Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Comparative mechanical performances of cement-treated sand reinforced

with fiber for road and pavement applications
Prinya Chindaprasirt a, Pitthaya Jamsawang b, *, Piti Sukontasukkul c, Pornkasem Jongpradist d,
Suched Likitlersuang e
a
Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Thailand
b
Soil Engineering Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
c
Construction and Building Materials Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok, Thailand
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok 10140, Thailand
e
Centre of Excellence in Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok
10330, Thailand

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

Keywords: Cement-treated sand reinforced with fiber (CTSF) has been extensively utilized as the base and subbase layers in
Base/subbase materials road and pavement applications to enhance the mechanical properties of cement-treated sand (CTS). This paper
Cement-treated sand aims to study the influence of seven distinct types of synthetic fibers on the mechanical performances of CTSF
Composite material
specimens. The 5% cement and 2% fiber were mixed with sand and water to create the CTSF specimens. The
Fiber-reinforced soil
Soil stabilization
different seven fiber types used included (i) 12-mm-long polypropylene, (ii) 19-mm-long polypropylene, (iii) 33-
mm-long steel, (iv) 40-mm-long polypropylene, (v) 50-mm-long steel, (vi) 55-mm-long polypropylene, and (vii)
58-mm-long polyolefin fibers. Three mechanical tests were performed on the CTSF specimens: unconfined
compressive, splitting tensile, and flexural strength tests. The overall performance of the CTSF for each test was
determined by six subperformance parameters: (1) improvement peak strength ratio; (2) brittleness index; (3)
improvement deformation ratio; (4) improvement toughness ratio; (5) toughness index; and (6) strength index.
The debonded interface between the surface of each fiber and the cemented sand matrix was observed using
scanning electron microscopy. Finally, the comparative overall mechanical performance was analyzed based on
the subperformance indicators to determine the most suitable fiber type corresponding to each applied loading
type. The results illustrated that the most suitable fiber types for CTSF subjected to unconfined compressive,
splitting tensile, and flexural stresses were 58-mm-long polyolefin fiber, 50-mm-long steel fiber, and 55-mm-long
polypropylene fiber. The current study proved that synthetic fiber types significantly affect the mechanical
performance of CTSF used for road and pavement applications. Thus, the overall performance concept presented
in the current study is useful for selecting the most suitable fiber type corresponding to different failure
mechanisms, which is of practical significance in pavement performance and design.

Introduction structural pavement are subjected to combinations of unconfined

Various types of synthetic fibers, such as steel, polypropylene, and
polyolefin fibers, have been widely used as reinforcement elements to
improve the mechanical properties of cement-treated sand (CTS)
[1–18]. Cement-treated sands reinforced with various types of synthetic
fibers (CTSFs) have been satisfactorily applied as filling materials for
embankment works and the base and subbase layers in road and pave­
ment applications in civil engineering works [1–19]. The layers of a
compressive (UC) stress, splitting tensile (ST) stress, and flexural stress
(FT) [6,9,19–22]. In general, CTS materials exhibit low tensile strength
(qt) and flexural strength (qf) compared to unconfined compressive
strength (qu). CTS behaves like a brittle material under tensile and
flexural loadings [5,6,9,19,24]. In contrast, ductile material is required
for structural pavement applications to avoid sudden failure induced by
heavy traffic loads and to extend the pavement lifetime [25–28]. Thus,
the implications of adding the various synthetic fiber types to CTS

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: prinya@kku.ac.th (P. Chindaprasirt), pitthaya.j@eng.kmutnb.ac.th (P. Jamsawang), piti.s@eng.kmutnb.ac.th (P. Sukontasukkul), pornkasem.
jon@kmutt.ac.th (P. Jongpradist), fceslk@eng.chula.ac.th (S. Likitlersuang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100626
Received 8 June 2020; Received in revised form 3 June 2021; Accepted 12 July 2021
Available online 21 July 2021
2214-3912/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Chindaprasirt et al. Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626

materials are to enhance their qt and qf and to reduce their brittleness Table 1
[8,9,14,29,30]. The synthetic fibers can redistribute the applied stresses Physical properties of the sand used in this study.
utilizing the tensile strength mobilization of fibers, which provides a Property ASTM standard test method Value
bridging ability and minimizes the number of pores
Specific gravity D854 2.67
[5,8,9,14,18,29–33]. Gravel content (%) D422 3.7
The mechanical performance of CTSF subjected to UC and ST stresses Sand content (%) D422 94.9
has been studied by many researchers. However, only one type of fiber Fine content (%) D422 1.4
was used, and the conclusions were often discussed in terms of the in­ D60 (mm) D422 0.95
D30 (mm) D422 0.49
creases in qu and qt, depending on the fiber content, fiber length, fiber D10 (mm) D422 0.22
orientation, cement quantity, and sand properties Coefficient of uniformity D2487 4.32
[1–3,5,8,9,11,13,17,24,34]. Moreover, limited studies on brittleness, Coefficient of gradation D2487 1.14
toughness, and deformability for a CTSF have been reported. In addition Soil classification (USCS) D2487 SP
Maximum, minimum void ratios D4253, D4254 0.68, 0.45
to the fiber content and cement content, the fiber length and compacted
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) D1557 17.8
dry density of stabilized materials are also the main parameters affecting Optimum moisture content (%) D1557 13.2
the physical and mechanical performances of the CTFS materials. The
fiber length provided an increase in the density of the CTFS, resulting in
increasing their strengths qu and qt [8,35], and the compacted dry fibers used according to the proposed overall FT performance concept
density of CTFS materials exhibited a positive impact on the strength considering the strength, ductility, and toughness properties.
properties due to enhanced interfacial friction at the fiber-sand and In this study, the effects of different fiber types on the mechanical
sand-sand interface [3,14]. For the FT test, the performances of a CTSF performances of CTSFs subjected to three types of tests, including UC,
with one type of polypropylene fiber in terms of flexural strength (qf), ST, and FT tests for a given matrix and given fiber content, were
toughness, and ductility were improved relative to that of CTS for any comprehensively investigated via interpretation at both the macro-and
fiber content and cement content [6,22]. microscales. The debonded interface between the surface of each fiber
Even though fiber inclusions in cement-stabilized soils have advan­ and the cement-sand matrix was examined utilizing a scanning electron
tages in increasing strength, fiber inclusions also have some disadvan­ microscopy (SEM) technique. Finally, the logical guideline of the
tages, as reported by other researchers. For high binder contents, comparative mechanical performance concept based on Jamsawang
Khattak and Alrashidi [36] and Consoli et al. [37] observed a decrease in et al. [10] was presented for selecting the most suitable fiber types for
the reduction in the peak strength for cemented-treated clay reinforced CTSFs in each test (UC, ST, and FT) by taking into account the me­
with polypropylene fibers and CTSF with polypropylene fibers, respec­ chanical subperformance indicators, including the improvement peak
tively, at high binder contents. Fatahi et al. [38] reported a negligible strength ratio (ISR), brittleness index (BI), improvement deformation
impact on the peak qt in cement-stabilized kaolinite clay with the in­ ratio (IDR), improvement toughness ratio (ITR), toughness index (TI),
clusion of a small number of polypropylene fibers. Sukontasukkul and and strength index (SI).
Jamsawang [39], Correia et al. [29], and Oliveira et al. [30] showed that
the presence of polypropylene and steel fibers reduced the peak qu, qf, Materials and methods
and stiffness of cement-stabilized soft clay because fibers prevented
some cementation bonds from being created with the soil particles. Liu Materials
et al. [14] also reported a similar conclusion for polymer-treated sand
reinforced with polypropylene, basalt, and glass fibers. Kim and Kim In this study, sands were delivered from central Thailand, one of the
2017 [9] showed that too many nylon fibers reduced the qu and qf of primary supply sources of raw sandy soils used for embankment fill and
cement-stabilized sand–bentonite. pavement materials. The basic properties were determined in accor­
Most previous studies on CTSF concentrated on the effects of only the dance with the ASTM standards, as shown in Table 1. The grain size
cement content, fiber content and fiber size, compacted density. In distribution curve in Fig. 1a shows that the sand samples consisted of
contrast, few studies focused on the impact of the fiber types have been 98.6% coarse-grained soils (gravel content of 3.7% and sand content of
performed. Sukontasukkul and Jamsawang [39] showed that poly­ 94.9%) and only 1.4% fine-grained soils, according to the appearance of
propylene fibers had more excellent flexural performance than steel fi­ the sand samples (Fig. 1b), the gravel and sand fractions were brown.
bers to increase the toughness and residual strength. The effects of fiber Fig. 1c illustrates the magnification of the sand particles conducted by
types on the mechanical behaviors of stabilized soft clay reinforced with SEM analysis to investigate their textures and shapes. Most sand parti­
steel and polypropylene fibers under UC, ST, and FT tests were reported cles had angular and subangular shapes with rough and smooth surfaces.
by Oliveira et al. [30]. The performance indicators were the peak The mineral compositions of the sand samples were found to be 40%
strength and brittleness, and the experiment showed that the use of any quartz and 60% feldspar via X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis. According
fiber type increased qf and reduced the brittleness of the cement-treated to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), this sand is classified as
soft clay. Liu et al. [14] investigated the impact of three types of short poorly graded sand (SP) due to its narrow particle size range, exhibiting
fibers, including polypropylene, basalt, and glass fibers, on the me­ a low uniformity coefficient of 4.32. Based on the general standards of
chanical performance of polymer-treated sand via UC tests. The results earthworks in Thailand, a modified compaction test [45] is required for
revealed that polypropylene fiber provided the greatest strength and determining the maximum dry unit weight and the optimum moisture
smallest brittleness due to its better softness, elastic modulus, light­ content of the sand used, which were found to be 17.8 kN/m3 and
weight, and size advantage. However, these studies [14,30,39] lacked 13.2%, respectively. Type I ordinary Portland cement (Fig. 1d) was used
the application of a comparative assessment method to specify the as the cementitious material for this study and had a specific gravity of
effectiveness of each type of fiber used. They lacked an analysis of the 3.15, fineness of 2900 cm2/g and high calcium oxide content of 63%.
interfacial bond induced between the fiber surfaces and encased matrix In this study, seven different fiber types (Fig. 2), including (1) 12-
of the cement-stabilized clay, which is an essential characteristic for mm-long polypropylene microfibers, (2) 19-mm-long polypropylene
investigating the impact of fiber types on the mechanical performance of microfibers, (3) 33-mm-long steel macrofibers, (4) 40-mm-long poly­
CTSF [10,14,40–44]. Recently, Jamsawang et al. [10] described the propylene macrofibers, (5) 50-mm-long steel macrofibers, (6) 55-mm-
impact of fiber types on exclusively the FT behavior of CTSF with 5% long polypropylene macrofibers, and (7) 58-mm-long polyolefin fibers,
cement and 0.5–2% fiber contents. The results showed that the long steel which are commercially available in Thailand, were employed as rein­
fiber type exhibited the best effectiveness among the various types of forcement elements to create CTSFs. The properties of the fibers used

