SG soil will be more than 20%
when reinforced with jute geotextile (Mostaqur and Rahman 2018).
Laboratory triaxial tests and field study of dynamic cone penetration (DCP) tests conducted on
cohesive soil and statistical models developed for predicting resilient modulus from the dynamic
cone penetration index (DCPI) reported a good agreement between the predicted and the DCPI
value obtained from field study (Herath et al. 2005). From the DCP, direct shear and plate load tests
conducted in the laboratory for validation of DCP test results, it was found that there is a good
agreement between DCPI, relative density, modulus of elasticity, shear modulus, modulus of SG
reaction, and the friction angle of the soil (Mohammadi et al. 2008). Also, a slight change in moisture
content during compaction has a significant effect on resilient modulus and subsequent pavement
rutting (Rahman and Gassman 2018). The application of cyclic loading enhances the CBR value of
the soil compared to static loading (Robert 2017). No studies have been reported in the literature
about the cyclic load test on coir geotextile reinforced and unreinforced paved model pavement
sections under soaked condition as well as field studies using the Benkelman beam deflection (BBD)
test, the DCP test, and field CBR tests for roads with nonplastic SG soil.

Materials and methods

Materials
The properties of SG soil used in this study are presented in Table 1. The SB course was prepared as
per the Indian Road Congress (IRC: 109 2015), whereas the base and surface courses were prepared
as per IRC: 29 1988 and IRC: 94 1986.

Coir geotextile
Three types of woven and one type of nonwoven geotextiles, designated as GT1, GT2, GT3, and
NGT, having an average mass per unit area of 1200, 900, 700, and 420 g/m2, respectively, were used

Table 1. Properties of soil.

Properties Value
Specific Gravity 2.62
Gravel (%) 6
Sand (%) 61
Silt (%) 32.50
Clay (%) 0.50
Liquid limit (%) 28.00
Plastic limit Nonplastic
Shrinkage limit (%) 19.00
Maximum dry density (kg/m3) 2090.00
Optimum moisture content (%) 11.74
Soaked CBR value (%) 4.05
4 M. K. SAYIDA ET AL.

Table 2. Properties of coir geotextile.

Particulars Unit Woven Type Nonwoven Type
Designation GT1 GT2 GT3 NGT
Mass/unit area gm/m2 1200 900 700 420
Thickness mm 8.35 8.66 7.56 6.97
Opening size mm × mm 9×3 10 × 6 20 × 20 2.36 mm dia. average
Tensile strength
Machine direction kg/m 2568.80 1550.50 897.00 81.55
Cross-machine direction kg/m 1661.60 1000.00 835.90 76.45
Failure Strain
Machine direction % 30 21 29 30
Cross-machine direction % 32 28 30 25

for the study. The properties of geotextiles are presented in Table 2, and the photographs are shown
in Figure 1.

Laboratory model study

The model sections were prepared in a test tank of size 600 mm diameter and 400 mm deep made of
mild steel plate. The plate used for loading had a 120 mm diameter and was 25 mm thick. In the full-
scale test, the wheel load has a width of 300 mm, and the scale factor used for the model test is 5/2.
The thickness of SG used in the experiment was 250 mm, corresponding to 625 mm in the full-scale
test. The thickness of SB and BC used for the model test was 60 mm, which represents 150 mm
thickness (50 mm SB course and 100 mm BC) in the field. The thicknesses used in the lab for dense
bituminous macadam (DBM) and surface course are 20 mm and 12 mm, which represents 50 mm
and 30 mm thickness, respectively, in the field. Thus, this 50-mm-thick DBM can also be considered
as BC. Thus, the total thickness of SB, BC, and surface course of the model section was 230 mm. The
thicknesses of different layers were chosen based on the CBR value and the traffic volume as per the
guidelines specified by the Indian Road Congress IRC: SP-20 2002, rural roads manual, and Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH).
To avoid boundary effect, the inner side of the tank was covered with a thin polythene sheet
before filling with the soil. The soil was filled in the tank at optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density. Cyclic load tests were conducted on reinforced and unreinforced paved
and unpaved model sections under laboratory conditions. The intensity of cyclic load was chosen
based on the ultimate bearing capacity of paved and unpaved model sections under static loading.
About 60% of the ultimate bearing capacity was taken as load intensity. (Subaida, Chandrakaran,
and Sankar 2009). Paved sections were tested at a load intensity of 40 M g/m2 (equivalent to
a tire pressure of 100M g/m2). Unpaved sections were tested at a load intensity of 30M g/m2
(equivalent to a tire pressure of 75 M g/m2). The geotextiles were placed in between SG and BC
(wet mix macadam) in the unpaved section. In the paved section, it was placed in either one of
the two positions. They are either in between SG and BC or in between BC and surface course,
which consists of DBM and premix chipping carpet. All the tests were conducted multiple times
to verify the repeatability of the experiment. Schematic diagram of the test setup is shown in
Figure 2.

