Use of Bamboo in Soft-Ground Engineering and Its

Performance Comparison with Geosynthetics:

Experimental Studies
A. Hegde 1 and T. G. Sitharam 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The results of the laboratory investigation performed on clay beds reinforced with natural (bamboo) and commercial
(geosynthetics) reinforcement materials are reported in this paper. To use bamboo effectively, three-dimensional cells (similar to geocells)
and two-dimensional grids (similar to geogrids) are formed using bamboo (termed bamboo cells and bamboo grids, respectively). The
performance of clay beds reinforced with bamboo cells and bamboo grids is compared with that of clay beds reinforced with geocells
and geogrids. The bearing capacity of the clay bed increased by six times when a combination of geocell and geogrid was used. The ultimate
bearing capacity of the clay bed reinforced with bamboo cell and bamboo grid was found to be 1.3 times more than that of clay bed reinforced
with geocell and geogrid. In addition, substantial reduction in the footing settlement and the surface deformation was observed. The tensile
strength and surface roughness of bamboo were found to be nine times and three times, respectively, higher than geocell materials. The
bamboo was treated chemically to increase its durability. Although the performance of bamboo was reduced by 15–20% after the chemical
treatment, its performance was better than its commercial counterparts. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001224. © 2014 American
Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction gains the strength with time due to the continuous process of con-
solidation. Bamboo is a biodegradable material, which imparts the
Because of the rapid urbanization in the 21st century, the construc- required short-term stability to the soil before it slowly breaks down
tion in the soft ground has almost become inevitable. Soft-ground and mixes with the soil. However, nowadays techniques are avail-
engineering offers enormous challenges to the engineers across the able to increase the durability of bamboo through impregnation of
globe. Ground-improvement techniques are the largely preferred the preservatives by various means.
techniques for loading-bearing applications (low to moderate) in The use of wood in the foundation construction is not a new
soft soils. Engineers and scientists are constantly looking for new concept. The world famous monument the Taj Mahal was built on
ground-improvement techniques that are cheaper (compared with gigantic wooden slabs made of Ebony wood supported on deep
the present techniques) and more amenable to the field construc- wall foundations. The massive solid foundation of the Taj Mahal
tion. Geocells are three-dimensional (3D) expandable panels made including the wooden shock absorbers has defied the onslaught of
up of high-density polymers, which are specially designed for load- time keeping the superstructure stable for more than three-and-a-
bearing applications in soft soils. Many researchers have reported half centuries without any deterioration. Generally, in geotechnical-
the beneficial effects of geocells (Madhavi Latha et al. 2009; Dash engineering applications, bamboo is used in two ways. One is to
2010, 2012; Han et al. 2011; Moghaddas Tafreshi et al. 2013, use bamboo directly to build a foundation as illustrated in the case
2014; Hegde and Sitharam 2013, 2014a; Mehdipour et al. 2013; of the Taj Mahal. The other way is to use bamboo to reinforce
Leshchinsky and Ling 2013; Sitharam and Hegde 2013; Tanyu et al. the soft soil to increase its bearing capacity. This paper deals with
2013; Hegde et al. 2014). This study intends to explore the possibil- the latter case, in which bamboo is used to increase the bearing
ity of using naturally available bamboo to construct 3D cells and capacity of the soft soil. Therefore, the reported findings are appli-
use it in soft soils as an alternative to the commercially available cable to all those geotechnical problems in which the bearing
geocells. Bamboos are one of the fastest growing plants and have capacity of the soil is a major concern (e.g., foundations, embank-
been heavily used as building materials in the construction industry. ments, pavements).
Coincidently, the regions facing the problems pertaining to the Many researchers have studied the different engineering proper-
soft soils also have abundant sources of bamboo (e.g., Southeast ties of bamboo in the past in both natural and laminated forms
Asia, India). Generally, short-term stability is the major governing (e.g., Mitch et al. 2010; Mahdavi et al. 2011; Ramirez et al. 2012;
factor in the design of geotechnical structures in soft soils. The soil Sinha and Miyamoto 2013). The concept of using natural and ar-
tificial fibers to reinforce the soil is not new and there are instances
1
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of where these fibers were used to enhance the strength and stiffness
Science, Bangalore 560012, India (corresponding author). E-mail: of soil (Sivakumar Babu and Vasudevan 2008; Jiang et al. 2010).
[email protected] However, very few studies have been carried out on the direct use of
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, bamboo to increase the soil strength. Khatib (2009) conducted lab-
Bangalore 560012, India. E-mail: [email protected] oratory plate-load tests to evaluate the effectiveness of bamboo
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 3, 2014; approved on
poles in increasing the bearing capacity of the soft soil. The results
October 21, 2014; published online on December 5, 2014. Discussion per-
iod open until May 5, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for of this study showed that the bearing capacity increased by
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil 1.8 times due to the provision of the bamboo pole as compared
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04014256(9)/$25.00. with unreinforced clay beds. The recent trend is to use bamboo

