Abstract

In recent years there have been growing needs for the management and utilization of biodegradable natural
fibres like coir fibre (coconut), Sisal fibres, jute fibres, barley straws, oil palm fruit fibre (OPFF), and a host of
others due to their huge waste deposit. The OPFF which is predominantly a huge waste product in the south
eastern and south southern part of the country due to high rate of production of palm oil, has constituted in
majority of the waste in landfills therefore, it would be more sustainable to utilize them more efficiently.
According to the (European Union, 2010) the second strategy in the hierarchy for waste management preference
which is to re-use waste material for a different purpose than its original purpose lead to study of the OPFF in its
suitability in improving the geotechnical quality of a subgrade. Utilisation of OPFF as a subgrade stabilizer
promises to be a harbinger to these problems in situations where they are proven to be adequate hence, samples
of laterites from three borrow pits reinforced with OPFF were considered for experimental investigations. Sieve
analysis, specific gravity, Compaction, CBR tests and Atterbergs limits experiments were performed on the
samples without the addition of OPFF, while Compaction and CBR tests only were carried on the soil samples
with OPFF inclusion. The OPFF was added at 0.5%, 0.8%, 1%, 1.5%, 2% and 3% of the dry weight of the soil.
48hours soaked CBR values corresponding to each oil palm fruit fibre content was determined in the laboratory
as per specified procedure. From the results, it was observed that the samples from Ugwuoba experienced the
most decrease in its MDD as there was a 1.546%, 4.124%, 5.15%, 5.258%, 6.443%, and 9.79% decrease in its
MDD and the OMC increased by 1.15, 1.22, 1.4, 1.62, 1.81, and 2 times the value of the OMC for the soil
without the oil palm fruit fibre as the fibre percentage increases from 0.5%, 0.8%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% and 3.0%
respectively. The CBR values obtained for the three soil samples before the addition of the OPFF were 24%
(Ugwuoba), 6% (Okpuno) and 4% (Nawfia) as against 4%, 0%, and 0% CBR values for a 2% OPFF added in
the soil samples for Ugwuoba, Okpuno, and Nawfia respective hence, the more the OPFF content in the soil
sample the lesser the CBR values and as a result of this effect on the geotechnical property of the soil, the
addition of OPFF in the subgrade soil of a highway pavement was strongly dissuaded.

1.0 Introduction

Subgrade which is the lowest layer in the pavement structure underlying the base course or surface course,
depending upon the type of pavement and mostly bears the entire incident load (Nwakaire, 2016). (Texas DOT,
2005) called subgrade the foundation of the highway pavement structure because they bear the load of the
incident layers and the vehicular load therefore, strength is paramount for the soundness of the overlain layers. It
was further defined as the native material prior to the construction of highway, railway, etc. Generally, subgrade
consists of various locally available soil materials. Due to its initial exposed condition to various conditions
ranging from undrained roadways exposed to rainfall and temperature variation resulting in expansion and
contracting of the soil, this material might be soft and/or wet and may not have enough strength/stiffness to
support pavement loading. The performance of the subgrade soil under prevailing in-situ condition is necessary
prior to the construction of the pavement. The better the strength/stiffness quality of the materials the better
would be the serviceability of the pavement. The strength quality of the subgrade soil used in pavement
construction has been determined by various laboratory tests such as the California bearing ratio (CBR), Hveem
stabilometer and cohesiometer test (The Hveem method), and R-value tests in order to characterize the
pavement materials that will be laid on the subgrade (Dhakal, 2012).
Subgrade Composure

Subgrade materials used for the study were predominantly laterite owing to the large presence of laterite in the
region of study. Subgrade is mostly laterite and in minor cases there would be patches of clay or sandy gravel
soil. The recognition of laterite as an earth material, with unique properties, dates back to 1807 when Buchman
first encountered a material in India which he called laterite and defined as “soft enough to be readily cut into
blocks by iron instrument, but which upon exposure to air quickly becomes as hard as brick, and reasonably
resistant to the actions of air and water” (Vallerga et al, 1969). Alexander and Cady (1962) further defined
laterite as a highly weathered material rich in secondary oxides of iron, aluminium or both. It is nearly void of
bases and primary silicates, but it may contain large amounts of quartz and kaolinite. It is either hard or capable
of hardness on exposure to wetting and drying (Alexander et al, 1962). (Narayanan,2006; Morin and Todor,
1975) further buttress the point on the strength of laterite soil that, laterite soils have good shear strength when
dried but negligible strength in saturated condition, that is why they are mostly suitable for subgrade materials
and because the overlain layers are meant to be impermeable to water hence retaining their strength for
performing their main function of load bearing and distribution.