2
P. Chindaprasirt et al. Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626

Fig. 1. (a) Particle size distribution curve of raw sand sample used; (b) raw Fig. 2. Different fiber types used in this study.
sand sample; (c) SEM image of raw sand sample; (d) cement.

3
P. Chindaprasirt et al. Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626

Table 2
Properties of the fibers obtained from the manufacturers.
Type Micro Micro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro
Polypropylene Polypropylene Steel Polypropylene Steel Polypropylene Polyolefin

Length (mm) 12 19 33 40 50 55 58
Designation CTSF-12 CTSF-19 CTSF-33 CTSF-40 CTSF-50 CTSF-55 CTSF-58
Shape Straight Straight Hooked Flat-wide Hooked Crimped Twisted
Section Circular Circular Circular Rectangular Circular Circular Circular
Diameter or width (mm) – – 0.60 1.55 0.75 0.85 0.25
Specific weight (kN/m3) 8.93 8.93 76.52 9.03 76.52 8.93 8.93
Tensile strength (MPa) 320–400 320–400 1,200 620 1,200 250 620
Young’s modulus (GPa) 3.5 3.5 210 3.0 210 3.0 7

Table 3
Mixture proportions for cubic meter of CTS and CTFS specimens.
Designation Dry unit weight of Cement Fiber volume Total weight of Specific weight of Weight of Weight of dry Weight of
specimen, γd (kN/m3) content, C (%) fraction, F (%) specimen, W (kN) fiber, γf (kN/m3) fiber, Wf (kN) sand, Ws (kN) cement, Wc
(kN)

CTS 17.80 5 – 17.80 – – 16.95 0.85

CTSF-12 17.80 5 2 8.93 0.18 16.78 0.84
CTSF-19 8.93 0.18 16.78 0.84
CTSF-33 76.52 1.53 15.49 0.78
CTSF-40 9.03 0.18 16.78 0.84
CTSF-50 76.52 1.53 15.49 0.78
CTSF-55 8.93 0.18 16.78 0.84
CTSF-58 8.93 0.18 16.78 0.84

Remark: W= Specimen volume×γd = Wf + Ws+ Wc ; Wf = Specimen volume× F×γf ; Wc = 0.05Ws ; Ws = (W- Wf)/(1.05)

were divided into five main aspects, namely, (i) shape (straight, smooth,
hooked end, flat wide, crimped twisted), (ii) material (steel, poly­
propylene and polyolefin), (iii) dimension (size and length), (iv) distri­
bution (microfibers and macrofibers) and (v) physical and mechanical
properties (specific weight, strength, and modulus), as listed in Table 2.
Notably, the properties of the fibers were obtained from the
manufacturers.
Preparation of specimens for testing
The cylindrical CTS and CTSF specimens 100 mm in diameter and
200 mm in height were utilized for the UC and ST tests, according to
ASTM D5102 [46] and ASTM C496 [47], respectively, whereas 100-mm-
wide, 100-mm-high and 350-mm-long rectangular beam specimens,
according to ASTM C1609 [48], were used in the FT tests. The raw sand
was oven-dried for 24 h to obtain a zero initial moisture content. The 5%
cement (by dry weight of sand) provided a 7-day qu of 750 kPa, which
was greater than the minimum 7-day qu of 700 kPa for the CTS for use as
subbase material based on the specification of the Department of
Highways of Thailand. Therefore, the 5% cement was considered the
optimal cement content used to prepare all CTS and CTFS specimens for
the current study.
A negligible impact on the peak qf in cement-treated materials
reinforced with the insertion of small fiber volume fractions of poly­
propylene fibers (lower or equal 1.0%) was revealed by many re­
searchers [5,9,39,41–44]. However, with a further insertion of
polypropylene fibers, these authors reported an increase in the peak qf.
Notably, Jamsawang et al. [5,9] suggested that all fiber types with fiber
volume fractions of 2% exhibited a positive effect on the peak qf in
CTFSs. Thus, the 2% fiber volume fraction (by volume of the specimen)
was justified as an optimal fiber content to prepare all CTFS samples
used in this study. With the inclusion of the various types, lengths, di­
mensions, and shapes of the synthetic fiber, the initial dry density of all
CTS and CTSF specimens was controlled at the same value of the
maximum dry unit weight of compacted sand (17.80 kN/m3), based on
the specification of the Department of Highways of Thailand, to obtain
similar initial conditions for the CTS and CTSF specimens. Therefore, the
sum of dry sand, cement, and fiber weights is the same for all samples in
the same tests. The weight of dry sand is deduced by the weight of each
fiber used. Consequently, the weight of cement is also deduced to
maintain the same cement content of 5%, as illustrated in Table 3 for
designed mixes per cubic meter of CTS and CTFS specimens.
The dry sand and cement were first mixed by a concrete mixer for 3
min; then, the fibers were added, and the mixture was mixed for an
additional 3 min. Finally, the cement-fiber-sand mix was blended for 5
min with water according to the optimum moisture content of 13.2%, as
determined by modified Proctor tests. The uniformity and homogeneity
of the specimen were satisfied by visual observation. Each sample for the
UC and ST tests was contained in a cylindrical steel mold, whereas that
for the FT test was contained in a rectangular beam steel mold, which
could split into two parts to avoid any disturbance of the specimen and
was greased by lubrication oil. Each sample was then statically com­
pacted in three layers using a compression machine so that each layer
attained the specified dry unit weight. After completion of the molding
process, the specimen was immediately demolded. The sample was
considered appropriate for testing when it met the following criteria: dry
unit weight, moisture content, diameter, and height within 1, 0.5%, 0.5
mm, and 1 mm of the design values, respectively. The specimens passing
these criteria were covered with a plastic sheet to avoid moisture loss
from the sample [49] and were then cured for 28 days inside a controlled
room with a temperature of 25 ± 2 ◦ C to emulate the temperature of
Thailand and humidity of 95 ± 5%. The cement-fiber-sand mixture was
prepared sufficiently for one specimen only to control the mixing quality
of the specimen.
Experiments and outcomes
After 28 days of curing, the tests were then immediately performed.
For all the tests performed in this study, the average value of the test
results based on three specimens was reported. All the tests were per­
formed on the specimens using the automatic loading machine with a
capacity of 50 kN brand “Controls with V1072 series multispeed digital
version”. The machine consisted of a stand-alone automatic digital load
frame with a 50 kN capacity. Electric motors with closed-loop speed
control were used to control the deformation rate during each test and
provided a fully variable test speed of 0.2 to 51 mm/min. The machine