© ASCE 04014256-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.

 along with other materials (e.g., geotextiles, bitumen). Marto and A square-shaped steel plate that was 20-mm thick (sides, 150 mm)
Othman (2011) compared the performance of the bamboo–geotextile was used as the model footing. The base of the footing was made
composite (BGC)-reinforced embankments with the high-strength rough by coating it with a thin layer of sand using epoxy glue. Foot-
geotextile (HSG)-reinforced embankments in soft soil through ing was loaded with hand-operated hydraulic jack supported
large-scale model tests. They observed that BGC-reinforced em- against self-reacting frame. The load applied to the footing was
bankments conceded lesser settlements and lateral movements than measured through a precalibrated proving ring, which was placed
the HSG-reinforced embankments. Similarly, Prasad et al. (2010) between the hydraulic jack and the footing with a ball-bearing ar-
studied the performance of the reinforced granular subbase layers rangement. The schematic and photographic views of the test setup
with different reinforcing materials such as bitumen-coated bamboo are shown in Fig. 1.
mesh, waste plastic, and waste tire rubber. The study rated bitumen-
coated bamboo mesh as superior to waste plastic and waste tire
rubber. Toh et al. (1994) reported a case history of using geotextile– Materials Used
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

bamboo fascine mattress to support a huge earth fill on the very soft
soil in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The authors observed that the use of Natural silty clay with medium (intermediate) compressibility was
bamboo not only provided the stable platform to place the geotextile used to prepare the foundation bed. The liquid limit, plastic limit,
but also substantially increased the bearing capacity. and the specific gravity of the soil were 40%, 19%, and 2.66, re-
The general tendency is to use bamboo poles itself to reinforce spectively. The maximum dry density and the optimal moisture
the soil as reported in the most of the literature (e.g., Khatib 2009). content of the soil in the Standard Proctor test were 18.2 kN=m3
Contrary to previous research, in this study a unique attempt has and 13.2%, respectively. The silty clay was made of kaolinite clay
been made to use bamboo cells and bamboo grids to reinforce the mineral. The sand infill used in the experiment was classified as the
soft soil. Bamboo cells and bamboo grids resemble their commer- poorly graded sand (with symbol SP, according to the unified soil
cial counterparts, namely, geocells and geogrids, but are made of classification system). Sand had a specific gravity of 2.64; effective
bamboo strips. The bamboo strips were prepared in the laboratory particle size (D10 ) of 0.26 mm; coefficient of uniformity (Cu ) of
from the locally available bamboo. The results of laboratory plate- 3.08; coefficient of curvature (Cc ) of 1.05; maximum void ratio
load tests conducted on soft soil reinforced with bamboo cells and (emax ) of 0.81; and minimum void ratio (emin ) of 0.51. The friction
bamboo grids are discussed in this paper. The performances of angle (φ) of the sand was 36°, which was obtained from the triaxial
the bamboo cells and bamboo grids are compared with that of compression test. Grain-size distributions of the sand and silty clay
geocells and geogrids. In addition, the bamboo strips were treated are presented in Fig. 2.
chemically using copper–chrome–arsenic (CCA) solution to im- The geocell used in the study was made of Neoloy (novel poly-
prove the durability. The reported results also include the compari- meric alloy). Each cell is 250 mm in length, 210 mm in width, and
son of the performances of treated and untreated bamboo cells and 150 mm in height. A biaxial geogrid made up polypropylene was
bamboo grids. used at the base of the geocell. The bamboo used in the study be-
longs to the Belgaum region in Karnataka (India). The relatively
fresh green bamboo was cut into pieces to obtain a strip of 20-mm
Experimental Setup width of required length. The strips are then woven together to form
a grid. These grids are tied together using galvanized steel wire to
Plate-load tests were conducted in an existing test tank cum loading form a shape resembling the geocells. The joint distances were
apparatus in the authors’ laboratory. The test tank had the following maintained so that the pocket size of the bamboo cells is equivalent
dimensions: length, 900 mm; width, 900 mm; and height, 600 mm. to that of commercial geocells used in the study. The properties of

(a) (b)

Fig. 1. Test setup: (a) schematic view; (b) photographic view

© ASCE 04014256-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.