Soil Stabilization

The subgrade in flexible pavement is more susceptible to failure under the vehicular traffic loading due to non-
uniform distribution of the load from overlying layers and the presence of high moisture contents. This layer
gets less emphasis compared to other layers in pavement, despite the fact that bearing capacity failure of the
subgrade layer causes most of the pavement failure. (Prusinski and Bhattacharja, 1999) Suggested that such
materials should be either removed and replaced or treated to enhance the geotechnical property lagging in the
soil sample but the cost of the former which entails excavating and hauling to a dump site and borrowing of
suitable materials to replace the cut material alongside the compactive effort to further improve the workability
of the soil makes it uneconomical to execute therefore the need for stabilizing the soil. Soil stabilization or
modification refers to the improvement of the soil physically or chemically by using various techniques
including mechanical compaction and the use of various calcium rich chemicals or natural fibres.
(Venkatramaiah, 2006) simply stated that soil stabilization is the altering of one or more properties of soil to
improve its engineering and geotechnical property. The selection of proper stabilization technique depends on
the soil type and its condition. Mechanical stabilization is best suited for coarse grained soils or aggregates at
optimum or below optimum moisture contents. However, clayey soils are more effective under chemical
stabilization. If the clayey soil is mixed with the specific stabilizer just enough to make it workable, better in
texture and compatibility regardless the strength and durability, then it is referred to as modification (Indiana
DOT, 2008); modification is restricted to the soil having AASTHO designation A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7
(Oklahoma DOT, 2009). On the other hand, stabilization refers to the selection of the stabilizer in order to
achieve certain target strength/stiffness values in addition to modification. (Venkatramaiah, 2006) listed two
broad types of stabilization; stabilization with additives and stabilization without additives. Stabilisation without
additives may be ‘mechanical’—rearrangement of particles through compaction or addition or removal of soil
particles. It may be by ‘drainage’—drainage may be achieved by the addition of external load, by pumping, by
electro—osmosis, or by application of a thermal gradient—heating or cooling. Stabilisation with additives may
be cement stabilisation (that is, soil cement), bitumen stabilisation, or chemical stabilisation (with fly ash, lime,
 calcium or sodium chloride, sodium silicate, dispersants, physico-chemical alteration involving ion-exchange in
clay-minerals or injection stabilisation by grouting with soil, cement or chemicals). Before the selection of the
specific stabilizer, it is necessary to understand the behaviour and mechanism of the stabilizer with the soil. The
soil stabilization mechanism can be portrayed as coating and/or binding of soil particle to form another output
soil with improved characteristics (Texas DOT, 2005). The efficiency and effectiveness of the stabilizer depends
upon the type of the soil to be stabilized, the type and properties of stabilizer, and the associated moisture
content during compaction as well as the long-term moisture content. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the
stabilizer can be measured by its ability to provide enough calcium to chemical reaction. Lime, Portland cement
and fly ash materials are the most frequently used chemical stabilizers. Fly ash that possesses self-cementing
property that can stabilize/treat soil without cement or lime are called class C fly ash, whereas that often used
either with lime or cement in order to make it more reactive are called class F or non-cementing fly ash. The
mechanism of stabilization for these stabilizers is almost similar regardless of few different processes. Fly ash
stabilization of the soil is similar to cement; however the strength provided is less than the cement. Depending
upon the reactivity, the fly ashes are classified as self-cementing (C-class) and/or non-self-cementing (F-class).
Generally, C-class fly ash is applied with either cement or lime, whereas F-class does not includes any
activating stabilizers.

Geotechnical properties of stabilized soils

As earlier stated, the primary purpose of the stabilization of soil is to improve the geotechnical property of the
subgrade therefore, these properties that would be enhanced include but not limited to

i.Atterbergs Limits; When highly plastic soil (PI >20-30) is treated with calcium rich additive, the chemical
reaction between clay particles and additive results in reduction of the size of the diffused double layer and
increase in the inter-particle contact. Consequently, the liquid limit of the soil will be decreased associated with
the increase in plastic limit; hence decreasing the plasticity index of the stabilized soil. As a result,
strength/stiffness of the stabilized soil will be improved (Dhakal S.K 2012)
ii.Moisture Density Relation; The change in chemical composition of the soil can be noticed by decrease in the
maximum dry density and increase in the optimum moisture content of the soil-stabilizer mixture (Puppala et
al., 1996, Prusinski and Bhattacharja, 1999; Mallela et al., 2004). However, Gautreau et al. (2009) and
Horpibulsuk et al. (2010) found different types of results for cement stabilized soils. For heavy clay soil with
LL=74% and PI=46%, Horpibulsuk et al. (2010) reported an increase in maximum dry density from 14kN/m3 to
18.7kN/m3 at an optimum moisture content of 17.2% when there was a 10% addition of cement, while Gautreau
et al. (2009) found out that for soil with LL=34% and PI=12% there is no significant difference in optimum
moisture content and maximum dry density with cement content. Additionally, Umesha et al. (2009) found out
even more different results than other researchers reported by use of lime on soil with plasticity limit of 41%
and plasticity index of 17 %. They found that the maximum dry density increased while the optimum moisture
content decreased with the addition of lime as compared to those of the raw soil that was relatively low.
iii. Unconfined Compression Strength;
The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the soil increases drastically with the increase of the stabilizer
content. Generally, cement stabilized soils possesses higher UCS than the soils treated with other stabilizers for
the same stabilizer-moisture ratio. Bhattacharja and Bhatty (2003) compared the performance of lime and
 cement on three different types of soils in Texas with PI of 25%, 37% and 42%, and found that for all soils,
better performance was observed from cement stabilizer. However, there was great decrease in the strength (by
more than 50%) of the cement treated soils with delay compaction of 24 hour. Additionally, Hossain and Mol
(2011) used natural pozzolans and industrial waste to stabilize the clay soil (A-6) having LL 39% and PI of 19%
and reported almost double strength gain with cement kiln dust (CKD) compared to volcanic ash (VA) under
identical conditions. Consoli et al. (2011) obtained a linear variation of UCS with the increase in lime content
for a soil having LL of 23% and PI of 10%. Furthermore, the effect of the porosity as well as porosity/lime ratio
was determined; considerable decline in compressive strength of the soil was observed with the increase of both
porosity and the porosity/lime ratio.
iv. Durability;
The Durability test of the chemically stabilized subgrade layers is the main concern during the construction of
the pavement structures; it determines the ability of the subgrade to withstand against the extremely adverse
environmental conditions during the service life of the pavement. In the past, freeze and thaw, wet and dry,
California bearing ratio (CBR) were excessively used for the durability of the soil or aggregates to be used in
pavement structures. However, in recent years, a new technology to evaluate the performance of the pavement
materials is introduced and termed as tube suction test, which gives a dielectric value of the surface having free
moisture on it. The increase in durability of the stabilized subgrades was experienced by previous research
studies (Zhang and Tao, 2006; Parker 2008; Solanki et al., 2010).