4
P. Chindaprasirt et al.
Fig. 3. Flowchart for the experimental works and outcomes of the UC, ST, and FT tests.
can be equipped with analogical or digital load/displacement mea­
surement systems and specific accessories to suit either the field or
central laboratory requirements. The electric load cells brand “Kyowa”
and linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) “Kyowa” were uti­
lized to measure the applied loads and deformations of the specimens.
The electric data logger system brand “Kyowa” model UCAM-550A was
used because it is a fast data logger that repeatedly measures a maximum
of 1000 channels at an interval of 0.02 s and supports load and
displacement transducers. Measuring channels are for 1 unit, a
maximum of 50 channels, and with 20 units cascaded, a maximum of
1000 channels are suited from small-scale to large-scale measurement.
Therefore, the electric data logger used in this study can provide
5
Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626
sufficient measurement data to create precise stress-deformation curves
to assess the reliability of the mechanical performance of the tested
specimen and for the interpretation of the accuracy of the results. Fig. 3
illustrates the flowchart for the experimental works and outcomes for
the UC, ST, and FT tests. The UC tests were conducted following ASTM
D5102 [46]. A 50-kN capacity load cell and a 50-mm capacity LVDT
were used to determine the compressive stress and axial compressive
strain (εa), respectively. A vertical displacement rate of 1 mm/min was
used, and the UC tests were stopped at εa = 5%. The ST tests were
performed according to ASTM C496 [47]. Each specimen was placed in
direct contact with two wood-bearing strips. A 20-kN capacity load cell
and two 50-mm capacity LVDTs were utilized to determine the ST stress
P. Chindaprasirt et al. Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626

and radial strain (εr), respectively. The load was applied to the specimen
from the top to cause along-diameter failure in tension. A vertical
displacement rate of 1 mm/min was used, and the ST tests were stopped
at εr = 5%. The FT tests were performed according to ASTM C1609 [48].
A 20-kN capacity load cell was used to determine the FT stress, whereas
two 20-mm capacity LVDTs were fixed to a reference frame to determine
the net deflection (δ) at the center of the beam specimen. A vertical
movement rate of 0.05 mm/min was designated, and these tests were
stopped at δ = 2 mm.
The stress-deformation responses of the tested specimens were pre­
sented in the forms of the UC stress-axial strain, ST stress-radial strain,
and flexural stress-net deflection curves for the UC, ST, and FT tests,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 3. The peak strengths were defined as the
maximum stresses that the CTSF specimens could sustain: the peak qu,
peak qt and peak qf. The corresponding strain values of the peak qu and
peak qt were termed εa,p and εr,p, respectively, and the deflection value
at the peak qf was termed δp. The stresses carried by the CTSF specimens
at εa = 5% and εr = 5% for qu and peak qt and at δ = 2 mm for qf were
termed the residual qu (qu,εa =5% ), residual qt (qt,εr =5% ), and residual qf
(qf,δ=2mm ), respectively. The areas under the load-deformation curves up
to εa = 5%, εr = 5% and δ = 2 mm were defined as the toughness or
energy absorption of the specimen [36,50], such as E(CTSF) and E(CTS), for
CTSF and CTS, respectively. The parameters describing the mechanical
performance of the CTSF specimens during the ST and FT tests consisted
of six parameters: (1) ISR, (2) BI, (3) IDR, (4) ITR, (5) TI, and (6) SI.
However, the last parameter was not considered for the UC test.

Analysis and discussion of mechanical test results

Characteristics of stress-deformation curves

The effects of the fiber types on the UC stress-axial strain, ST stress-

radial strain, and flexural stress–deflection curves are shown in
Fig. 4a–c, respectively. The shape of the presented curves indicates that
the fiber types affected the stress-deformation characteristics of the
CTSF specimens. The reinforcement with polypropylene, steel, and
polyolefin fibers changed the behavior of the CTS (no reinforcement)
from a brittle material that was unable to carry applied stress after the
occurrence of the peak strength to a semibrittle or ductile material that
was less brittle and had a higher toughness
[6,9–10,14,17,29–31,34,39,51–52]. Thus, CTSF was more effective than
CTS in preventing immediate failure after the peak strengths were
reached and providing residual strength induced by the tensile strength
mobilization of the fibers as the deformation continuously developed
[17,30,52]. Moreover, some fiber types improved the brittle behavior of
the composite material, increased its peak strength, and delayed the
stain accumulation in or deformation of the CTS material
[6,10,17,30,39].
The elastic modulus of the CTFS, which is defined as the slope of the
stress-deformation curves, in general, the results reveals a negative
impact on the elastic modulus in the UC tests for all fiber types (Fig. 4a).
In contrast, the results show a negligible effect on the elastic modulus in
the ST test (Fig. 4b) and FT test (Fig. 4c) for all fiber types. The reduction
in elastic modulus induced by fiber inclusion in the UC tests is explained
by a mobilization of the shear strength between the two failure surfaces
included by this type of test; thus, the tensile strengths of the fibers were
not mobilized, resulting in no bridging mechanism between fibers and
cemented sands to enhance the elastic modulus of the specimens. This
phenomenon was not found in the ST and FT tests because the tensile
mechanism induced by these kinds of tests imposed a tensile mobiliza­
tion of fibers. Therefore, some slippage between fibers and cemented
Fig. 4. (a) UC stress-axial strain curves, (b) ST stress-radial strain curves, and
sands was generated, which produced fiber bridging ability.
(c) flexural stress- deflection curves for CTSFs with different fiber types.
The behaviors of the UC stress-axial strain curves in Fig. 4a corre­
sponding to different fiber types could be classified into four categories:
(1) semibrittle material with the same peak strength as that of the cor­
responding CTS without the ability to sustain residual stress up to εa =