Field study
To conduct field study, a test road constructed during 2013 was selected, and the same SG soil was
used for the laboratory study. Typical cross section of the road is shown in Figure 3. The road is
Manakodam ration kada road in Alleppy district, Kerala, South India, which was constructed by the
Government of Kerala; the coir geotextiles were laid by College of Engineering
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 5

Figure 1. Coir geotextiles used for the study.

Thiruvananthapuram (CET), and the performance study was carried out continuously by CET. The
coir geotextile designated as GT3 was used in field and was placed in between SG and sub-BC for
a length of 750 m as shown in Figure 3. The tests performed in the field were 1) visual examination,
2) BBD test, 3) DCP test, and 4) field CBR tests.

Visual examination
The performances were studied based on visual examinations by noting alligator cracking, block
cracking, transverse cracking, joint reflection cracking, patching, polished aggregate, potholes,
6 M. K. SAYIDA ET AL.

Figure 2. Test setup for the laboratory study (dimensions in mm).

Figure 3. Typical cross section of the road used for the study (not to scale).

corrugation and shoving, depression, rutting, stripping, and edge breaking on reinforced and
unreinforced stretches of the road.

BBD test
Schematic diagram and photograph of the BBD apparatus are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
The test was performed as per IRC: 81 1997. The rebound deflection of the pavement was
determined under a standard wheel load, tire pressure, and standard temperature. The standard
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 7

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the BBD test apparatus.

Figure 5. BBD test setup in the field.

axial load is 8170 kg, equally distributed on two dual-tired wheels operating at an inflation pressure
of 5.6 kg/cm2. Temperature of the pavement was measured using a thermometer after drilling a hole
in the pavement after pouring glycerin in it.
Rebound deflection value D at any point is given by D = 2 (D0 – Df) + 2 K (Di – Df), where D0 is the
initial dial gauge reading when the beam is in between the back dual tires. It is normally adjusted to zero.
Di is the intermediate dial gauge reading after moving the truck to a distance of 2.7 m, and Df is the final
dial gauge reading after moving the truck to a distance of 9 m. Characteristic deflection is calculated using
the formula Dc = X  + σ, where X
 is the mean deflection and σ is the standard deviation.

DCP test
The DCP test was conducted according to the ASTM D6951/D6951M-18: 2018, standard test method for
use of DCP in shallow pavement applications, to measure the strength of in situ soil, and the thickness
and type of subsurface soil layers. It is similar to CPT in that a metal cone is advanced into the ground to
continuously characterize the soil behavior and provide a measure of a material’s in situ resistance to
8 M. K. SAYIDA ET AL.

penetration in mm per blow, known as DCPI. The test was performed by driving a metal cone into the
ground by repeatedly striking it with an 8 kg weight dropped from a height of 575 mm.
First, a hole of 15 cm diameter is drilled to access the cone. Once the layer to be tested has been
reached, a reference reading is taken and the thickness of the layers cored through is recorded. This
reference reading is the point from which the subsequent penetration is measured. The DCP device
is held in a vertical or plumb position. The 8 kg hammer is raised until it makes only light contact
with the handle and then allowed to free fall through aheight of 575mm. The number of blows and
the corresponding penetrations were recorded up to adepth of penetration of 300mm. The DCP test
was conducted on geotextile reinforced and unreinforced sections of the road. The field DCP test
setup is shown in Figure 6.

Field CBR test

The field CBR test was conducted on a pavement according to theASTM D4429a :2009, standard test
method for CBR, and laboratory CBR tests were conducted on samples prepared as per ASTM
D1883: 2016. The field test setup is shown in Figure 7. The equipment used are a truck to provide
load reaction, a loading jack, a screw jack with swivel, a proving ring, a dial gauge, and a piston of

Figure 6. Dynamic cone penetrometer test setup in the field.