Parker (2008) used two different subgrade soils (SM and CL) and stabilized with cement, lime and fly ash then
tested for series of durability tests including freeze and thaw/wet and dry, tube suction tests, and vacuum
saturation. He concluded that the sand specimens stabilized with limefly ash had shown higher residual UCS
results than cement/lime, and class C fly ash stabilized sand soil after freeze-thaw and vacuum saturation tests.
They further concluded that freeze-thaw tests were more severe than any other durability tests. Similar results on
UCS were also observed with the clay specimens after cycles of durability tests. Unlike treated sandy soils all
the clay tested by Parker (2008) were moisture susceptible as result showed no marginal dielectric value. He
finally concluded that cement/lime treated/stabilized soils are more vulnerable to durability issue than the fly ash
treated/stabilized soil subgrades.

Similarly, Parson (2004) performed durability tests on the four different types of soils (CH, CL, ML and SM)
stabilized with lime, cement, fly ash, and enzymes. Durability test includes swelling, freeze and thaw, wet and
dry, and leaching test of the stabilized soil samples. Swelling of all soils treated with all stabilizers was almost
reduced, except for a soil with small amount of sulfate content (0.41%). The order of soil loss after freeze and
thaw was cement < fly ash < lime. However, they found higher strength and lower PI in lime and cement treated
soils than in those treated with fly ash after leaching. The result showed that the clayey soils were vulnerable to
wet and dry cycles; however different stabilizer performed differently depending upon the type of the soil.

In recent years many researchers had used tube suction test for evaluating the durability of the pavement
materials (Syed et al., 2003; Barbu et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2006; Solanki et al., 2010). The tube suction test is
a non-destructive test that is more time-efficient and economic than the other durability tests like freeze-thaw
and wet-dry etc. The test measures the dielectric value of the compacted soil specimens after 10 days of
capillarity suction. This test was developed by the joint effort of Finnish National Road Administration and
Texas Transportation Institute in the late 1990’s. Generally, soil samples having dielectric values less than 10
are assumed to perform well, but the dielectric values above 16 are considered moisture susceptible. The soil
samples yielding values in between 10 to 16 are considered to have fair strength against the severe
environmental condition (Barbu and Scullion, 2005). The dielectric value measures the amount of free water
available in the soil; not the moisture content of the soil. For better and durable engineering structures, these
geotechnical properties of subgrade materials would perform better when they are at their optimum hence the
need for stabilization.

Biodegradable Natural Fibres as Stabilizer

With the rate of illicit depositions, landfills are filling up, resources are being used up, the planet is being
polluted and that non-renewable resources will not last forever. So, there is need for more environmentally
friendly materials. In pavement construction, fibre-reinforcement can be used to stabilize a wide variety of
subgrade soils ranging from sand to high-plasticity clays (Santoni et al., 2001). Randomly distributed fibre,
when used as insertion in highway subgrade, can produce a high performance in the stabilization of weak roads.
Many investigators (Chauhan et al., 2008; Tang et al., 2007) have used various types of fibres under different
test conditions. Chauhan et al (2008) observed that the use of certain fibre, such as synthetic and natural, in road
construction can significantly increase pavement resistance to rutting, as compared to the resistance of non-
stabilized pavement over a weak subgrade. Gray and Ohashi (1983) also reported that the envelopes of fibre
sand mixture show a bilinear trend. The shear strength envelope of fibre-reinforced specimens was found to be
parallel to the envelope of unreinforced soil, once the confining pressure exceeds a critical or ‘threshold’ value
although, natural fibres, because of their degradability, need protection from any circumferential agents. Natural
fibres are amenable to modifications as they bear hydroxyl groups from cellulose and lignin. In addition coating
the fibres with any chemical materials reduce their water absorptions and protect them from any bacteria and
fungi attack hence increasing their geotechnical functionality. It is necessary to mention that natural fibres have
been used for a long time in many developing countries in cement composites and earth blocks because of their
availability and low cost (Ghavami et al, 1999). Some natural fibres and their features in soil projects include:

i. Coconut (Coir) Fibre

This is the reject of coconut fruit, which is the outer covering of the coconut. The fibres are normally 50–350
mm long and consist mainly of lignin, tannin, cellulose, pectin and other water soluble substances. Coir
degradation takes place very slowly with infield service life of 4–10 years due to its high lignin composition.
The water absorption of that is about 130–180% and diameter is about 0.1–0.6 mm (Rowell et al, 2000)

Coir retains much of its tensile strength when wet. Ayyar et al. (1989) have reported about the efficacy of
randomly distributed coir fibres in reducing the swelling tendency of the soil (Ayyar, Viswanadham et al, 1989).
Ravishankar and Raghavan (2004) confirmed that for coir-stabilized lateritic soils, the maximum dry density
(MDD) of the soil decreases with addition of coir and the value of optimum moisture content (OMC) of the soil
increases with an increase in percentage of coir. The compressive strength of the composite soil increases up to
1% of coir content and further increase in coir quantity results in the reduction of the values. The percentage of
water absorption increases with an increase in the percentage of coir. Tensile strength of coir-reinforced soil
(oven dry samples) increases with an increase in the percentage of coir (Ravishankar, 2004).