 100
case, the bamboo was dry, and therefore, the soaking technique was
90
Sand chosen considering the simplicity and efficiency of the method. In
80
Silty clay
the soaking method, the air-dried bamboo grids were immersed
70
in the preservative solution for a fixed duration. The commonly
60
% Finer

used chemical preservatives are boron-containing compounds,

50
zinc chloride, sodium pentachlorophenate, CCA, and copper–
40
chrome–boron, etc. However, the most widely used preservative
30
for dry bamboo is CCA. A typical composition of this preser-
20
vative is as follows: copper sulfate (CuSO4 · 5H2 O), arsenic pent-
10
oxide (AS2 O5 · 2H2 O), and sodium or potassium dichromate
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 (Na2 Cr2 O7 · 2H2 O or K2 Cr2 O7 · 2H2 O) in the proportion of 3:1:4
particle size (mm) conforming to ASTM D1625-71 (ASTM 2000) and BIS 10013-II
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(Part 2; Bureau of Indian Standards 1981). CCA is a fixing-type

Fig. 2. Grain-size distribution of the materials preservative with chromium acting as a fixing agent, copper is ef-
fective against fungi and soft rot, and the arsenic acts against ter-
mites and insects. The bamboo grids were immersed in the CCA
the different reinforcement materials used in the study are presented solution for 7 days. The grids were dried in sunlight before use.
in Table 1. Chemical-composition test was carried out using energy-
dispersive X-ray analysis (EDAX) to ascertain the effectiveness
of the treatment. It is an extensively used technique to analyze
Treatment of Bamboo the chemical components of a material. In this method, an electron
beam is allowed to focus on the sample in a scanning electron mi-
In general, the durability of natural bamboo is up to 5 years in the croscope. The electrons will penetrate into the sample and interact
moist conditions (Gnanaharan 2000). The biodegradation of bam- with its atoms. This interaction will lead to the generation of X rays.
boo with time is a major concern in the geotechnical-engineering The generated X rays are captured by an energy-dispersive detector.
applications. The biodegradation takes place due to various sources By analyzing these X rays, the concentrations of the elements are
in the form of moisture, fungi, and insect attacks. This process quantified. A sample size of 5 × 5 mm was used for EDAX. Before
severely affects the strength and structural performance of bamboo. the test, aurum (Au) coating of thickness 10 nm was applied to
To ensure long-term structural performances, bamboo must be pro- increase the conductivity of the sample. Fig. 3 shows the EDAX
tected from the natural predators. Depending on the state of bam- results for untreated and treated bamboos. The result shows
boo (green or dry), various preservation techniques are available. [Fig. 3(a)] that the carbon content (C) of 60% and oxygen (O) con-
Steeping, diffusion process, and sap displacement are the com- tent of more than 20% are present in the untreated bamboo. In the
monly adopted methods for the treatment of fresh bamboo. The case of treated bamboo, in addition to the carbon and the oxygen,
generally used methods for the treatment of dry bamboo are soak- chromium (Cr) and copper (Cu) were present [Fig. 3(b)]. The
ing, pressure impregnation, and hot and cold process. In the present presence of chromium and copper content is due to the treatment
with CCA solution. It indicates that the immersion technique
adopted for treatment has successfully injected CCA into the
Table 1. Properties of Different Reinforcement Materials Used in the bamboo strips.
Study
Parameters Quantity
Geocell Comparison of Properties of Geocell and Bamboo
Material Neoloy (novel polymeric alloy)
Cell size (mm) 250 × 210
Tensile Strength
Number of cells=m2 40
Cell depth (mm) 150 Fig. 4 shows the comparison of tensile stress-strain behavior of the
Strip thickness (mm) 1.53 different materials. In the case of geocell and bamboo, the test sam-
Ultimate tensile strength (kN=m) 20 ple of width 25 mm cut from seam to seam was used for tensile
Seam peal strength (N) 2,150 (
5%)
testing. The strain rate applied was 0.1% of the gauge length of
Density (g=cm3 ) 0.95 (
1.5%)
Short-term yield strength (kN=m) 20 the sample per second. Multirib tensile strength test was carried out
Perforations on the wall (%) 12% of the surface area according to ASTM D6637-11 (ASTM 2011) to determine the ten-
Surface roughness (μm) 1.12 sile properties of the geogrid. The tensile strength of bamboo was
Geogrid found to be nine times higher than that of the geocell and geogrid
Polymer Polypropylene materials. After the treatment, the ultimate tensile strength of bam-
Aperture size (MD × XMD) mm 35 × 35 boo was reduced by 15%. The nature of the stress-strain behavior
Ultimate tensile strength (kN=m) 20 indicates that the bamboo is brittle compared with geocells and
Mass per unit area (g=m2 ) 220
geogrids.
Shape of the aperture opening Square
Bamboo
It is a well-known fact that the soil is very weak in resisting the
Species Bambusa bambos tension load and can perform better under the action of compres-
Water content (%) 23 sion load. The very concept behind the soil reinforcement is to
Density (g=m2 ) 0.97 insert those materials into soil that are good in tension, such that
Ultimate tensile strength (kN=m) 253 soil can take both tension and compression loads. Therefore,
Secant modulus at 2% strain (MPa) 5,500 higher tensile strength is one of the basic characteristics for soil
Note: MD = machine direction; XMD = crossmachine direction. reinforcements.