6
P. Chindaprasirt et al.
5% (CTSF-12 and CTSF-55), (2) semibrittle material with a greater peak
strength than that of the corresponding CTS without the ability to sus­
tain residual stress up to εa = 5%, (3) ductile material with the ability to
sustain residual stress up to εa = 5%, and (4) ductile material with a
greater peak strength than that of the corresponding CTS and with the
ability to sustain residual stress up to εa = 5% (CTSF-58). By comparison
with the behavior of the CTS, more details of each category can be
explained as follows:
• The first category was induced by insertion with 12 mm poly­
propylene and 55 mm polypropylene fibers. This category exhibited
a slightly smaller elastic modulus but a similar peak strength with
greater stain at the peak and showed little residual strength after the
peak strength but no residual strength at εa = 5%, resulting in sem­
ibrittleness of the specimens.
• The second category was produced by reinforcement with 33 mm
steel and 55 mm steel fibers. The second category revealed a
moderately smaller elastic modulus but a greater peak strength with
a much larger stain at the peak and exhibited slight residual strength
after the peak strength but no residual strength at εa = 5%, indicating
the semibrittleness of the specimens.
• The third category was created by insertion with 19 mm poly­
propylene and 40 mm polypropylene fibers. The third category
showed a much smaller elastic modulus and similar peak strength
with a much greater stain at the peak and presented much residual
strength at εa = 5%, which is almost the same as the peak strengths of
the reinforced specimens, resulting in ductility of the samples.
• The fourth category was generated by insertion with 58 mm poly­
olefin fibers. The last category exhibited the smallest elastic modulus
and most enormous stain at the peak but showed the greatest peak
strength and most considerable residual strength at εa = 5%, which is
almost the same as the peak strengths of the reinforced specimens,
resulting in ductility of the samples.
However, only two categories of ST stress-radial strain curves, as
shown in Fig. 4b, were observed, namely, (1) semibrittle material with
the same peak strength as that of the corresponding CTS and with the
ability to sustain slight residual stress up to εr = 5% (CTSF-12) and (2)
ductile material with a greater peak strength than that of the corre­
sponding CTS and with the ability to sustain residual stress up to εr = 5%
(all fiber types except CTSF-12). More details of the two categories can
be described as follows by comparison with the behavior of the CTS:
• The first category was induced by insertion with 12 mm poly­
propylene fibers. This category exhibited similar peak strength with
much greater stain at peak and showed little residual strength at εr =
5%, resulting in semibrittleness of the specimens.
• The second category was produced by reinforcement with the
remaining fiber types. The second category revealed much greater
peak strength with much larger stain at peak and exhibited much
residual strength at εr = 5%, which is almost the same as peak
strengths of the reinforced specimens, indicating ductility of the
samples.
In the same way, three categories of flexural stress–deflection curves,
as shown in Fig. 4c, were characterized: (1) semibrittle material with the
same peak strength as that of the corresponding CTS and with a slight
ability to sustain residual stress up to δ = 2 mm (CTSF-12), (2) ductile
material with a greater speak strength than that of the corresponding
CTS and with a high ability to sustain residual stress up to δ = 2 mm
(CTSF-19, CTSF-40, and CTSF-55) and (3) ductile material with a greater
peak strength than that of the corresponding CTS and with the ability to
sustain residual stress up to δ = 2 mm (CTSF-33, CTSF-50 and CTSF-58).
By comparison with the behavior of the CTS, more features of the four
categories can be explained as follows:
7
Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626
Fig. 5. Effect of fiber types on the peak strengths of the CTSFs.
• The first category was induced by insertion with 12 mm poly­
propylene fibers. This category exhibited similar peak strength and
the same deflection at the peak and showed slight residual strength
at δ = 2 mm, resulting in semibrittleness of the specimens.
• The second category involved reinforcement with 19 mm, 40 mm,
and 55 polypropylene fibers. The second category exhibited a greater
peak strength with a larger deflection at the peak and showed high
residual strength at δ = 2 mm by as much as the peak strengths of the
reinforced specimens, providing ductility of the samples.
• The third category was produced by reinforcement with 33 mm steel,
50 mm steel, and 58 mm polyolefin fibers. The last type revealed a
greater peak strength at a larger deflection at the peak and showed
high residual strengths at δ = 2 mm but lower than the peak strengths
of the reinforced specimens. The third category exhibited ductility of
the samples.
Peak strength
The peak qu, qt, and qf values of the CTSF specimens, as obtained
from Fig. 4, are shown in Fig. 5. The qu, qt, and qf of the CTS were found
to be 1437, 257, and 453, respectively. The results show that the effect
of the fiber type on the peak qu, qt, and qf values depended on the mode
of failure induced by each test [23,30,39]. The failure mechanism of the
specimens subjected to the UC test involved slippage along two failure
planes [9,17,29–31], as shown in Fig. 6a and 6b. Mobilization of the
shear strength along the two failure surfaces was induced by compres­
sive stress on the top of the specimen without mobilization of the tensile
strength of the fibers. Stiff fibers with high shear resistance are required
to enhance the peak qu by acting as a shear key rather than a tension
member to resist the slippage of the two failure surfaces, increasing the
overall shear strength of the composite CTSF materials (Fig. 6a). Thus,
the stiff fibers, including two steel fiber types (CTSF-33 and CTSF-50)
and polyolefin fiber (CTSF-58), which were relatively more rigid than
the other fiber types tested (polypropylene fibers), had a positive impact
on the peak qu (2746, 2342 and 1890 kPa for CTSF-33, CTSF-50, and
CTSF-58, respectively).
In contrast, the flexible fibers with low shear resistance negatively
impacted the peak qu (1365, 1293, 1341, and 1285 kPa for CTSF-12,
CTSF-19, CTSF-40, and CTSF-55, respectively). Such flexible fiber
types could not resist slippage, reduced the failure planes’ surface area,
and reduced the contact points between the cement-sand matrix,
resulting in a reduction in peak qu compared to the unreinforced spec­
imen (Fig. 6b). Considering the stiff fibers, CTSF-33 was the most
effective in terms of the increase in peak qu, followed by CTSF-50 and
CTSF-58, which indicated that fiber length did not affect the peak qu.
The steel fibers used in CTSF-33 and CTSF-50 were stiffer than the
polypropylene fibers used in CTSF-58. Thus, the fiber length was
P. Chindaprasirt et al.
Fig. 6. Failure mechanisms of CTSFs for the (a) UC tests using stiff fiber; (b) UC tests using soft fiber; (c) ST tests; (d) FT tests.
changed, but the same fiber content was considered. The short steel fiber
(CTSF-33) performed better than the long steel fiber (CTSF-50), and the
short steel fibers corresponded to a greater number of fibers in the
failure surface than the long steel fibers (resulting in constant fiber
content of 2% by specimen volume due to the same specific weight but
smaller fiber length). Consequently, CTSF-33 exhibited greater shear
resistance to slippage, causing a greater peak qu.
In the ST and FT tests, the modes of failure related to the vertical
cracking of the specimen induced by the horizontal tensile stresses
(Fig. 6c and d, respectively) could separate the sample into two parts
[6,10,22,24,29,30,33,39,48]. Before the ST and FT tests, at a curing
period of 28 days, the fiber surface was bonded with the cement-sand
8
Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626
matrix via chemical and physical adhesion, which created a debonded
interface along the fiber length. The embedded fiber length was equiv­
alent to the total fiber length. After the test specimens cracked due to
tensile stress mobilization, the fiber was then stretched because of the
stress transfer mechanism and induced shear stress around the debonded
interface, producing a bridging ability to carry the load. As this induced
shear stress exceeded the interfacial bond strength of each fiber, slippage
of the fibers along the debonded interface occurred, decreasing the
embedded fiber length. As an enlargement of the crack widths of the test
specimens increased with continuing applied force, the embedded
length of the fibers decreased; consequently, the bond force decreased.
The pullout of fibers from the matrix took place when the mobilized
P. Chindaprasirt et al.
Fig. 7. Effect of fiber types on the improvement peak strength ratio of
the CTSFs.
tensile force in the fiber exceeded the bond force induced by the
debonded interface of the embedded fiber. The interfacial bonding be­
tween the fiber and a given matrix depends primarily on the fiber shape,
fiber length, and fiber surface roughness [14,40,42,44,53].
The bridging ability is induced by the mobilization of the tensile
stress of the fibers to resist the lateral expansion of a crack
[6,10,14,30,41,43,44,57]. Thus, the bridging ability of fibers is required
to enhance the peak qt, and peak qf, depending on the embedded length
and interfacial bond properties of each fiber type. All the fiber types
exhibited a positive impact on the peak qt (qt of CTS = 310 kPa, qt of
CTSFs = 310–743 kPa), whereas only CTSF-12 exhibited an adverse
effect of the fiber reinforcement on the peak qf of 368 kPa (qt of CTS =
453 kPa, qt of the other CTSFs = 512–1065 kPa). Because the vertical
crack width from the ST test was smaller than that from the FT test, a
fiber length of 12 mm for CTSF-12 was insufficient to provide a bridging
capability. Both steel fiber types (CTSF-33 and CTSF-50) showed similar
peak qt values (908 and 1065 kPa for CTSF-33 and CTSF-50, respec­
tively), but CTSF-50 had a greater peak qf than CTSF-33, which indicates
that for the same fiber types, the embedded length was more important
than the number of fibers in the failure surface during the FT test.
Considering the polypropylene microfiber types (CTSF-12 and CTSF-
19), the embedded length was more important than the fiber amounts
for the ST and FT tests (qt of CTSF-12 and CTSF-19 = 310 and 612, qf of
CTSF-12 and CTSF-19 = 368 and 685, respectively, whereas qu of CTSF-
12 and CTSF-19 = 1365 and 1283, respectively). Even though CTSF-33
had a shorter fiber length and number of fibers in the failure surface than
those of CTSF-40, CTSF-55, and CTSF-58 (qt = 541–535, qf = 512–674
kPa), CTSF-33 exhibited greater qt (741 kPa) and qf (908 kPa) results,
which reflected the significance of the nature of the interfacial bond of
the steel fiber with the hooked end.
Improvement peak strength ratio
Fig. 7 shows the influence of the fiber types on the improvement peak
strength ratio (ISR), which is defined as the peak strength of the CTSF
divided by the peak strength of the CTS: the ISRs of the UC strength
(ISRUC), ST strength (ISRSTS), and FT strength (ISRFS) were determined.
The performances depended on the fiber types and the failure mecha­
nism induced by each test type [29,30,39], as discussed in Section 3.2.
The reinforcement with polypropylene micro and macrofibers reduced
the ISRUC (0.89–0.95) but increased the ISRST (1.21–2.38) and the ISRFS
(1.13–2.35), except for CTSF-12 (ISRFS = 0.81). The fiber length greatly
influences ISRFS because a sufficient fiber length is required to develop a
bridging capability. For the steel fibers (CTSF-33 and CTSF-50) and
polyolefin fiber (CTSF-58), the UC, ST and FT test results also illustrated
9
Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626
Fig. 8. Effect of fiber types on the brittleness index of the CTSFs.
a positive impact of the existence of the fibers (ISRUC = 1.32–1.91, ISRST
= 2.08–2.89) and ISRFS (1.35–2.35).
Brittleness index
The brittleness index (BI) is an indicator used to evaluate the ability
of each fiber type to decrease the degree of the brittleness of the CTSF
specimen [14,30]. The BI is defined according to Eq. (1). For example,
the CTS specimen that behaved like a complete brittle material exhibited
a BI of 1 because the strength at ε = 5% or δ = 2 mm was zero, indicating