ii. Sisal

Sisal is a lingo-cellulosed fibre in which its traditional use is as reinforcement for gypsum plaster sheets in
building industry with 60–70% of water absorption and diameter about 0.06–0.4 mm. Sisal fibres are extracted
from the leaves of the plants, which vary in size, between 6–10 cm in width and 50–250 cm in length. Ghavami
et al. found that inclusion of 4% sisal, or coconut fibre, imparted considerable ductility and slightly increased
the compressive strength. It was also found that introduction of bitumen emulsion did not improve the bonding
between the soil and fibres; but did significantly improve soil durability (Ghavami et al, 1999).
Prabakar and Siridihar reinforced a local problematic soil with sisal fibres and observed that it reduces the dry
density of the soil although; it was found that the shear stress is increased non-linearly with increase in length of
fibre up to 20 mm and beyond, where an increase in length reduces the shear stress. The percentage of fibre
content also improves the shear strength. But beyond 0.75% fibre content, the shear stress reduces with increase
in fibre content (Prabakara and Sridhar, 2002). Sisal fibre reinforced soils stabilized with cement were used as a
building material by Mattone (2005). The author emphasizes on natural and ecological aspects of the innovation
iii. Jute
They fibres extracted from the fibrous bark of jute plants which grow as tall as 2.5 m with the base stem
diameter of around 25 mm. There are different varieties of jute fibres with varying properties (Swamy, 1984).
Jute is mainly environmental-friendly fibre that is used for producing porous textiles which are widely used for
filtration, drainage, and soil stabilization (Ahmad, 2010). For instance, Geo-Jute is the commercial name of a
product woven from jute fibres used for soil stabilization in pavement engineering.
Aggarwal and Sharma used different lengths (5–20 mm) of jute fibres in different percentages (0.2–1.0%) to
reinforce soil. Bitumen was used for coating fibres to protect them from microbial attack and degradation. They
concluded that jute fibre reduces the MDD while increases the OMC. Maximum CBR value is observed with 10
mm long and 0.8% jute fibre, an increase of more than 2.5 times of the plain soil CBR value (Aggarwal and
Sharma, 2010). Islam and Ivashita showed that jute fibres are effective for improving the mortar strength as well
as coherence between block and mortar (Islam and ivashita, 2010)
iv. Barely Straw
Barley straw is widely cultivated and harvested once or twice and could be used in producing composite soil
blocks with better characteristics, but relatively few published data is available on its performance as
reinforcement to soil or earth blocks. Barely straw is claimed to be the most cost-effective mulch practice to
retain soil in artificial rainfall tests (Key, 1988). Bouhicha et al. proved the positive effects of adding straw in
decreasing shrinkage, reducing the curing time and enhancing compressive strength if an optimized
reinforcement ratio is used. Flexural and shear strengths were also increased and a more ductile failure was
obtained with the reinforced specimen (Bouhicha et al, 2005)
A mixture of barely straw with cement can form a sustainable low-cost building material, which also reduces
atmospheric pollution (Kazragis, 2005). In addition to these benefits, the straw could act as a thermal insulation
material for the unpleasant weather conditions to create pleasant indoor temperatures (Kazragis, 2005).
v. Oil Palm Tree Trunk Fibres
A palm oil plantation after the extraction of palm oil yields huge amount of biomass wastes in the form of
OPFF, palm oil effluent (POME) and palm kernel shell (PKS). OPFF are left as a waste material after the oil
extraction. These fibres must be cleaned of oily and dirty materials. The only current uses of this highly
cellulosic material are as boiler fuel and in the preparation of potassium fertilizers. The palm fibres have
filament textures with special properties such as low costs, plenitude in the region, durability, lightweight,
tension capacity and relative strength against deterioration (Yusoff et al, 2010). Fibres extracted from
decomposed palm trees are found to be brittle, having low tensile strength and modulus of elasticity and very
high water absorption (Swamy, 1984).

Unconfined compression strength (UCS), California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and compaction tests were performed
on neat and palm fibre reinforced soil samples by Marandi et al (2008). They reported that at a constant palm
fibre length, with increase in fibre inclusion (from 0% to 1%), the maximum and residual strengths were
increased, while the differences between the residual and maximum strengths were decreased. A similar trend
was observed for constant palm fibre inclusion and increase in palm fibre length (from 20 mm to 40 mm)
(Marandi et al, 2008)
Jamellodin et al. found that a significant improvement in the failure deviator stress and shear strength
parameters (C and U) of the soft soil reinforced with palm fibres can be achieved. It is observed that the fibres
act to interlock particles and group of particles in a unitary coherent matrix thus the strength properties of the
soil can be increased (Jamellodin et al, 2010). Ahmad et al. mixed palm fibres with silty sand soil to investigate
the increase of shear strength during triaxial compression. The specimens were tested with 0.25% and 0.5%
content of palm fibres of different lengths (i.e. 15 mm, 30 mm and 45 mm). Reinforced silty sand containing
0.5% coated fibres of 30 mm length exhibited approximately 25% increase in friction angle and 35% in
cohesion compared to those of unreinforced silty sand. In addition, palm fibres coated with acrylic butadiene
styrene thermoplastic increased the shear strength of silty sand much more compared to uncoated fibres (Ahmad
et al, 2010).
Sallehan and Yaacob found that the addition of 3% palm fibres improve the compressive strength of composite
bricks. Water absorption test results indicated a small increase in water absorption with the increase in the palm
fibre content (Salehan and Yaacob, 2011). The palm fibre reinforcement worsened the swelling characteristics
of the lateritic soil as the volume change was directly proportional to the fibre content, because of the
alteration in soil permeability. However, on drying, the benefits of the palm fruit fibre was observed in
the result of the unconfined compressive tests; as the increase in compressive strength, the elasticity modulus
and the ultimate strain were all directly proportional to the increase in fibre content.
Fibre reinforced soil was found to be suitable for repair of failed slopes. The irregular shape of the soil patches
limits the use of textile reinforcements, making the fibre reinforcement an attractive alternative. Unlike textile
reinforcements, fibre reinforcement does not need large excavation depth and also does not require a large
anchorage length. The fibre used as a soil reinforcement called geofibre was appropriated for swelling potential
mitigation in expansive soils (Viswanadham et al., 2009). Only for the case of fibre reinforced slopes, it was
found that increase in soil friction angle due to fibre inclusion leads to an increase normalized reinforcement
tension (Zornberg, 2002). Repairing of the slope with fibre reinforced soil was conducted on Lake Ridge
Parkway in 2005. The project was located along Joe Pool Lake in the city of Grand Prairie, Texas (Gregory and
Chill, 2006). They were also found to reduce shrinkage and swell pressures of expansive clays. The use of fibre
was also reported to increase the free swell potential of the soils (Puppala and Musenda, 2000; Viswanadham et
al., 2009). In pavement construction, fibre-reinforcement can be used to stabilize a wide variety of subgrade
soils ranging from sand to high-plasticity clays (Santoni et al., 2001). Randomly distributed fibre, when used as
insertion in highway subgrade, can produce a high performance in the stabilization of weak roads. Many
investigators (Chauhan et al., 2008; Tang et al., 2007) have used various types of fibres under different test
conditions