© ASCE 04014256-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. EDAX images: (a) untreated bamboo; (b) treated bamboo

140 the valley at different points on the surface before averaging it to

120 Untreated bamboo arrive at one value called surface roughness value (Ra ). In other
words, roughness is nothing but the average height of the textures
100
present on the surface. The Talysurf CCI Lite is extensively used in
Stress (MPa)

80 many applications requiring high-precision 3D profile analysis.

60 The instrument can measure the roughness of a variety of materials,
Treated bamboo including glass, metals, polymers, etc. Fig. 6 shows the 3D surface
40
Geocell profiles of the different samples. A small strip of the sample of size
20 5 × 5 mm was used for surface profiling. The surface roughness
0
Geogrid values observed for the commercially available geocell, untreated,
0 5 10 15 and untreated bamboos were 1.12, 3.86, and 3.08 μm, respectively.
Axial strain (%) The surface roughness of natural bamboo is approximately
3.5 times higher than that of the geocell. Upon treatment, the rough-
Fig. 4. Tensile stress-strain behavior of different materials
ness value was found to be reduced by 20%.
Roughness of the surface has a significant effect on the perfor-
mance of the reinforcement. In general, roughness is the indication
Surface Roughness of the textures present on the surface of the reinforcement. It is
understood that geocell/bamboo-cell pockets are filled with granu-
Fig. 5 shows the scanning electron microscopy images of the geo- lar materials such as sand. When these granular materials come in
cell and the bamboo. The image shows the unique texture on the contact with the surface textures, friction force will be generated
surface of both the geocell and the bamboo. These surface textures at the interface. These friction forces act in the upward direction
are responsible for the interface friction between the material and and will help resist the imposed load (Koerner 1998; Hegde and
the soil. The geocell surface has the cup-shaped textures made of Sitharam 2014b). Therefore, surface roughness of the reinforce-
the polymeric resins. In the case of bamboo, the horizontal strips of ment has the substantial influence on the bearing capacity of the
natural fibers contribute to the roughness of the surface. reinforced foundation bed.
The features of the surface texture were quantified using the sur-
face roughness value (Ra ). The surface roughness of the samples
was estimated using Talysurf CCI Lite optical profilometer. The Laboratory Plate-Load Tests
Talysurf CCI Lite is a noncontact type of profilometer, which uses
an innovative correlation algorithm to find the coherence peak and
Clay-Bed Preparation
the phase position of the interference pattern. It pictorially repro-
duces the minute textures present on the surface of the material in The clayey soil was first pulverized and then mixed with a predeter-
3D form. It computes the height difference between the peak and mined amount of water. The moist soil was placed in an airtight

© ASCE 04014256-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Scanning electron microscopy images: (a) geocell; (b) bamboo

Fig. 6. Three-dimensional surface roughness profile: (a) geocell; (b) untreated bamboo; (c) treated bamboo

container for 3–4 days to allow for uniform distribution of moisture condition was maintained in all the tests. The fall-cone apparatus
within the sample before kneading again. Soil was uniformly com- was used to measure the undrained cohesion of the bed. Undis-
pacted in 25-mm thick layers to achieve the desired height of the turbed samples were collected at different locations of the test
foundation bed. A manually operated plate compactor was used for bed to determine the properties of the test bed. The test bed had
this purpose. The sides of the tank were coated with polyethylene the following characteristics: unit weight, 18.63 kN=m3 ; moisture
sheets to avoid the side friction. By carefully controlling the com- content, 26%; degree of saturation, 91%; undrained shear strength,
paction effort and the water content of the test bed, a uniform test 5 kPa; and average dry density, 14.81 kN=m3 .

© ASCE 04014256-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Photographs: (a) geocell; (b) bamboo cell