 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 9

Figure 7. Field CBR test setup.

diameter 50 mm and necessary length of extension pipes or rods. It was ensured that the entire
assembly is in plumb, and the loading jack was clamped in position. The surcharge annular weight of
mass 5kg was kept in position on the surface to be tested so that when the piston is lowered, it will
pass through the hole in the annular weight.
Initially, the dial gauge reading was set to zero. Load was applied so that the penetration is
approximately 1.25 mm/min. The load was noted up to a penetration of 12.5 mm. Soil from the test
pit was collected for finding the field moisture content and field density. The in situ CBR values were
determined with a standard load of 1370 kg for 2.5 mm penetration and 2055 kg for 5 mm penetration.

Results and discussion

Laboratory study
The results of cyclic load tests conducted in the laboratory under soaked condition using four types
of coir geotextiles placed between SG and BC for unpaved section, SG and BC or BC and SC surface
course for paved sections are presented in Figures 8–10, respectively.
The settlement after 100 cycles and the percentage reduction in settlement for reinforced sections are
presented in Table 3. From Figures 8–10, it is observed that variation of plastic deformation versus
number of repetitions, plastic deformation is less for the reinforced section compared to the unreinforced
section, irrespective of the position of the geotextile. Deformation is high for the paved section compared
to the unpaved section. This may be due to the increase in layer thickness for the paved section compared
to the unpaved one, and may be due to more particle rearrangement within the section. For the unpaved
section, performance of the nonwoven type is almost the same as GT2, whereas for the paved section, the
nonwoven one is better than GT2. In all the cases, performance of the nonwoven one is almost the same.
Based on this study, it can be concluded that if the mass per unit area of the geotextile increases,
10 M. K. SAYIDA ET AL.

Figure 8. Plastic deformation versus number of cycles with geotextile between the subgrade and base course for the unpaved section.

Figure 9. Plastic deformation versus number of cycles with geotextile between the subgrade and base course for the paved section.

performance is also better for the woven type. More reduction in settlement was obtained for the
geotextile with higher mass per unit area when it is placed in between SG and BC for the paved section.
For the geotextile with lesser mass per unit area, more reduction in settlement was obtained when it was
placed in between BC and the surface course. These improvements may be due to the higher frictional
resistance between the geotextile and the granular layer.
The results of cyclic load tests conducted in the laboratory under soaked condition using four types of
coir geotextiles placed between SG and BC for the unpaved section are presented in Figure 8; SG and BC
or BC and SC surface course for the paved sections are presented in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. The
figures show that the extent of deformation on exposure to cyclic load was considerably less for the
reinforced section compared to the unreinforced section, irrespective of the position of the geotextile.
Deformation is high for the paved section compared to the unpaved section. However, it is interesting to
observe that reinforcement using geotextiles GT1 and GT2 showed much lower deformation for paved
roads (5 mm) than unpaved roads (10 mm) even up to 100 cycles of loading. This shows that coir
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 11

Figure 10. Plastic deformation versus number of cycles with geotextile between the base course and surface for the paved section.

Table 3. Percentage reduction in permanent deformation for different sections.

Unpaved GSGSB Paved GSGSB Paved GSBBC
Type of section
(150mm thick base Settlement % Reduction in Settlement % Reduction in Settlement % Reduction in
course) (mm) settlement (mm) settlement (mm) settlement
UR 26 – 38 – 38 –
R (GT1) 11 58 5 87 6 84
R (GT2) 18 31 11 71 14 63
R (GT3) 22 15 30 21 16 58
R (NGT) 18 31 18 53 14 63
UR, unreinforced; R, reinforced; GSGSB-GT, between subgrade and subbase; GSBBC-GT, between subbase and base course

geotextiles of finer mesh (GT1, GT2) provide a much higher reinforcement effect than GT3 with a larger
mesh density due to the much higher fractionation of the load and better confinement of the materials of
the corresponding layer.
More settlement was obtained for the geotextile with a higher mass per unit area when it is placed
in between SG and BC for the paved section. Geotextiles having bigger mesh density (GT2 and GT3)
or lower tensile strength (NGT), positioned in between the surface course and BC (Figure 10), impart
better reinforcement than those positioned in between SG and BC (Figure 9). The better performance
of woven coir geotextiles is mainly due to breakdown of the applied load by its continuous elastic mesh
structure that does not allow it to propagate the load to reach SB/SG to create any deformation.
Nonwoven geotextiles having much lower tensile strength (machine direction 82 kg/m and cross
direction 77 kg/m) than woven geotextiles (machine direction 2568–897 kg/m and cross direction
1661–835 kg/m) facilitate the same performance probably due to its resiliency, and so works as a load
absorber, thus reducing the impact of the cyclic load. The finer porosity in the case of the nonwoven
structure also induces better separation properties than a woven structure.