In view of all the above listed reviews on stabilization mechanisms of biodegradable natural fibre and their
effects on soil properties, this research work aims at studying the effects of OPFF at different fibre contents on
the geotechnical properties especially compaction characteristics and CBR of subgrade soils of a highway
pavement.

2.0 Materials and Method

The lateritic subgrade samples used for this study were gotten from three borrow pits located in Okpuno, Nawfia
both in Anambra state and Ugwuoba in Enugu state, Nigeria. The samples were collected in-situ in an
undisturbed state. The oil palm fruit fibres were gotten from Enugu-ukwu palm oil processing plant in Anambra
state, Nigeria. The oil palm fibre and soil samples were properly spread and air dried for three days to eliminate
moisture and the fibres were used in partial addition to the different soil samples in weight proportion of 0-3%
of the samples. Portable water was always made available for the purpose of this study. The following test were
conducted on the samples without the OPFF; Sieve Analysis, Atterberg’s limit Tests, Specific Gravity Test,
Compaction Test and California Bearing Ratio Test while the Compaction Test and California Bearing Ratio
Test were conducted on the samples and various OPFF mix. These tests were conducted in line with Dass
(2007) and Venkatramaiah (2006). Mechanical (sieve) analysis was used to obtain the particle-size distributions
of the soil samples in accordance with BS 1377, Atterberg’s Limits Tests in accordance with BS 1377, part 2,
1990 to determine the relative ease with which a soil mass can be defined, Specific Gravity Test to determine
the ratio of the mass of unit volume of soil at a stated temperature to the mass of the same volume of gas-free
distilled water, for the compaction test, British Standard Light Method of Compaction Test involves energy
derived from a 2.5 kg rammer falling through a height of 300mm. the soil samples are divided into three layers
with 27 blows per layer. The volume of the mould is 1000cm3. The British Standard method of compaction test
consists of energy derived from a 4.5kg rammer falling through a height of 115.5mm. The soil samples after
been mixed with various water content, the soil sample were divided into five layers with 27 blows per layer.
The volume of the mould is 1000cm 3, California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test with reference to BS 1377 part 4,
1990, to evaluate the bearing capacity of the soil sample was conducted.

The particle size distribution curve and compaction curves were plotted from the results gotten. The maximum
dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) were determined from the plots of Dry density
against moisture content made for the different samples and their various OPFF mixes. The CBR for the
different samples and their various mix ratios were calculated and using the Microsoft excel, statistical models
were fitted from the curves. With the aid of these models, the CBR, MDD, OMC, were deduced.
3.0 Results and discussion
3.1 Geotechnical Properties of Soil Samples
The result for the various soil samples to ascertain their geotechnical properties and suitability as subgrade
materials prior to the addition of OPFF are stated below;
Table 1; Index and Compaction Properties of the Soil Samples

S/N Property Values

Okpuno Nawfia Ugwuoba
1 Weight of Fines (clay and silt) (%)- <0.075mm 25.36 24.13 13.97
2 Weight of Sand (%)– 0.075mm-2mm 74.64 75.87 86.03
3 Mean Size D50 (mm) 0.25 0.21 0.25
4 Plastic Limit (%) 21.98 21.29 13.85
5 Liquid Limit (%) 32.59 30.15 16.60
6 Plastic Index (%) 10.61 8.86 2.75
7 Specific Gravity 2.60 2.55 2.57
8 Maximum Dry Density (MDD) BSL (Kg/m3) 1905 1750 1940
9 Optimum Moisture Content (OMC) BSL (%) 13.00 15.00 10.20
10 MDD BSH (Kg/m3) 2076 1884 2080
3
11 OMC BSH (Kg/m ) 11.80 14.00 9.50
12 CBR (48 hours soaked) (%) 6 4 24
13 General rating as subgrade Fair Poor Excellent