Test Procedures Results and Discussion

Above the clay bed, the reinforcements were placed to the full Fig. 9 shows the bearing pressure-settlement behavior of the clay
width of the tank. Fig. 7 shows the geocells and bamboo cells bed reinforced with different types of reinforcements. A substantial
in the expanded form inside the test tank. The cell pockets were increment in the bearing capacity was observed due to the provision
filled with clean sand using pluviation technique to maintain the of reinforcements as compared with the unreinforced clay bed. In
uniform density. A layer of geotextile was used as a separator the case of unreinforced bed, the load-settlement curve becomes
between the soft clay bed and the sand overlaying it. Upon filling almost vertical beyond S=B ¼ 5%, indicating the failure of the
the geocell with the sand, the fill surface was leveled and footing bed. However, no clear-cut failure was observed in the presence
was placed in a predetermined alignment in such a way that the of reinforcement. As expected, the ultimate bearing capacity of
load from the jack would act at the center on the footing. The load the clay bed reinforced with 3D reinforcements is much higher than
transferred to the footing was measured through the precalibrated that reinforced with planar reinforcements. In addition, in 3D rein-
proving ring placed between the ball bearing and the hydraulic forcements, the bamboo cells provided much higher bearing capac-
jack. Loads were applied in steps with equal load increments ity than the geocells. From the load-settlement curve, it is obvious
in each step. The magnitude of each load increment was equal that using the combination of geocell and geogrid or the combina-
to 0.34 kN and it was equivalent to 15 kPa in terms of footing tion of bamboo cell and bamboo grid yields a better performance
pressure. Footing settlements were measured through two dial than using geocell or bamboo cell alone. Of all the tested combi-
gauges (D1 and D2 ) placed on either side of the centerline of nations, the performance of the combination of untreated bamboo
cells and bamboo grids is found to be better than any other type
the footing. The deformations of the soil surface were measured
by dial gauges (S1 and S2 ) placed at a distance of 1.5B (B is the
width of the footing) from the centerline of the footing on either
Table 2. Test Details
side. The footing settlement (S) and the surface deformation (δ)
were normalized by footing width (B) to express them in a non- Test series Type of test Test details
dimensional form as S=Bð%Þ and d=Bð%Þ. In all the plots, settle- A Unreinforced —
ments are reported with the positive sign and heave with the B Test with geosynthetics Only geogrid, only geocell, and
negative sign. geocell + geogrid
C Test with untreated bamboo Only bamboo grid, only
bamboo cell, and bamboo cell +
Testing Program bamboo grid
D Test with treated bamboo Only bamboo grid, only
The size of the footing (B ¼ 150 mm), height of the geocell/bam- bamboo cell, and bamboo cell +
boo cell (H ¼ 150 mm), pocket size of the geocell/bamboo cell bamboo grid
(250 × 210 mm), and thickness of the clay bed (t ¼ 400 mm) were
maintained constant thought the testing program. In reinforced
tests, the reinforcement was placed for the full width of the tank
leaving the small distance between the tank wall and the reinforce-
ment to avert the boundary effects. In other words, the width of the
reinforcement is approximately six times the width of the footing.
Dash et al. (2001) reported the optimum depth of geocell place-
ment as 0.1B (B is the width of footing) from the bottom of the
footing. Similarly, many researchers reported the optimum depth
of placement of the planar geogrid as 0.30–0.37B (e.g., Huang
and Tatsuoka 1990; Omar et al. 1993; Khing et al. 1993). There-
fore, in the present investigation, the geocell/bamboo cell was
placed at the depth of 0.1BðuÞ and the geogrid/bamboo grid was
placed at the depth 0.3BðvÞ. Details of the tests are presented in
Table 2. The geometry of the test configuration is shown in
Fig. 8. Geometry of the test configuration
Fig. 8.

© ASCE 04014256-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.

 Bearing pressure (kPa)
seven-time increment in the load-carrying capacity of the founda-
0 50 100 150 200 250
0 tion bed as compared with the unreinforced bed. From the figure it
Unreinforced
Only geogrid
is evident that the bamboo cell alone in both treated and untreated
Only geocell forms can yield the same performance as that of the combination of
10 Geocell+geogrid geocell and geogrid. Similarly, the performance of the untreated
Only bamboo grid
bamboo grid is as good as the geocells. It was found that the load-
Footing settlement S/B (%)

Only bamboo cell

20 Bamboocell+grid carrying capacity of bamboo was reduced by 15–20% after the
treatment. The treated bamboo products can still produce better per-
formance (1.1–1.3 times in terms of the load-carrying capacity)
30 than their geosynthetic counterparts.
The performance improvement of the foundation bed due to
40 geocell reinforcement can also be quantified in terms of the reduc-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tion in the settlement of the footing using the parameter called per-
centage reduction in settlement (PRS), which is defined as follows:
50 Treated bamboo
 