Field study
The properties of SG soil in the field are presented in Table 1. The coir geotextile laid in the field is
designated as GT3; its properties are presented in Table 2 and the cross section of the road is shown
in Figure 3. GT3 is used because of its comparative performance and cost effectiveness compared to
12 M. K. SAYIDA ET AL.

Figure 11. Road without coir geotextile reinforcement.

Figure 12. Road with coir geotextile reinforcement.

other types of geotextiles used in the study. The results of field studies conducted on reinforced and
unreinforced stretches of roads are presented below.

Visual examination
Figures 11 and 12 represent the portion of a road selected for the field study with and without coir
geotextile reinforcement, and the results of the visual observations of the entire road are presented in
Table 4. From Figure 11, it is seen that there are potholes on unreinforced roads compared to the
reinforced one. The reason for the absence of holes in reinforced roads may be due to the lateral
spreading of loads over a wider area due to the use of geotextiles. In unreinforced roads, distresses like
stripping, edge breaking, and alligator cracking were also observed. The geotextiles were wrapped along
the edges of the road for a length of 30 cm to ensure that there is no edge breaking in the reinforced one.

BBD test
Characteristic deflection values calculated from BBD tests for the reinforced and unreinforced
stretches of roads during the years 2016 and 2017 are presented in Table 5. There is a reduction
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 13

Table 4. Results of visual evaluation.

Manacodam ration kada road
Distress type Reinforced Unreinforced
Alligator cracking X √
Block cracking X X
Transverse cracking X X
Joint reflection cracking X X
Patching X X
Polished aggregate X X
Potholes X √
Corrugation and shoving X X
Depression X X
Rutting X X
Stripping X √
Edge breaking X √
X, absence of defect; √, presence of defect

Table 5. BBD test results.

2016 2017
Year Designation WGT WOGT % Reduction WGT WOGT % Reduction
Characteristic deflection (mm) 1.21 1.84 34 1.66 2.28 27
WOGT, without geotextile; WGT, with geotextile

in characteristic deflection for reinforced roads compared to the unreinforced one. The laying of coir
geotextiles may have accelerated the lateral drainage, thereby the amount of water penetrating into
the subgrade would be less compared to the unreinforced section. Owing to surcharge load of the
SB, BC, SC , and heavy traffic load, the soil with coir geotextiles will get consolidated and the CBR
and load-carrying capacity of coir geotextile reinforced SG will increase compared to the unrein-
forced one. This may be the reason for the decrease in characteristic deflection for the reinforced
section compared to the unreinforced one.
As per IRC: 81 1997, the minimum permissible deflection that requires overlay for traffic of 1 msa
is 1.7 mm. The characteristic deflections obtained for the reinforced and unreinforced roads during
the wet season of 2016 were 1.21 mm and 1.84 mm, respectively, whereas those for 2017 were
1.66 mm and 2.28 mm, respectively. Characteristic deflection with geotextile is less than 1.7 mm, and
so additional overlay is not required for the reinforced one.

Cost-benefit analysis
Initial cost
From the laboratory studies, a CBR value of 4 was obtained for the SG soil alone. However, with coir
geotextile, the CBR value increased to 5. As per IRC: SP-72 2015, the variations in layer thickness for
the reinforced and unreinforced ones were determined, and it was found that there is 33% reduction
in quantity of material for both modified SG and granular SB for the reinforced pavement. While
analyzing the cost as per analysis of rates (Authority of Director General. CPWD 2016), the total
additional cost required for the unreinforced one is 10,202 US dollars per km length of road and that
for the coir geotextile reinforced one is 4240 US dollars. Hence, there is a saving of about 58% in
initial cost for the reinforced compared to the unreinforced one.

Maintenance cost
As per IRC: 81 1997, the overlay thickness required was 90 mm in the year 2017. This 90 mm of
overlay is equivalent to 135 mm of water-bound macadam as per IRC: 81 1997.
14 M. K. SAYIDA ET AL.

Hence, the quantity of water-bound macadam required for 3.5 m width and 1000 m length is 473 m3.
The approximate cost per m3 is 25.66 US dollars. The maintenance cost required for 1000 m length of
unreinforced road is approximately 12137 US dollars. Hence, this amount of maintenance cost per
1000 m length of road can be saved by the use of coir geotextile as reinforcement.