Table 1 summarises the result of the test conducted to check the geotechnical properties of the samples and
suitability of the materials as subgrade. The test was conducted in accordance with BS1137(Part2;1990). The
sieve analysis saw 74.64% which is least of the three samples retained in the No. 200 BS sieve which simply
implies that a greater percentage of the samples are sandy soil as against 24.13%, 25.36% and 13.97% for
Okpuno, Nawfia and Ugwuoba respectively for those passing the No. 200 BS sieve indicating silt or clay soil
also, from figure 1, the mean grain size particle (D50) for the samples to be between 0.21mm and 0.25mm. The
Atterberg limits for the samples also further characterised the soils composition as a suitable subgrade material
according to Clause No. 6122 F.M.W Specification for Construction of Roads and Bridges (1997) that notifies
that a good subgrade material should have a Plastic Index and Liquid Limit less than 55% and 80% respectively
and the three samples have their Plastic Index and Liquid Limit below the required. For the compaction,
diagrammatically illustrated in figure1, it can be clearly seen that the MDD is highest for Ugwuoba with a value
of 2080kg/m3 which is closely followed by Okpuno soil with an MDD value of 2076kg/m 3, and the least is
Nawfia soil sample with an MDD value of 1884kg/m3. Comparing the OMC’s gotten for the 3 soil samples
during the BSH compaction test shows that the OMC is highest for Nawfia with a value of 14%, and then
Okpuno with a value of 11.8% and the least is Ugwuoba with an OMC of 9.5%.. Table 1 also reports the CBR
test conducted on the samples to check their suitability as subgrade materials also, according to Martin Roger
(2003), the minimum CBR required for a subgrade or foundation material is 5% and after soaking for 48hrs, the
CBR have been tabulated above with Ugwuoba(24%) and Okpuno(6%) satisfying the minimum requirement
for a CBR material and Nawfia(4%) below the required CBR for a subgrade hence requires stabilization hence,
a study on the effect of OPFF on these subgrade to determine its effect on its CBR, MDD and OMC.

120
CUMMULATIVE PERCENT PASSING

110
100
90
80
70
60 OKPUNO
50
40 NAWFIA
30 UGWUOBA
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10
SIEVE SIZES

Figure 1, Particle Size Distribution

2300
2250
2200
2150
2100
DRY DENSITY KG/m3

2050
2000
1950
1900 BSH UGWUOBA
1850
1800 BSH NNAWFIA
1750 BSH OKPUNO
1700
1650
1600
1550
1500
0 10 20 30
MOISTURE CONTENT %

Figure 2, Graph of Dry Density to Moisture Content

3.2 Oil Palm Fruit Fibre Reinforcement

OPFF with specific gravity of 1.3 was added in varying mix ratio, ranging from 0% to 3% by weight of the
sample, it was observed that on compaction with BSL, there was a decrease in the MDD and reasonable increase
in the OMC of the various soil samples and according to (Yusoff, 2010), the increase in the MDD was due to the
lower value of specific gravity and the increase in OMC due to the water absorption ratio.
 2000

1900

1800
0.8% OPFF
DRY DENSITY KG/m3

0.8% replacement
1700 0.5%
0.5% OPFF
replacement
1%1% OPFF
replacement
1600 1.5%
1.5% OPFF
replacement
2%2% OPFF
replacement

1500 3%3%
replacement
OPFF
0% OPFF
Series1

1400

1300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MOISTURE CONTENT %

Figure 4, Okpuno soil sample +OPFF

From the above chart, there was a 1.25%, 1.52%, 3.36%, 4.412%, 4.67% and 9.506% decrease in the MDD as
the OPFF was added in 0.5%, 0.8%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% and 3.0% by weight respectively in the soil sample from
Okpuno. Figure 5 showed similar changes of 0.286%, 0.857%, 1.714%, 2.286%, 2.86% and 5.31% decrease in
its MDD on reinforcement of the soil sample from Nawfia with OPFF with 0.5%, 0.8%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% and
3.0% increase in weight respectively. The OMC showed an increase of 1.13, 1.167, 1.23, 1.3, 1.35, and 1.467
times the value of the OMC for the soil without reinforcement as the fibre percentage increases from 0.5%,
0.8%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% and 3.0% respectively.
 1800

1750

1700

1650
DRY DENSITY KG/m3

1600
3%replacement
3% OPFF
0.5%replacement
0.5% OPFF
1550 2%replacement
2% OPFF
0.8%replacement
0.8% OPFF
1500
1%replacement
1% OPFF
1450 1.5%replacement
1.5% OPFF
0% OPFF
control
1400

1350

1300
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
MOISTURE CONTENT %

Figure 5, Nawfia Soil Sample +OPFF

2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
DRY DENSITYKG/m3

0.5%
0.5% OPFF
replacement
1750
1700 0.8% replacement
0.8% OPFF
1650 0% OPFF
Series4
1600 1%
1%replacement
OPFF
1550
1.5%
1.5% OPFF
replacement
1500
1450 2%replacement
2% OPFF
1400 3%
3%replacement
OPFF
1350
1300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
MOISTURE CONTENT %

Figure 6, Ugwuoba Soil Sample + OPFF

Figure 6 showed 1.546%, 4.124%, 5.15%, 5.258%, 6.443%, and 9.79% decrease in its MDD in similar
application of OPFF to the sample from Ugwuoba also the OMC increased by 1.15, 1.22, 1.4, 1.62, 1.81, and 2
times the value of the OMC for the soil without the oil palm fruit fibre as the fibre percentage increases from
0.5%, 0.8%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% and 3.0% respectively. Using the BSL method, the decrease in MDD and
increase in OMC in three samples can further be illustrated below in figure 7 and 8.

2000

1950
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY KG/m3

1900

1850
NAWFIA
NNAWFIA
1800 UGWUOBA
OKPUNO
1750

1700

1650
0% 1% 2% 3% 4%
OPFF%

Figure 7 Graph of MDD against percentage oil fibre content.