Untreated bamboo S0 − Sr
PRS ¼ × 100 ð2Þ
60 S0

Fig. 9. Bearing pressure-settlement curves for different tests where S0 = settlement of the unreinforced foundation bed corre-
sponding to its ultimate bearing capacity. The double tangent
method (Vesic 1973) was used to estimate the ultimate load-bearing
capacity of the unreinforced clay bed. According to this method,
or combination of reinforcements. The bearing capacity of the clay the ultimate bearing capacity is defined as the pressure correspond-
bed reinforced with bamboo cell and grid was found to be 1.2– ing to the intersection of the two tangents: one at the early part of
1.5 times higher than that of clay bed reinforced with geocells the pressure-settlement curve and the other at the latter part. In the
and geogrids. present case, the ultimate bearing capacity was obtained at a set-
The increase in the bearing capacity due to the provision of the tlement equal to 10% of the footing width (S=B ¼ 10%); Sr =
reinforcement can be measured through a nondimensional param- settlement of the reinforced foundation bed corresponding to the
eter called bearing-capacity-improvement factor (I f ), which is footing pressure equal to the ultimate bearing pressure of unrein-
defined as follows: forced foundation bed. Table 3 presents the PRS values for different
qr forms and combinations of the reinforcement. The maximum PRS
If ¼ ð1Þ of 97% was observed in the case of clay bed reinforced with bam-
q0
boo cell and bamboo grids. PRS ¼ 97% means 97% reduction in
where qr = bearing pressure of the reinforced soil at the given set- the settlement of the reinforced clay bed as compared with the un-
tlement; q0 = bearing pressure of unreinforced soil at the same set- reinforced clay bed. Because of their beam action, bamboo cells
tlement. Binquet and Lee (1975) reported that the improvement disperse the load to wider area. As a result, the loading intensity
factor is similar to the bearing-capacity ratio. When the ratio is on the soil will be lesser than what it supposed to be. This action
beyond the ultimate bearing capacity of the unreinforced soil, the leads to the reduction in the settlement of the bed. In addition, basal
ultimate bearing capacity (qult ) is used instead of q0 . Variations of bamboo grid further reduces the settlement of the bed by arresting
bearing-capacity-improvement factors with footing settlement for the downward movement of soil.
different tests are shown in Fig. 10. The I f value was found to Fig. 11 shows the variation of the surface deformation (settlement/
increase with the increase in footing settlement. The maximum heave) with footing settlement for different types of reinforcements.
value of I f , that is, I f ¼ 7 was observed in the case of combination Surface-deformation measurements were made through the dial
of bamboo cell and bamboo grid. I f ¼ 7 represents the gauges placed at the distance of 1.5B from the centerline of
the footing. Chummar (1972) observed that the surface heaving ex-
tends up to 2B from the centerline of the footing in the case of un-
8 reinforced bed and with maximum heaving occurring at a distance
of 1.5B. Surface deformation in the form of heaving equal to 2% of
7
the footing width was observed in the case of unreinforced clay
6 bed. In general, surface heaving can be attributed to the shear failure
Improvement factor (If)

4 Table 3. PRS Values Observed at Different Test Series

Test PRS
3
Geogrid
series Type of test Test details (%)
2 Geocell B Test with geosynthetics Only geogrid 72
Geocell+geogrid
Treated bamboo Bamboo grid B Test with geosynthetics Only geocell 89
1
Untreated bamboo Bamboo cell B Test with geosynthetics Geocell þ geogrid 93
Bamboocell+grid
0 C Test with untreated bamboo Only bamboo grid 81
0 10 20 30 40 C Test with untreated bamboo Only bamboo cell 92
Footing settlement, S/B (%) C Test with untreated bamboo Bamboo cell þ bamboo grid 97
D Test with treated bamboo Only bamboo grid 73
Fig. 10. Variation of bearing-capacity-improvement factor with foot- D Test with treated bamboo Only bamboo cell 90
ing settlement D Test with treated bamboo Bamboo cell þ bamboo grid 95

© ASCE 04014256-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.

 -4.0
Unreinforced • The tensile strength of bamboo is approximately nine times
Only geogrid Treated bamboo higher than that of the commercial geocell material. With the
-3.0 Only geocell Untreated bamboo treatment, the ultimate tensile strength of bamboo was reduced
Surface deformation, d/B (%)

Geocell+geogrid
-2.0 Bamboo grid by 15%.
Bamboo cell • The surface roughness of bamboo is 3.5 times higher than that
Bamboocell+grid
-1.0 of the commercial geocell material. With the treatment, the
surface roughness was found to be reduced by 20%.
0.0 • Reinforcing the soil with 3D reinforcement system such as geo-
cells and bamboo cells yields maximum benefit than the planar
1.0 reinforcements such as geogrid and bamboo grids.
• The load-carrying capacity of the clay bed increased by three to
2.0 four times in the presence of geocells and by four to five times
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the presence of bamboo cells as compared with unrein-