a total strength loss after the peak was reached. In contrast, if the BI
approached zero, the CTSF behaved like a ductile material, showing that
the CTSF could sustain the peak qu to ε = 5% or δ = 2 mm.
qu,εa =5%
BIUC = 1 −
qu
qt,εr =5%
BIST = 1 − (1)
qt
qf,δ=2mm
BIFS = 1 −
qf
Fig. 8 illustrates the variation in the BI for the UC, ST, and FT tests;
the reinforcement of all the fiber types reduced the brittleness in com­
parison to that of the corresponding CTS according to the ST and FT
tests, but the results obtained from the UC tests did not indicate this
trend. The bar charts of the UC tests also show that the stiff steel fibers
(CTSF-33 and CTSF-50) and polypropylene fiber with a crimped shape
(CTSF-55) behaved like brittle materials (BIUC = 0.95–1), indicating that
these specimens could not maintain a residual qu after the peak stress
reached the designated axial strain of 5%. However, with fewer stiff
fibers, CTSF-19, CTSF-40, and CTSF-55, but not CTSF-12, showed that
semibrittle and ductile materials had BIUC values of 0.43, 0.56, and 0.25,
respectively. The decrease in brittleness mainly depended on the
deformability and length of each fiber type [14,29,30,39].
After the peak qu was reached, the cement bonds of the specimens
were broken; the stiff fibers were unable to deform as the slippage of the
two failure planes in a sample continued. Consequently, the stiff fibers
exhibited rigid body rotation, decreasing the debonded length and
breakage of the matrix around the debonded interface with increasing
strain in the specimen. An enlargement of the width of the failure plane
was continuously induced until some amount of the stiff fibers were
pulled out from the upper slip surface. Thus, the number of steel fibers
that crossed the failure surface was reduced, causing the residual qu to
drop to zero rapidly. In contrast, the FT fibers inserted in specimens
CTSF-19, CTSF-40, and CTSF-58 were deformed with constant debonded
lengths along with the movements of the failure planes to maintain the
same width of the failure surface without pullout or breaking under
P. Chindaprasirt et al.
Fig. 9. Effect of fiber types on the improvement deformation ratio of the CTSFs.
shear stress. Therefore, many deformable fibers in the failure surface
could sustain the residual stress until 5% strain. The specific weights of
these three fiber types were the same (0.90–0.92); therefore, the shortest
fiber length had the greatest number of fibers. CTSF-19 had the greatest
number of fibers, followed by CTSF-40 and CTSF-58. It seems that the
bond type and length were two main factors affecting the decrease in
brittleness of the CTSF-58 specimens compared to the CTS according to
the UC tests [29,30,39].
On the other hand, the bar charts of the ST tests revealed that CTSF-
50 and CTSF-33 exhibited the greatest reduction in brittleness with
minimum values of BIST = 0.08 and 0.11, respectively, indicating almost
no loss of peak qt to ε = 5%, followed by CTSF-58 and CTSF-40 (BIST =
0.16 and 0.19), CTSF-19 (BIST = 0.28), CTSF-19 (BIST = 0.35) and CTSF-
12 (BIST = 0.84). The short polypropylene microfiber in CTSF-12
resulted in the maximum BIST, reflecting brittle to semibrittle mate­
rials; the worst effectiveness in reducing the brittleness was observed
with a BIST greater than 0.5. The results of the FT tests show that all the
types of polypropylene fibers (CTSF-19, CTSF-40, and CTSF-55) were
the most effective in reducing the brittleness, with minimum values of
BIST = 0.01 to 0.04. In contrast, steel fibers (CTSF-33, CTSF-50) and
polyolefin fiber (CTSF-58) showed poor effectiveness in reducing the
brittleness, with minimum values of BIFT = 0.17 to 0.31. The short
polypropylene microfiber (CTSF-12) provided the maximum BIFT, which
reflected brittle to semibrittle materials and indicated the worst effec­
tiveness in reducing the brittleness with a maximum BIFT of 0.46
[10,14].
Improvement deformation ratio
The improvement deformation ratio (IDR) is applied to assess the
deformability of CTSF before the peak stress and specify the degree of
fiber extensibility of the CTSF. The IDR is defined as the strain or
deformation at the peak strength of the CTSF divided by that of the
corresponding CTS. Fig. 9 illustrates the effect of the fiber types on the
IDRUC, IDRST, and IDRFS for the UC, ST, and FT tests. The inclusion of
each fiber type efficiently improved the IDRs of the CTS (greater than
1.0) except CTSF-12 in the FT test (IDRFS = 0.7) and had a significant
impact on IDRST (9.9–23.6) and IDRFS (9.8–42.6), whereas it had a much
weaker effect on IDRUC (2.2–5.5), which depended on the failure
mobilization of each test. For the ST test, it is observed that the exten­
sible and lightweight fiber types, including polypropylene microfibers
(CTSF-12 and CTSF-19), polypropylene macrofibers (CTSF-40 and CTSF-
55), and polypropylene macrofibers (CTSF-58), were more effective in
terms of IDRST than the inextensible short steel fibers (CTSF-33). How­
ever, for the FT test, the extensible and lightweight fibers (except CTSF-
12) provided better IDRFT results than both steel fiber types. CTSF-19,
10
Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626
Fig. 10. Effect of fiber types on the improvement toughness ratio of the CTSFs.
CTSF-55 and CTSF-58 yielded the greatest IDRST = 23.6, IDRFT =
42.6, and IDRUC = 5.5, respectively. Thus, to enhance the IDR values,
the number of fibers was most important for the ST test. In contrast, the
number of fibers, extensibility, and interfacial bond properties were
most important for the FT test. The length, extensibility, and many fibers
were most important for the UC test. High intensity of interfacial bonds
between the cemented sand and fibers is required to reduce the delay in
the main cracks and increase the ductility of CTSF before the peak stress
without a significant loss in the strength (meaning that the main crack
did not form), depending on the number of fibers [6,10,29,30,39].
Improvement toughness ratio
The use of CTSF with high energy absorption or toughness prevents
damage to pavement structures subjected to dynamic loads [36,39,50].
Therefore, a comparison of the increase in CTSF toughness, considering
various fiber types, compared to CTS toughness provides useful details
for such applications. The improvement toughness ratio (ITR) is defined
as ECTSF/ECTS [36,50]. Fig. 10 reveals that the reinforcement of all the
fiber types increases the ITR results for all the test types, indicating that
a primary function of the fiber is enhancing the toughness rather than
strength because the ITRs fell to 2.9–18.8 when the ISRs were only
0.81–2.89 (Section 3.3). Generally, steel fibers (CTSF-33 and CTSF-50)
that exhibited high peak strengths also had high Its, even though their
brittleness was low due to their peak strength, whereas CTSF-19, CTSF-
55, and CTSF-58 had high ITR results due to their deformability. How­
ever, the high ITR results depended on the fiber types that exhibit an
ability to increase the peak strength rather than the deformability [39].
Toughness index
A relative level of toughness for each fiber type for each test was
evaluated in terms of the TI [36,50] for this study, which included the TI
of the UC test (TIUC), TI of the ST test (TIST), and TI of the FT test (TIFT),
as expressed in Eq. (2).
TIUC =
ECTSF(UC)
0.05qu(CTSF)
ECTSF(ST)
TIST = (2)
0.05qt(CTSF)
ECTSF(FT)
TIFT =
2qf(CTSF)
where ECTSF(UC), ECTSF(ST), and ECTSF(FT) are the energy absorption
capacities or the areas under the stress–strain curves of the CTSF spec­
imens obtained by the UC, ST, and FT tests, respectively, as shown in
P. Chindaprasirt et al.
Fig. 11. Effect of fiber types on the toughness index of the CTSFs.
Fig. 12. Effect of fiber types on the strength index of the CTSFs.
Fig. 3; qu(CTSF), qt(CTSF) and qf(CTSF) correspond to the peaks qu, qt and qf
of the CTSF specimens, respectively.
Fig. 11 reveals that all the fiber types showed a positive impact on TI
for all the test types (greater TI values with reinforcement), indicating
that the main advantage of fiber inclusion is the increase in the tough­
ness of the brittle materials. Fig. 11 reveals that the values of TIST and
TIFS varied in narrow ranges of 0.81–0.89 and 0.86–0.95, respectively,
except those of CTSF-12, which indicated that all fiber types with suf­
ficient length to develop a bridging capability could provide similar TIST
and TIFS. Unlike the significance values of TIUC, the steel fibers CTSF-33
and CTSF-50 showed lower importance than that of the FT test results
with TIUC = 0.41–0.41 as well as polypropylene fiber (CTSF-55) with
TIUC = 0.53, whereas CTSF-12, CTSF-40, and CTSF-58 yielded greater
significance values of TIUC = 0.76, 0.81, and 0.75, respectively.
Strength index
In this study, two strength indices (SIs) were defined: qt/qu and qf/qu,
corresponding to SIST and SIFT, respectively. It is well known that brittle
material exhibits low SIST and SIFT values. Fig. 12 shows that the in­
clusion of fibers tended to increase the SIST from 0.18 (CTS) to 0.23–0.48
for polypropylene microfibers, to 0.27–0.32 for steel to 0.40–0.42 for
polypropylene macrofibers, and to 0.28 for polyolefin fibers. However,
CTSF-12 and CTSF-58 tended to exhibit a slight reduction in SIFT of 0.27,
and the same SIFT (0.32) relative to the nonreinforced specimen fiber
types had SIFT values that were 0.33–0.53 greater than that of the CTS.
11
Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626
Fig. 13. X-ray diffraction results for an untreated sand sample and cemented-
sand sample after 28 days.
CTSF-19 provided the highest SIST and SIFT values of 0.48 and 0.53,
respectively. In reality, the values of SIST and SIFT depended on the
decrease in qu and the increases in qt and qf of the CTSFs, controlled by
the failure mechanism mode of each test type. The SIST and SIFT values
obtained from this study were greater than those reported by Kumar
et al. [54] for stabilized soil with polyester fiber (SIST = 0.14–0.17),
Fatahi et al. [38] for stabilized clay with polypropylene (SIST =
0.10–0.16), Consoli et al. [55] for cemented sand specimens with
polypropylene fibers (SIST = 0.14), Correia et al. [29] (SIST = 0.16–0.28)
for cemented soft clay with polypropylene fibers, Oliveira et al. [30] for
cemented soft clay with steel and polypropylene fibers (SIST =
0.16–0.28) and Kim and Kim [9] for cemented sand-bentonite mixtures
with nylon fiber (SIST = 0.12–0.20). The SIFT values from this study
agreed with the results presented by Correia et al. [29] (SIFT =
0.51–0.62) for cemented soft clay with polypropylene fibers and Oli­
veira et al. [30] for cemented soft clay with steel and polypropylene
fibers (SIFT = 0.50–0.55).
Microstructural observation of the debonded interface between
the matrix and fiber
The fiber types affected the macroscale mechanical performances
and failure mechanisms of the CTSF specimens, as shown in Fig. 6.
However, a microscale investigation of the nature of the debonded
interface induced by the cement-sand matrix and fiber surface is
required to confirm the macroscale mechanical performance, as dis­
cussed in the previous sections, and to reasonably interpret the
comparative mechanical performance. Fig. 13 shows the X-ray diffrac­
tion pattern of the cemented sand sample with a curing time of 28 days.
The intensity peak of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH), which is the main
hydration product during the cement hydration reaction contributing
strength to stabilizing the sand matrix [7,14], was detected at a
diffraction angle of 29.8. In contrast, no intensity peak of CSH was seen
for the untreated raw sand sample at the same diffraction angle. Fig. 14a
to f shows SEM images of various debonded interfaces, the cemented
sand matrix, and cement hydration products (CSHs) at the microscale.
The fiber surfaces were bonded to the matrix and the cement hydration
reaction products, determining the interfacial bond strengths. Fig. 14a
shows that the steel fiber (CTSF-33 and CTSF-50) surface was more
hydrophilic, and the corresponding debonded interface was thicker than
that of a synthetic fiber [30]. Consequently, the cemented sand matrix
surrounding the steel fiber surfaces could suitably hydrate and fill the
spaces between the matrix and fiber, decreasing the separation of the
debonded interface. Moreover, the steel fiber was almost fully encased
by the hydration products, resulting in high bonding strength and a
P. Chindaprasirt et al. Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626