30
OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT %

25

20

15 OKPUNO
UGWUOBA
10
NAWFI
NNAWFIA
5

0
0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 4%
OPFF %

Figure 8, Graph of OMC against percentage OPFF content

From figure 7 and 8 the effect of OPFF on the different soil samples:

1. The reduction in MDD as a result of the addition of OPFF is highest for the Ugwuoba soil sample
between 2-3% of the fibre.
 2. The highest increase in OMC is observed when the fibre is added to the Ugwuoba soil sample between
2-3% of the fibre.
3. At 0.8% addition of the fibre, the MDD increases only slightly for the Okpuno soil sample.
4. The least reduction in MDD and the least increase in OMC is noticed between 0.8-1% for all the three
soil samples. This implies that more addition of the OPFF would lead to more reduction and increment
of the MDD and OMC respectively.

The CBR experiment was also conducted on the soil samples with the mix ratio from 0-2% in accordance of
BS1137 and the results of the CBR experiments are presented in the table below

Table 2, values of CBR % for the 3 soil samples + OPFF

S/NO. OPFF % Ugwuoba (CBR %) Okpuno (CBR %) Nawfia (CBR %)

1 0 24 6 4
2 0.5 16 4 1
3 1 11 1 1
4 2 4 0 0

From table 2, it can be seen that the reinforcement of OPFF on the soil samples reduced the value of the CBR
after 48 hours soaking.

CBR against OPFF Content

30

25

20

UGWUOBA
15
NAWFIA
OKPUNO
10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Figure 9, Graph of CBR against OPFF Content

From the test conducted and the figure above, the can be deduced that as the oil palm fruit fibre percentage
increases, the CBR values reduce. The greatest effect on OPFF addition is noticed in the Ugwuoba soil sample
and the greatest reduction in the value of the CBR is noticed between 0-0.5% of the OPFF addition for the
Ugwuoba and Nawfia soil sample, and between 0.5-1% for the Okpuno soil sample. Hence the effect of OPFF
addition to the 3 soil samples is greatest between 0-1% therefore the effect of OPFF on the CBR of the soil
samples rendered them unsuitable for any use as subgrade materials.

The Federal Ministry of Works specification (1997) state that the minimum values of CBR for subgrade in a
highway pavement is between 5-11%. It was observed that the Ugwuoba soil sample failed to meet this
requirement when the OPFF percentage was in excess of 1.8%. This means that above 1.8% inclusion of the
fibre, the Ugwuoba soil sample was no longer suitable for use as a subgrade material. Also, the Okpuno soil
sample failed to meet this criterion when OPFF in percentages as little as 0.22% was added to the soil. This
means that at percentage as little as 0.22% of the fibre, the Okpuno soil sample was no longer suitable for use as
a subgrade material hence, the OPFF is not practicable in stabilizing soil.

4.0; conclusion

From the findings, it can be concluded that the inclusion of OPFF reduces the geotechnical properties and
strength of the subgrade soil of a highway pavement.

The compaction and strength characteristic of different OPFF mixtures with laterites for use as a subgrade
material for highway pavements has been extensively investigated in this study. Graphical analysis shows that
the geotechnical properties of these soils are sensitive to variations in compactive effort, percentage variation of
the OPFF, compaction, and water content. Particle size analysis of the different samples, specific gravity,
Atterberg’s limits, compaction characteristics and California Bearing Ratio has been extensively investigated in
this study and the effects of oil palm fruit fibre on the geotechnical properties of subgrade soil in a highway
pavement, the use of this material as reinforcement is strongly dissuaded.

Reference

1. Aggarwal, P and Sharma, B (2010): Application of Jute Fibre in the Improvement of Subgrade
Characteristics. Proceedings of international conference on advances in civil engineering,
Trabzon,Turkey; 15, June.
2. Aginam C.H., Chidolue, C.A., and Nwakaire, C. (2014) Geotechnical Properties of Lateritic Soils from
Northern Zone of Anambra State, Nigeria. International Journal of Engineering Research and
Development. Vol 10, Issue 12.

3. Ahmad, F; Bateni, F and Azmi M. (2010). Performance evaluation of silty sand reinforced with fibres.
Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes vol 28 no 74 PP 93–109.