3.0 forced bed.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Footing settlement, S/B (%) • It is always beneficial to use the combination of geocell and
geogrid or bamboo cell and bamboo grid rather than using them
Fig. 11. Variation of surface deformation with footing settlement alone. The bearing capacity of the clay bed increased by six
times due to the provision of combination geocell and geogrid.
The ultimate bearing capacity of the clay bed reinforced with the
combination of bamboo cell and bamboo grid is 1.2–1.5 times
of the soil mass. Heaving was also observed in the case of clay beds higher than that of the clay beds reinforced with geocell and
reinforced with only geogrid and only bamboo grid. However, the geogrid.
amount of heaving was lesser as compared with the unreinforced • Surface heaving was completely eliminated due to the insertion
clay bed. Surface heaving was completely eliminated when the clay of the 3D reinforcements and it was further reduced by the com-
bed was reinforced with geocell or bamboo cell in both treated and bination of 3D and planar reinforcements. The least surface
untreated forms. Instead, the settlement of the fill was observed. deformation of 0.45% of footing width was observed in the case
Maximum fill settlement up to 2% of the footing width was observed of combination of bamboo cell and bamboo grid.
in the case of clay beds reinforced with only geocell. The settlement • The settlement of the clay bed was reduced by 97% due to the
of the fill was reduced when additional geogrid was provided at the insertion of the combination of bamboo cell and bamboo grid as
base of geocells. The least settlement of the fill was observed in the compared with the unreinforced clay bed.
case of combination of bamboo cell and bamboo grid in the untreated • The performance of bamboo in terms of the tensile strength and
form. Not much difference in the fill settlement was observed in the load-carrying capacity of the clay bed was found to be reduced
case of treated bamboo cells and grids as compared with their un- by 15–20% after the CCA treatment. Still the performance of
treated counterparts. the treated bamboo is better than its geosynthetic counterparts
In addition to their performance benefits as a reinforcing (1.1–1.3 times in terms of the load-carrying capacity).
material, bamboo cells have two other main advantages over com- The study has its own limitations. Only one type of geocell was
mercial geocells. First, bamboo is environmental friendly. Bamboo used in the study. Therefore, the results are applicable to limited
cells are not responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases and cases only. One should be careful while applying these results di-
also will not leave any carbon footprint. Second, bamboo is cost rectly to the prototype conditions. Considering the 1 g model tests,
effective. Generally, in a project, the total cost associated with the results presented in the study are prone to scale effects. There-
installation of geocells includes many factors. In addition to maxi- fore, further studies are recommended with using either centrifuge
mum retail price or market price of the geocells, the costs due to model tests or full-scale model tests. The 1 g model tests are con-
transportation (from the selling point to a site) and cost due to ducted only to understand the basic mechanism and overall trends
installation also largely contribute to the overall cost of the project. in the results. These results will be of use in providing guidelines
The market price of a geocell covers its raw material cost, manu- for design and construction of bamboo cell–reinforced clay foun-
facturing cost, and the transportation cost from the manufacturing dations, conducting large-scale model tests, and developing
unit to the selling point. However, if bamboo cells are used in a numerical models. The 1 g model tests conducted in this study are
place where it is available in a large quantity, the raw material cost successful enough to highlight the efficacy of treated and untreated
and all types of transportation costs become negligible. In addition, bamboo products in improving the strength of the soft soils.
the production cost is also considerably on the lower side because
bamboo cells are fabricated at the site itself using local laborers.
The installation cost may be the same for both bamboo cells and
References
geocells. With the treatment step, the overall cost of bamboo may
increase by 13–20%, depending on the type of treatment, but its ASTM. (2000). “Standard specification for chromated copper arsenate.”
durability will increase by more than two times (Sharma et al. D1625-71, West Conshohocken, PA.
1998). Therefore, even with the treatment, bamboo cells are much ASTM. (2011). “Standard test method for determining the tensile proper-
cheaper compared with commercial geocells. ties of geogrid by the single or multi-rib tensile method.” D6637-11,
West Conshohocken, PA.
Binquet, J., and Lee, L. K. (1975). “Bearing capacity tests on reinforced
Conclusions earth slabs.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 101(12), 1241–1255.
Bureau of Indian Standards. (1981). “Specifications for water soluble type
The results of the laboratory investigation performed on a clay bed wood preservatives, copper-chrome-arsenic (CCA) wood preservative.”
reinforced with natural (bamboo) and commercial (geosynthetics) BIS 10013-II, New Delhi, India.
reinforcement materials are reported in this paper. The following Chummer, A. V. (1972). “Bearing capacity theory from experimental
conclusions can be made from this study: results.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 98(12), 1311–1324.

© ASCE 04014256-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.

 Dash, S. K. (2010). “Influence of relative density of soil on performance Mahdavi, M., Clouston, P. L., and Arwade, S. R. (2011). “Development of
of geocell reinforced sand foundations.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/ laminated bamboo lumber: Review of processing, performance, and
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000040, 533–538. economic considerations.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT
Dash, S. K. (2012). “Effect of geocell type on load carrying mechanism .1943-5533.0000253, 1036–1042.
of geocell-reinforced sand foundations.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/ Marto, A., and Othman, B. A. (2011). “The potential use of bamboo
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000162, 537–548. as green material for soft clay reinforcement system.” Int. Conf. on
Dash, S. K., Krishnaswamy, N. R., and Rajagopal, K. (2001). “Strip footing Environment Science and Engineering, IPCBEE, Singapore, 129–133.
on geocell reinforced sand beds with additional planar reinforcement.” Mehdipour, I., Ghazavi, M., and Moayed, R. Z. (2013). “Numerical study
Geotext. Geomembr., 19(8), 529–538. on stability analysis of geocell reinforced slopes by considering the
Gnanaharan, R. (2000). “Preservative treatment methods for bamboo: bending effect.” Geotext. Geomembr., 37, 23–34.
A review.” Technical Rep. 177 (ii), Kerala Forest Research Institute, Mitch, D., Harries, K. A., and Sharma, B. (2010). “Characterization of
Trissur, Kerala, India, 1–20.
splitting behavior of bamboo culms.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/
Han, J., et al. (2011). “Performance of geocell reinforced RAP bases over
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000120, 1195–1199.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Inst of Science - Bangalore on 08/17/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