Fig. 14. SEM images of the fiber surfaces in the reinforced stabilized sand.

decrease in slippage of the debonded interface. This interfacial charac­
teristic of CTSF-33 and CTSF-50 provided a rigid bridging capability,
which contributed to yielding at the maximum peak qt and qf values but
brittle behavior after the peak stress was reached in the ST and FT tests;
these observations were unlike those of the CTSF with other fiber types,
as discussed in the previous sections.
Unlike synthetic hydrophobic polyolefin and polypropylene fiber
types, thin debonded interfaces [42] were clearly observed in the SEM
images, as illustrated in Fig. 14b-f. Partially separated debonded in­
terfaces were detected because the hydrophobic fiber could significantly
prevent the water required for cement hydration from penetrating the
cement-sand matrix of the specimens during the curing time, resulting in
a decrease in the interfacial bond strength. This interfacial characteristic
of the synthetic fiber types exhibited a flexible bridging ability, causing
lower peak qt and qf values than those for the specimens with steel fiber
types. The number of synthetic fibers in the failure surfaces was much
higher than the number of steel fibers, as discussed in 3.4, resulting in a
higher ductility and lower brittleness. Fig. 14b and c illustrate that the
debonded interfacial natures of CTSF-55 and CTSF-40, respectively,
were similar, providing similar peak qt and qf values. CTSF-55 with
crimped fibers seemed to have better debonded interfacial properties
than CTSF-40 with smooth and flat fibers. CTSF-58 with twisted fibers
exhibited almost no hydration products on the fiber surfaces, and the
fiber surfaces were damaged by compaction during specimen prepara­
tion and became smooth. The microfibers in CTSF-12 and CTSF-19 were
distributed in three dimensions (Fig. 14e) and were competently
enclosed byproducts of the cement hydration reaction, resulting in
strong bonding of the debonded interfaces, as shown in the SEM images
of Fig. 14f.
the overall performance concept for the selection of a suitable
fiber type
The effects of fiber types on the mechanical performance of CTSF are
discussed in Sections 3.1 to 3.8. Each fiber type results in different
mechanical performances of the CTSF. Some fiber types might be best in
improving peak strength but worst in enhancing ductility or brittleness.
Therefore, a simple overall performance concept of CTSF, which pro­
vides common information based on the comparative mechanical per­
formances of all the fiber types utilized in this study, was proposed to

Table 4
Subperformance values for each fiber type.
Fiber type UC test ST test FT test

ISR BI IDR ITR TI ISR BI IDR ITR TI SIST ISR BI IDR ITR TI SIFT

12 mm polypropylene 0.95 1.00 2.20 2.90 0.33 1.21 0.84 14.50 4.20 0.62 0.23 0.81 0.46 0.70 4.40 0.60 0.27
19 mm polypropylene 0.89 0.43 4.00 6.40 0.76 2.38 0.28 23.60 11.70 0.88 0.48 1.51 0.04 37.00 12.10 0.88 0.53
33 mm steel 1.91 1.00 3.80 7.79 0.44 2.88 0.11 9.90 14.40 0.89 0.27 2.00 0.31 9.80 15.60 0.86 0.33
40 mm polypropylene 0.93 0.56 3.70 7.00 0.81 2.11 0.19 16.20 10.80 0.92 0.40 1.13 0.01 35.10 9.00 0.88 0.38
50 mm steel 1.63 1.00 3.30 6.20 0.41 2.89 0.08 18.60 15.40 0.95 0.32 2.35 0.22 14.70 13.80 0.88 0.45
55 mm polypropylene 0.89 0.95 2.30 4.40 0.41 2.08 0.35 13.60 12.00 0.85 0.42 1.49 0.01 42.60 12.00 0.89 0.52
58 mm polyolefin 1.32 0.25 5.50 9.20 0.75 2.08 0.16 19.60 10.80 0.93 0.28 1.35 0.17 17.60 11.30 0.92 0.32

12
P. Chindaprasirt et al. Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626

select the most suitable fiber type, corresponding to different failure

(Point)
mechanisms. The overall performance of the CTSF consisted of six me­

100
chanical subperformance indicators, as given in the previous sections,

51

62
72
85
98
60
SI
including (1) ISR, (2) BI, (3) IDR, (4) IT, (5) TI, and (6) SI. Notably, the
last mechanical subperformance was not considered for the UC test. The

(Point)
concept for determining the overall performance of a CTSF is explained

100
65
96
93
96
96
97
TI
as follows:
a) Input all subperformance values for each fiber in each test (see

(Point)
Table 4).

100
ITR
b) Convert each subperformance value to the comparative sub­
28
78

58
88
77
72
performance score for each fiber in each test by Eq. (3), assuming the full
score = 100 points (see Table 5).
(Point)

100
IDR

87
23
82
35

41
Value of subperformance
2

Comparative sub performance score = × 100

Best value of subperformance
(3)
(Point)

100

100
25

For a given example, the ISR values for each fiber type used in the UC
BI

test were 0.95, 0.89, 1.91, 0.93, 1.63, 0.89 and 1.32 for specimens CTSF-
12, CTSF-19, CTSF-33, CTSF-40, CTSF-50, CTSF-55 and CTSF-58,
(Point)
FT test

100

respectively. Notably, CTSF-50 showed the best subperformance value

ISR

34
64
85
48

63
57

based on the maximum ISR value of 1.91. Thus, the subperformance

value ISR was converted to the comparative subperformance score for
(Point)

each fiber type in the UC test: 50, 47, 100, 49, 85, 47, and 69.
100
48

56
83
67
88
58
SI

c) Determine the overall performance for each fiber type in each test
(see Table 6), which can be expressed as follows:
(Point)

Sum of comparative subperformance score

100

(4)
65
93
94
97

89
98

Overall performance =
TI

Number of subperformances
The overall performance was rated into seven classes from excellent
(Point)

to very poor, as listed in Table 7, based on a common concept in civil

100
ITR

27
76
94
70

78
70

engineering work [10,56]. Table 6 lists the ranks of each fiber type for
all test types, according to the overall performance concept.
(Point)

100
IDR

Discussion
61

42
69
79
58
83

The mechanical test results, interfacial bond properties, and overall

(Point)

performance of CTSF, as described in the previous sections, are dis­

100
10
29
73
42

23
50
Comparative score of the subperformance for each fiber type based on a full score of 100 points.