DCP and field CBR test results

Results of DCP and field CBR tests conducted during the wet season in the years 2016 and 2017
and the dry season in the year 2016 are presented in Table 6. The field density and moisture
content of the SG were also determined. There was no large variation in field density and water
content of SG for reinforced and unreinforced sections. A decrease in DCPI value was observed
for the reinforced section compared to the unreinforced one. This indicates that the resistance to
penetration is more in reinforced roads compared to the unreinforced one. The percentage
decrease in DCPI value of the reinforced section was 27% during the dry season and 42–48%
during the wet season. The more percentage decrease during the wet season may be due to the
accelerated in-plane drainage through the coir geotextile. Field CBR values were calculated from
the field DCPI values as per the correlation given in ASTM D6951/D6951M 2018, and these
values are presented in Table 6. The results of field CBR (in situ) tests conducted in the wet
seasons of 2016 and 2017 are also presented in Table 6. The table shows that there is an increase
in the field CBR value of 63% in 2016 and 21% in 2017 compared to the unreinforced one. There
are differences in field CBR values calculated from DCPI compared to those obtained from the
in situ test. This may be due to variation in soil condition with which the correlation was
developed. The CBR value obtained from the in situ test is at the top layer of SG, whereas that
obtained from the DCP test is an average of DCPI for a depth of 300 mm. The increase in field
CBR for the reinforced one may be due to the accelerated movement of water along and across
the geotextile and the subsequent clogging of geotextile. This causes soil cake formation that will
provide additional strength to SG.

Conclusion
Various field and laboratory studies were conducted on reinforced and unreinforced sections of rural
roads. From the laboratory studies, a considerable reduction in settlement was obtained for the
reinforced one compared to the unreinforced one. Percentage reduction in settlement is more when
mass per unit area of geotextile is more. The highest percentage reduction in settlement is for the
reinforced section with GT1 having a mass per unit area of 1200 g/m2 and the lowest is for GT3 with
a mass per unit area of 700 g/m2.
From the field study based on BBD test results, additional overlay is not required for the
reinforced one even after four years of construction. About 68% saving in initial cost and consider-
able amount of saving in maintenance cost were obtained due to the use of coir geotextile
reinforcement. From the DCP test, a decrease in DCPI value of 27–48% was obtained for the
reinforced one compared to the unreinforced one. An increase in field CBR value of 21–63% was

Table 6. DCP indices and field CBR values.

Field CBR value
Average DCP indices calculated from DCPI
(mm per blow) (ASTM D6951) Field CBR value from in situ CBR test
2017 2016 2016 2017
Type of section 2016 DS 2016 WS WS DS WS WS 2016 WS 2017 WS
UR 9.5 24.3 16.8 24.2 7.3 11.8 22 33
R 6.9 12.7 9.7 36.3 16.7 23.7 36 40
UR, unreinforced; R, reinforced; DS, dry season; WS, wet season
 JOURNAL OF NATURAL FIBERS 15

obtained for the reinforced one compared to the unreinforced one. From the studies, it can be
concluded that coir geotextile can be effectively used as reinforcing material on SG with a low CBR
value, and it will increase the long-term performance of rural roads.

Funding
This work was supported by Coir Board, Government of India [No:CCRI/RES/CGT-CET/3/16/2011/0863].