weak subgrade under full scale moving wheel loads.” J. Mater. Civ.
Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., Khalaj, O., and Dawson, A. R. (2013).
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000286, 1525–1534.
Hegde, A., Kadabinakatti, S., and Sitharam, T. G. (2014). “Protection of “Pilot-scale load tests of a combined multilayered geocell and rubber-
buried pipelines using a combination of geocell and geogrid reinforce- reinforced foundation.” Geosynth. Int., 20(3), 143–161.
ment: Experimental studies.” Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics Moghaddas Tafreshi, S. N., Khalaj, O., and Dawson, A. R. (2014).
GSP 238, ASCE, Reston, VA, 289–298. “Repeated loading of soil containing granulated rubber and multiple
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2013). “Experimental and numerical stud- geocell layers.” Geotext. Geomembr., 42(1), 25–38.
ies on footings supported on geocell reinforced sand and clay beds.” Omar, M. T., Das, B. M., Puri, V. K., and Yen, S. C. (1993). “Ultimate
Int. J. Geotech. Eng., 7(4), 346–354. bearing capacity of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid
Hegde, A., and Sitharam, T. G. (2014a). “Joint strength and wall deforma- reinforcement.” Can. Geotech. J., 30(3), 545–549.
tion characteristics of a single-cell geocell subjected to uniaxial com- Prasad, D. S. V., Anjan Kumar, M., and Prasada Raju, G. V. R. (2010).
pression.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000433, “Behavior of reinforced sub bases on expansive soil sub grade.” Global
04014080. J. Res. Eng., 10(1), 2–8.
Hegde, A. M., and Sitharam, T. G. (2014b). “Effect of infill materials on the Ramirez, F., Correal, J. F., Yamin, L. E., Atoche, J. C., and Piscal, C. M.
performance of geocell reinforced soft clay beds.” Geomech. Geoeng., (2012). “Dowel-bearing strength behavior of glued laminated guadua
in press. bamboo.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000515,
Huang, C. C., and Tatsuoka, F. (1990). “Bearing capacity of reinforced 1378–1387.
horizontal sandy ground.” Geotext. Geomembr., 9(1), 51–82. Sharma, N. M., Venmalar, D., Vani, C. N., and Rao, S. P. (1998). “Studies
Jiang, H., Cai, Y., and Liu, J (2010). “Engineering properties of soils on the treatment of green Bambusa arundinacea by sap displacement
reinforced by short discrete polypropylene fiber.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., method.” Forest, 34(1), 685–696.
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000129, 1315–1322. Sinha, A., and Miyamoto, B. T. (2013). “Lateral load carrying capacity of
Khatib, A. (2009). “Bearing capacity of granular soil overlying soft laminated bamboo lumber to oriented strand board connections.”
clay reinforced with bamboo-geotextile composite at the Interface.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000848, 741–747.
Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Geotechnics and Transportation, Faculty of
Sitharam, T. G., and Hegde, A. (2013). “Design and construction of geocell
Civil Engineering, Univ. Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur,
foundation to support embankment on soft settled red mud.” Geotext.
Malaysia.
Geomembr., 41, 55–63.
Khing, K. H., Das, B. M., Puri, V. K., Cook, E. E., and Yen, S. C. (1993).
“The bearing capacity of a strip foundation on geogrid reinforced sand.” Sivakumar Babu, G. L., and Vasudevan, A. K. (2008). “Strength and
Geotext. Geomembr., 12(4), 351–361. stiffness response of coir fiber-reinforced tropical soil.” J. Mater. Civ.
Koerner, R. M. (1998). Designing with geosynthetics, Prentice Hall, Upper Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2008)20:9(571), 571–577.
Saddle River, NJ. Tanyu, B. F., Aydilek, A. H., Lau, A. W., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H.
Leshchinsky, B., and Ling, H. (2013). “Effects of geocell confinement on (2013). “Laboratory evaluation of geocell-reinforced gravel sub-base
strength and deformation behaviour of gravel.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. over poor subgrades.” Geosynth. Int., 20(2), 47–61.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000757, 340–352. Toh, C. T., Chee, S. K., Lee, C. H., and Wee, S. H. (1994). “Geotextile-
Madhavi Latha, G., Dash, S. K., and Rajagopal, K. (2009). “Numerical bamboo fascine mattress for filling over very soft soils in Malaysia.”
simulations of the behaviour geocell reinforced sand in foundations.” Geotext. Geomembr., 13(6–7), 357–369.
Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2009)9:4(143), Vesic, A. S. (1973). “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations.”
143–152. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 99(1), 45–73.

© ASCE 04014256-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015.27.