BI

cussed in this section. For the UC tests, fibers with flexibility and flexible
bridging ability are required to prevent enlargement of the crack width
(Point)
ST test

or separation of the failure planes and provide ductility. Thus, CTSF-58,

100

100
ISR

42
82

73

72
72

which includes a flexible and hydrophobic synthetic fiber, is the most

suitable because CTSF-58 yields a full score for three of the five sub­
performance indicators and almost a full score for another one. For the
(Point)

ST tests, fibers that provide a rigid bridging ability with sufficient length
100
41
94
54

51
51
93
TI

are needed to limit the vertical crack width and increase the toughness
and ductility. The CTSF-50, which includes a hydrophilic fiber with
(Point)

enough length, yields a full score in four subperformance indicators. In

100
ITR

32
70
85
76
67
48

FT tests, a long fiber that provides a flexible bridging ability and strong
interfacial bonds is required to limit the vertical crack width, increase
the ductility and decrease the brittleness. CTSF-55 is most suitable due
(Point)

100
IDR

to its hydrophobic synthetic fiber, sufficient fiber length, and rough fiber
40
73
69
67
60
42

surface with a crimped shape. It exhibits the maximum score in most of

the subperformance indicators. Notably, only the 12 mm polypropylene
(Point)

results in very poor performance because of the insufficient fiber length,

100
25
58
25
45
25
26
BI

as expected. However, individual subperformance may be required

rather than overall performance for some applications of civil engi­
UC test

(Point)

neering works. Table 5 provides valuable data for selecting the suitable
100
ISR

fiber type for such specific applications.

50
47

49
85
47
69

Conclusions
12 mm polypropylene
19 mm polypropylene

40 mm polypropylene

55 mm polypropylene
58 mm polyolefin

This paper presented the influence of fiber type on the mechanical

performance of cement-treated sand reinforced with fiber. The following
33 mm steel

50 mm steel
Fiber type

main conclusions were drawn based on the experimental results:

Table 5

13
P. Chindaprasirt et al. Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626

Table 6
Rank of the effectiveness of each fiber used in this study based on an overall performance rating.
Rank Fiber type UC test Rank Fiber type ST test Rank Fiber type FT test

Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall

performance performance performance performance performance performance
rating rating rating

1 58 mm 92 Excellent 1 50 mm steel 91 Excellent 1 55 mm 90 Very good

polyolefin polypropylene
2 19 mm 68 Fairly good 2 33 mm steel 76 Very good 2 40 mm 76 Good
polypropylene polypropylene
3 33 mm steel 67 Fairly good 3 19 mm 80 Good 3 50 mm steel 68 Good
polypropylene
4 40 mm 67 Fairly good 4 58 mm 72 Good 4 19 mm 75 Fairly good
polypropylene polyolefin polypropylene
5 50 mm steel 58 Fair 5 40 mm 72 Good 5 33 mm steel 61 Fair
polypropylene
6 55 mm 43 Poor 6 55 mm 68 Fair 6 58 mm 56 Fair
polypropylene polypropylene polyolefin
7 12 mm 37 Very poor 7 12 mm 42 Very poor 7 12 mm 30 Very poor
polypropylene polypropylene polypropylene

(6) The synthetic fiber types significantly affect the mechanical

Table 7 performance of CTSF specimens. The overall performance
Overall performance rating based on the range of average percentages of overall concept helps select the most proper fiber type corresponding to
performance. different stress conditions. This concept can be applied to pave­
Average percentage of overall performance Overall performance rating ment engineering practices and designs.
90–100 Excellent
80–89 Very good Ethical Statement:
70–79 Good The authors state that the research was conducted according to
60–69 Fairly good ethical standards.
50–59 Fair
40–49 Poor
<39 Very poor CRediT authorship contribution statement

Prinya Chindaprasirt: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition.

(1) The characteristics of the stress-deformation curves obtained
from the UC, ST, and FT tests were affected by the fiber types,
which could be mainly classified into those for (i) semibrittle
material without an improved peak strength, (ii) semibrittle
material with improved peak strength, (iii) ductile material
without an improved peak strength, and (iv) ductile material with
improved peak strength.
(2) Only steel and polyolefin fibers with high shear resistance resis­
ted the slippage of the failure surfaces, increasing the peak qu of
the CTSF. In contrast, the inclusion of soft fibers had a negative
impact on the peak qu. All the fiber types tested exhibited a
positive effect on the peak qt. In contrast, only CTSF-12 showed a
negative effect on the peak qf because of the insufficient length to
provide a bridging capability in the FT test.
(3) Steel fibers were the most effective in enhancing peak strengths
and toughnesses of the CTS specimen due to their rigidity and
bridging capability. The brittleness of the CTS specimen could be
effectively reduced by inserting flexible fibers with sufficient
lengths.
(4) The interfacial bonds of the steel fibers exhibited a rigid bridging
ability, which provided the greatest peaks qt and qf but caused
brittleness, whereas synthetic hydrophobic fiber types (poly­
olefin and polypropylene fibers) revealed a flexible bridging
ability, resulting in lower peak qt and qf values, a higher ductility
and a lower brittleness than those corresponding to the specimens
with steel fibers.
(5) The most suitable fibers (Rank No. 1) in this study for CTSF
subjected to UC, FT and FT stresses, which was considered to
exhibit excellent performance, were in the following order: a
flexible and hydrophobic synthetic fiber (CTSF-58); a hydrophilic
fiber with a sufficient fiber length (CTSF-50); and a hydrophobic
fiber with a sufficient length and a rough surface (CTSF-55).
Pitthaya Jamsawang: Writing – original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Funding acquisition. Piti Sukontasukkul: Supervision. Porn­
kasem Jongpradist: Supervision, Funding acquisition. Suched Liki­
tlersuang: Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by King Mongkut’s University of Tech­
nology North Bangkok under Contract no. KMUTNB-62-KNOW-14 and
National Research Council of Thailand (NRCT) through grant No.
NRCT5-RSA63006. The authors also extend their appreciation to the
Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under TRF Distinguished Research Pro­
fessor Grant No. DPG6180002. The last author (S. Likitlersuang) ac­
knowledges the Ratchadapisek Sompoch Endowment Fund (2021),
Chulalongkorn University (764002-ENV).
References
[1] Park S-S. Geotextiles and Geomembranes Effect of fiber reinforcement and
distribution on unconfined compressive strength of fiber-reinforced cemented
sand. Geotext Geomembranes 2009;27(2):162–6.
[2] Ibraim E, Diambra A, Muir Wood D, Russel AR. Static liquefaction of fibre
reinforced sand under monotonic loading. Geotext. Geomembr. 2010;28(5):
374–85.
[3] Consoli NC, Zortéa F, de Souza M, Festugato L. Studies on the dosage of fiber-
reinforced cemented soils. J Mater Civ Eng 2011;23(12):1624–32.
[4] Ibraim E, Diambra A, Russell AR, Muir Wood D. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
Assessment of laboratory sample preparation for fibre reinforced sands. Geotext
Geomembranes. 2012;34:69–79.