4. Alexander, L.T and Candy, J.G (1962) Genesis and Hardening of Laterite in soils, United States
Development of Agriculture (U.S.D.A) Technical Bulletin No.1282. PP 90
5. Ayyar, R; Krishnaswamy, R and Viswanadham, S. (1989). Geosynthetics for foundations on swelling
clay. International work on geotextiles, Bangalore, India; 14, November
6. Barbu,B; Mcmanis, K. and Nataraj, M. (2004). Study of Silts Moisture Susceptibility using the Tube
Suction Test, Transportation research board, annual meeting, CD-ROM publication, National research
council, Washington D.C.
7. Barbu B.G and Scullion T. (2005): Repeatability and Reproducibility Study for Tube Suction Test,
transportation research record, vol. 1577, pp.37-44.
8. Bhattacharja, S and Bhatty, J.I. (2003): Comparative performance of the Portland cement and lime
stabilization of moderate to high plasticity soils, Portland cement association. Journal of Civil
Engineering Matters ASCE vol. 47 no. 9 pp 841–866
9. BS 1377: 1990. Methods of test for soils for Civil Engineering purposes- part 2: Classification tests.
10. BS 1377: 1990. Methods of test for soils for Civil Engineering purposes- part 4: Compaction related
tests
11. Das M, and Chakroborty D (2008) Evaluation of improvement of Physical and Mechanical Properties
of Wood sawdust with Polymer-Wood Composite of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) Journal of
Applied Polymer sciences vol. 107 no. 1 PP 522-527
12. Consoli N.C., Fonseca A.V., Cruz R.C and Silva S.R. (2011). Voids/cement ratio controlling tensile
strength of cement-treated soils Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 137 (11)
pp. 1126–1131.
13. Chauhan, S; Mittal, S and Mohanty, B (2008): Performance evaluation of silty sand subgrade
reinforced with fly ash and fiber. Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes vol. 2 no. 6 pp 429–443
14. Dhakal S.K. (2012) stabilization of very weak subgrade soil with cementitious stabilizers. A thesis
submitted to graduate faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical
College, department of Civil Engineering; 10, December
15. Federal Ministry of Works and Housing (1997): General specification for Roads and Bridges. volume
2, Federal Highway Department, FMWH: Lagos 317
16. Gautreau G., Zhang, Z., Wu,Z., Mohammad, L.N and King,B. (2009). Laboratory and accelerated
evaluation of subbase layers in pavement performance. LTRC Project Number: 03-2GT Lousiana,
USA
17. Ghavami K, Filho R and Barbosa P. (1999). Behaviour of composite soil reinforced with natural fibres.
Cement Concrete Composites vol 2 no. 1 pp 39-48.
18. Gray, D and Ohashi,S (1983). Mechanics of fibre reinforcement in sand. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, American society of Civil Engineers. 124(12), pp 1211-1214
19. Gregory H and Chill S (2006): Stabilization of earth slope with fiber reinforcement. 6th International
conference of geosynthetics, Atlanta, USA
20. Horpibulsuk,S., Rachan,R., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Raksachon, Y., and Suddeepong, A.(2010). Analysis
of strength development in cement-stabilized silty clay from microstructural considerations. Journal of
Construction and building materials vol. 21 no.7 pp 231-256
21. Hossain, M and Mol, L (2011) Engineering properties of stabilized clayey soils incorporating natural
pozzolans and industrial wastes. Journal of Construction and Building materials 25(8) pp 3495-3501
22. Indiana Department of Transportation, (2008). Design procedure for soil modification and
stabilization. Indiana, USA
23. Islam M and Iwashita K. (2010): Earthquake resistance of adobe reinforced by low cost traditional
materials. Journal of Natural Disasters in Science vol. 3 no. 2 pp 1–21

24. Jamellodin Z, Talib Z, Kolop R and Noor N. (2010). The effect of oil palm fibre on strength behaviour
of soil. 3rd SANREM conference, kota kinabalu, Malaysia; 3rd–5th August

25. Marandi M, Bagheripour H, Rahgozar R and Zare H. (2008). Strength and ductility of randomly
distributed palm fibres reinforced silty-sand soils. American Journal of Applied Sciences vol. 5 no. 1 pp
209–229
26. Mattone R. (2005). Sisal fibre reinforced soil with cement or cactus pulp in bahareque technique.
Cement Concrete Composites; vol. 27no 6 pp 116-132
27. Nwakaire C.M (2016). Pavement Maintenance; Lecture 11 Highway and Transportation Engineering
II. Department of Civil Engineering Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, Nigeria. 2 nd February
28. Oklahoma Department of Transportation (2009): Soil modification mix design procedure. Oklahoma,
USA
29. Parker, J.W.(2008): Evaluation of laboratory durability tests for stabilized subgrade soils, M.S. thesis,
Brigham Young University, Provo, U.T.
30. Prabakara J and Sridhar R. (2002). Effect of random inclusion of sisal fibre on strength behavior of
soil. Construction and Building Materials vol. 16 no. 31 PP 123–154
31. Prusinski, J. R., and Bhattacharja, S. (1999). Effectiveness of Portland cement and Lime in Stabilizing
Clay Soils. Transportation Research Record, (1652), 215-227; California, USA
32. Puppala, A J, Mohammad, L.N., and Allen, A.(1996). Engineering behavior of Lime-treated Louisiana
subgrade soil. Louisiana Transportation research Center. TRR 1546 pp 24-31
33. Ravishankar U and Raghavan S.(2004). Coir stabilised lateritic soil for pavements. Indian geotechnics
conference, Ahmedabad, India

34. Solanski P., Khoury N. N and Zaman,M. (2010), Engineering Properties of Stabilized Subgrade Soils
for Implementation of the AASHTO 2002 Pavement Design Guide, Oklahoma Department of
Transportation, FINAL REPORT - FHWA-OK-08-10

35. Swamy N. (1984). New reinforced concretes. Surry University Press; 1984
36. Syed, I., Scullion. T. and Smith, R.E., (2003) Recent developments in characterizing durability of
stabilized materials, Transportation research board, Annual meeting, CDROM publication,
Transportation research board, National research council, Washington D.C.
37. Texas Department of Transportation. (2005). Guidelines for Modification and Stabilization of Soils and
Base for Use in Pavement Structures; Texas, USA
38. Umesha, T.S., Dinesh, S.V and Sivapullaiah, P.V.,(2009). Control of dispersivity of soil using lime and
cement. International Journal of Geology, Issue 1, Volume 3 Pp. 8-15.
39. Vallerga, B.A. and N. Rananandana. (1969). Characteristics of lateritic soils used in Thailand road
construction Highway Re-search Record Vol. 284 PP 86-103
40. Venkatramaiah, C., (2006) Geotechnical Engineering, Revised 3rd Edition, New Age International
Publishers, New Delhi.
41. Viswanadham S, Phanikumar R and Mukherjee V (2009) Swelling behavior of a geofiber reinforced
expansive soil Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes Vol. 6 No.27 PP 73–96
42. Yusoff M, Salit M, Ismail N and Wirawan R. (2010). Mechanical properties of short random oil palm
fibre reinforced epoxy composites. Sains Malay; vol. 39 PP 87–92
43. Zornberg, J (2002): Discrete framework for limit equilibrium analysis of fibre reinforcement. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineers vol. 52 No. 8 PP 227-241