References
Al-Qadi, I. L., S. H. Dessouky, J. Kwon, and E. Tutumluer. 2007. Accelerated full- scale testing of geogrid reinforced
flexible pavements. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting on Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, U S A, January 21–25.
ASTM D1883. 2016. Standard test method for California bearing ratio of laboratory-compacted soils, American Society
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D4429a. 2009. Standard test method for california bearing ratio of soils in place, American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. USA.
ASTM D6951/D6951M. 2018. Standard test method for use of the dynamic cone penetrometer in shallow pavement
applications, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Authority of Director General. CPWD. 2016. Analysis of rates for Delhi. In Central public works department, Vol. 2:
939-1065. New Delhi, India: Government of India.
Basic Road Statistics of India. 2015. 2016. Ministry of road transport and highways, transportation research wing. New
Delhi, India: Government of India. www.morth.nic.in.http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/455819/basic-
road-statistics-of-india-2015-16.
Correia, N. S., and J. G. Zornberg. 2014. Influence of tack coat rate on properties of geosynthetics. Transportation
Geotechnics 1:45–54. doi:10.1016/j.trgeo.2014.01.002.
Ennio, M. P., G. S. Luiz, and Antunes. 2010. Large scale tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads subjected
to surface maintenance. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28:547–58. doi:10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2010.03.002.
Herath, A., N. M. Louay, K. Gaspard, R. Gudishala, and M. Y. Abu-Farsakh. 2005. The use of dynamic cone
penetrometer to predict resilient modulus of subgrade soils. Advances in Pavement Engineering 1–16.
IRC: 109. 2015. Guidelines for wet mix macadam. Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India.
IRC: 29. 1988. Specification for Bituminous Concrete (Asphaltic concrete) for road pavement. Indian Road Congress,
New Delhi, India.
IRC: 81. 1997. Guidelines for strengthening of flexible road pavements using benkelman beam deflection technique.
Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India.
IRC: 94. 1986. Specification for dense bituminous macadam. Indian Road Congress, New Delhi, India.
IRC: SP-20. 2002. Rural roads manual, ministry of road transport and highways. Indian Road Congress, New Delhi,
India.
IRC: SP–72. 2015. Guidelines for the design of flexible road pavements for low volume rural roads. Indian Road
Congress, New Delhi, India.
Khan, A. J., F. Huq, and S. Z. Hossain 2014. Application of jute geotextiles for rural road pavement construction. Paper
presented at the Geoshanghai Conference on Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics. Shanghai, China, May
26–28.
Leao, A. L., B. M. Cherian, S. F. De Souza, R. M. Kozlowski, S. Thomas, and M. Kottaisamy. 2012. Natural fibers for
geotextiles. In Hand book of natural fibers, ed. R. M. Kozłowski, Vol. 2, 280–311. Sawston: Wood head.
Moghaddas, Tafreshi, S. N., and A. R. Dawson. 2010. Behaviour of footings on reinforced sand subjected to repeated
loading – Comparing use of 3D and planar geotextile. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28:434–47. doi:10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2009.12.007.
Mohammadi., S. D., M. R. Nikoudel., H. Rahimi., and M. Khamehchiyan. 2008. Application of the dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP)for determination of the engineering parameters of sandy soils. Engineering Geology
101:195–203. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.05.006.
Mostaqur, M., and Rahman. 2018. Development of 3-D finite element models for geo-jute reinforced flexible
pavement. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322991598.
Rahman, M. M., and S. L. Gassman 2018. Moisture effect of subgrade resilient modulus on pavement rutting.
Presented at 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board and published in the Transportation
Research Record, Washington DC, USA, January 7–11.
Rajagopal., K., and S. Ramakrishna. 2009. Coir geotextiles as separation and filtration layer for low intensity road
bases. Proceeding of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India, December 17–19.
16 M. K. SAYIDA ET AL.

Rawal, A., and R. Anandjiwala. 2007. Comparative study between needle punched non woven geotextile structures
made from flax and polyester fibers. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (1):61–65. doi:10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2006.08.001.
Robert, N. 2017. Effect of cyclic load on California bearing ratio of soaked clay. Proceedings of Second World
Congress on Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Barcelona, Spain. April 2–4.
Sarsby, R. W. 2007. Use of Limited Life Geotextiles (LLGs) for basal reinforcement of embankments built on soft clay.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (4–5):302–10. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.02.010.
Sayida, M. K., E. Y. Sheela, and M. S. Girish 2014. Performance of coir geotextile reinforced unpaved roads. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Sustainable Civil Infrastructure, ASCE, Hyderabad, India, October
17–18.
Subaida, E. A., S. Chandrakaran, and N. Sankar. 2009. Laboratory performance of unpaved roads reinforced with
woven coir geotextiles. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27:204–10. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.009.
Sudarsanan., N., R. Sunil, Mohapatra, K. Rajagopal, and A. Veeraragavan. 2018. Use of natural geotextiles to retard
reflection cracking in highway pavements. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 30 (4). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0002195.
Suku., L., S. P. Sudheer, and G. L. Sivakumar, Babu. 2017. Effect of geogrid reinforcement in granular bases under
repeated loading. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45:377–89. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.04.008.
Venkatappa, R. G., and R. K. Dutta 2006. Coir geotextiles in rural roads. Paper presented in Highway Research
Bulletin, 74, 9–15.
Vinod, P., and M. Minu. 2010. Use of coir geotextiles on unpaved road construction. Geosynthetics International 17
(4):220–27. doi:10.1680/gein.2010.17.4.220.