14
P. Chindaprasirt et al.
[5] Consoli NC, de Moraes RR, Festugato L. Parameters controlling tensile and
compressive strength of fiber-reinforced cemented soil. J Mater Civ Eng 2013;25
(10):1568–73.
[6] Jamsawang P, Voottipruex P, Horpibulsuk S. Flexural Strength Characteristics of
Compacted Cement-Polypropylene Fiber Sand. J Mater Civ Eng 2015;27(9):
04014243.
[7] Ateş A. Mechanical properties of sandy soils reinforced with cement and randomly
distributed glass fibers (GRC). Compos B Eng 2016;96:295–304.
[8] Festugato L, Menger E, Benezra F, Kipper EA, Consoli NC. Fibre-reinforced
cemented soils compressive and tensile strength assessment as a function of
filament length. Geotext Geomembr 2017;45(1):77–82.
[9] Kim B, Kim Y. Strength characteristics of cemented sand–bentonite mixtures with
fiber and metakaolin additions. Mar Georesour Geotechnol 2017;35(3):414–25.
[10] Jamsawang P, Suansomjeen T, Sukontasukkul P, Jongpradist P, Bergado DT.
Comparative flexural performance of compacted cement-fiber-sand. Geotext
Geomembr 2018;46(4):414–25.
[11] EsmaeilpourShirvani N, TaghaviGhalesari A, Khaleghnejad Tabari M, Janalizadeh
Choobbasti A. Improvement of the engineering behavior of sand-clay mixtures
using kenaf fiber reinforcement. Transp Geotech 2019;19:1–8.
[12] Ghadr S. Effect of grain size on undrained anisotropic behaviour of sand–fibre
composite. Transp Geotech 2020;22:100323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trgeo.2020.100323.
[13] Ghadakpour M, Choobbasti AJ, Kutanaei SS. Investigation of the Kenaf fiber hybrid
length on the properties of the cement-treated sandy soil. Transp Geotech 2020;22:
100301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100301.
[14] Liu J, Bai Y, Song Z, Kanungo DP, Wang Y, Bu F, et al. Stabilization of sand using
different types of short fibers and organic polymer. Constr Build Mater 2020;253:
119164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119164.
[15] Namjoo AM, Jafari K, Toufigh V. Effect of particle size of sand and surface
properties of reinforcement on sand-geosynthetics and sand–carbon fiber polymer
interface shear behavior. Transp Geotech 2020;24:100403. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100403.
[16] Narani SS, Abbaspour M, Mir Mohammad Hosseini SM, Moghadas Nejad F. Long-
term dynamic behavior of a sandy subgrade reinforced by Waste Tire Textile Fibers
(WTTFs). Transp Geotech 2020;24:100375.
[17] Park S-S. Unconfined compressive strength and ductility of fiber-reinforced
cemented sand. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(2):1134–8.
[18] Roshan K, Choobbasti AJ, Kutanaei SS. Evaluation of the impact of fiber
reinforcement on the durability of lignosulfonate stabilized clayey sand under wet-
dry condition. Transp Geotech 2020;23:100359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trgeo.2020.100359.
[19] Biswal DR, Sahoo UC, Dash SR. Sahoo, UC, Dash, SR: Non-destructive strength and
stiffness evaluation of cement-stabilised granular lateritic soils. Road Mater
Pavement 2020;21(3):835–49.
[20] Austroads: Guide to Pavement Technology Part 2: Pavement Structural Design.
Austroads, Sydney (2017).
[21] Viswanadham BVS, Jha BK, Pawar SN. Influence of geofibers on the flexural
behavior of compacted soil beams. Geosynth Int 2010;17(2):86–99.
[22] Onyejekwe S, Ghataora GS. Effect of fiber inclusions on flexural strength of soils
treated with nontraditional additives. J Mater Civ Eng 2014;26(8):04014039.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000922.
[23] Consoli NC, Scheuermann Filho HC, Leon HB, da Silva Carretta M, Corte MB,
Cordeiro RE, et al. Transportation Geotechnics General relationships controlling
loss of mass, stiffness and strength of sustainable binders amended sand. Transp
Geotech 2021;27:100473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100473.
[24] Festugato L, Venson GI, Consoli NC. Transportation Geotechnics Parameters
controlling cyclic behaviour of cement-treated sand. Transp Geotech 2021;27:
100488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100488.
[25] Disfani MM, Arulrajah A, Haghighi H, Mohammadinia A, Horpibulsuk S. Flexural
beam fatigue strength evaluation of crushed brick as a supplementary material in
cement stabilized recycled concrete aggregates. Constr Build Mater 2014;68:
667–76.
[26] Gnanendran CT, Paul DK. Fatigue Characterization of Lightly Cementitiously
Stabilized Granular Base Materials Using Flexural Testing. J Mater Civ Eng 2016;28
(9):04016086. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001598.
[27] Arulrajah A, Perera S, Wong YC, Horpibulsuk S, Maghool F. Stiffness and flexural
strength evaluation of cement stabilized PET blends with demolition wastes. Constr
Build Mater 2020;239:117819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117819.
[28] Jallu M, Arulrajah A, Saride S. Robert Evans. Flexural fatigue behavior of fly ash
geopolymer stabilized-geogrid reinforced RAP bases. Constr Build Mater 2020;254:
119263.
[29] Correia AAS, Venda Oliveira PJ, Custódio DG. Effect of polypropylene fibres on the
compressive and tensile strength of a soft soil artificially stabilised with binders.
Geotext Geomembr 2015;43(2):97–106.
15
Transportation Geotechnics 30 (2021) 100626
[30] Oliveira PJV, Correia AAS, Teles JMNPC, Custódio DG. Effect of fibre type on the
compressive and tensile strength of a soft soil chemically stabilized. Geosynth Int
2016;23(3):171–82.
[31] Tran KQ, Satomi T, Takahashi H. Effect of waste cornsilk fiber reinforcement on
mechanical properties of soft soils. Transp Geotech 2018;16:76–84.
[32] Kravchenko E, Liu J, Krainiukov A, Chang D. Dynamic behavior of clay modified
with polypropylene fiber under freeze-thaw cycles. Transp Geotech 2019;21:
100282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.100282.
[33] Valipour M, Shourijeh PT, Mohammadinia A. Application of recycled tire polymer
fibers and glass fibers for clay reinforcement. Transp Geotech 2021;27:100474.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100474.
[34] Festugato L, Peccin da Silva A, Diambra A, Consoli NC, Ibraim E. Modelling
tensile/compressive strength ratio of fibre reinforced cemented soils. Geotext
Geomembr 2018;46(2):155–65.
[35] Kumar A, Gupta D. Behavior of cement-stabilized fiber-reinforced pond ash, rice
husk ash–soil mixtures. Geotext Geomembr 2016;44(3):466–74.
[36] Khattak MJ, Alrashidi M. Durability and mechanistic characteristics of fiber
reinforced soil–cement mixtures. Int J Pavement Eng 2006;7(1):53–62.
[37] Consoli NC, Vendruscolo MA, Fonini A, Rosa FD. Fibre reinforcement effects on
sand considering a wide cementation range. Geotext Geomembr 2009;27(3):
196–203.
[38] Fatahi B, Khabbaz H, Fatahi B. Mechanical characteristics of soft clay treated with
fibre and cement. Geosynth Int 2012;19(3):252–62.
[39] Sukontasukkul P, Jamsawang P. Use of steel and polypropylene fibers to improve
flexural performance of deep soil–cement column. Constr Build Mater 2012;29:
201–5.
[40] Tang C-S, Shi B, Zhao L-Z. Interfacial shear strength of fiber reinforced soil. Geotext
Geomembr 2010;28(1):54–62.
[41] Nematollahi B, Sanjayan J, Shaikh FUA. Comparative deflection hardening
behavior of short fiber reinforced geopolymer composites. Constr Build Mater
2014;70:54–64.
[42] Hannawi K, Bian H, Prince-Agbodjan W, Raghavan B. Effect of different types of
fibers on the microstructure and the mechanical behavior of Ultra-High
Performance Fiber-Reinforced. Concretes Compos B Eng 2016;86:214–20.
[43] Sarir P, Shen S-L, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S. Concrete wedge and coarse sand
coating shear connection system in GFRP concrete composite deck. Constr Build
Mater 2016;114:650–5.
[44] Simões T, Octávio C, Valença J, Costa H, Dias-da-Costa D, Júlio E. Influence of
concrete strength and steel fibre geometry on the fibre/matrix interface. Compos B
Eng 2017;122:156–64.
[45] ASTM D 1557-12. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction
Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort. West Conshohocken, PA; 2012.
[46] ASTM D5102–09. Standard Test Methods for Unconfined Compressive Strength of
Compacted Soil-Lime Mixtures. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA;
2009.
[47] ASTM C496-96. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA; 1996.
[48] ASTM C1609/C1609M. Standard test method for flexural performance of
fiberreinforced concrete (Using Beam With Third-Point Loading). ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA; 2010.
[49] Güllü Hamza, Fedakar Halil İbrahim. Use of factorial experimental approach and
effect size on the CBR testing results for the usable dosages of wastewater sludge
ash with coarse-grained material. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 2018;22(1):42–63.
[50] Ou Yu-Chen, Tsai Mu-Sen, Liu Kuang-Yen, Chang Kuo-Chun. Compressive Behavior
of Steel-Fiber-Reinforced Concrete with a High Reinforcing Index. J Mater Civil
Eng 2012;24(2):207–15.
[51] Consoli NC, Corte MB, Festugato L. Key parameters for tensile and compressive
strength of fiber-reinforced soil-lime mixtures. Geosynth Int 2012;19(5):409–14.
[52] Yi XW, Ma GW, Fourie A. Compressive behaviour of fibre-reinforced cemented
paste backfill. Geotext Geomembr 2015;43(3):207–15.
[53] Hejazi Sayyed Mahdi, Sheikhzadeh Mohammad, Abtahi Sayyed Mahdi,
Zadhoush Ali. A simple review of soil reinforcement by using natural and synthetic
fibers. Constr Build Mater 2012;30:100–16.
[54] Kumar A, Walia BS, Bajaaj A. Influence of fly ash, lime and polyester fibres on
compacted and strength properties of expansive soil. J Mater Civ Eng 2007;19(3):
242–8.
[55] Consoli Nilo Cesar, Rizzatti de Moraes Rafael, Festugato Lucas. Variables
controlling strength of fibre-reinforced cemented soils. Ground Improvement 2013;
166(4):221–32.
[56] Jamsawang Pitthaya, Voottipruex Panich, Jongpradist Pornkasem, Bergado Dennes
T. Parameters affecting the lateral movements of compound deep cement mixing
walls by numerical simulations and parametric analyses. Acta Geotech 2015;10(6):
797–812.
[57] Sukontasukkul Piti, Jamnam Sitisak, Sappakittipakorn Manote,
Banthia Nemkumar. Preliminary study on bullet resistance of double-layer
concrete panel made of rubberized and steel fiber reinforced concrete. Mater Struct
2014;47(1-2):117–25.