129
USING CEMENT AND FIBERS AS ADDITIVES FOR
LIQUEFACTION MITIGATION OF SANDY SOILS
Ahmed Elzamel
1
, Ayman Altahrany
2
and Mahmoud Elmeligy
3
1,2,3
Structural engineering department, Faculty of E ngineering, Mansoura University, Egypt
*Corresponding Author, Received: 24 March 2022, Revised: 28 May 2022, Accepted: 12 June 2022
ABSTRACT: Liquefaction is one of the most significant earthquake-related phenomena that reduce the
resistance of saturated loose sandy soils. To minimize the potential for liquefaction, polypropylene fiber s,
geofibers, and polypropylene fiber s with cement we re used as stabilization materials. A series of laboratory
stress-controlled undrained cyclic triaxial tests has been conducted as per ASTM D3999 and ASTM D5311.
Dry sand–cement mixes were prepared using an electric mixer with randomly distributed polypropylene fiber
at different percentages of fiber contents. Polypropylene fibers have lengths of 10 mm and 20 mm. Cemented
specimens with cement content varying from 0 % to 2 % by weight of dry sand were prepared and cured for 3
days. Geofiber specimens were prepared by placing 6.5 cm diameter geofibers inclusions in various horizontal
arrangements in the sample. It was found that the liquefaction improvement factor (LIF) increased when fiber
content and fiber length increased. LIF of the addition of 1% polypropylene fibers (PF) of 20 mm was equal to
215.38% at cyclic stress ratio (CSR) = 0.20. The addition of geofibers increased the liquefaction resistance as
the number of layers increased. The addition of geofibers increased the liquefaction resistance as the number
of layers increased. The addition of 2% cement (C) +1% P.F. provided the best liquefaction resistance in this
study compared with other additives. LIF of samples reinforced with 2% C+1% PF equals 893.33% at CSR=
0.30. This study proposes cement and fiber as good soil improvement techniques that can improve liquefaction
resistance.
Keywords: Liquefaction, Shear modulus, Cyclic stress, Geofibers
1.INTRODUCTION
One of the most important earthquake-related
processes is liquefaction, which diminishes the
resistance of saturated loose sandy soils. To meet
the demands of geotechnical engineering,
stabilization techniques have been widely used to
increase the strength characteristics of sand. The
principal processes of liquefaction in a loose sand
deposit during earthquakes are the creation of
increased pore water pressure and a drop in mean
effective stress [1]. In soil reinforcement laboratory
testing, geotextiles, geofibers, fibers, rubber, and
cement were most commonly used [2-
3].
The additives for reinforcement have been
widely used in material sciences [4-8]. The cyclic
resistance of strengthened samples towards
liquefaction capability improved because the number of geotextile layers increased. Liquefaction
resistance was improved when the geotextile layer
was placed close to the specimen's top (load
application part) [9]. The addition of fiber s
enhanced the sand's shear modulus and reduced the
liquefaction phenomenon. When discrete fibers are
mixed with the soil, shear strength is improved and
post-peak strength loss is minimized [10]. Under
cyclic triaxial conditions, drained triaxial tests were
performed on cemented sand specimens
strengthened with randomly polypropylene fibers
and cement contents ranging from 0% to 10% by
weight of dry sand. Cement increases sand stiffness,
peak strength, and brittleness. Cement and fiber
insertions have a significant effect on the stress–
dilatancy behavior of the sand [11]. Shear modulus
increased as fiber content increased (f.c = 0, 0.5, and
1 %). The ideal fiber content is demonstrated to be
variable and is influenced by the deviator stress
ratio [12]. Using cyclic triaxial testing, results of
fiber content, relative density, and confining
pressure were studied on loose and medium dense
sand strengthened with polypropylene fiber s. The
number of loading cycles leading to liquefaction
increased as the fiber content and fiber length
increased. At a relative density (D
r) of 40 %, fiber
length of 18 mm, and CSR=0.25, the improvement
in liquefaction resistance was 220 % [13]. The
effect of fiber reinforcement and dispersion on the
strength of fiber-reinforced cemented sand was
investigated using a series of unconfined
compression experiments. Fiber -reinforced
specimen outperformed a non-fiber-reinforced
specimen by a factor of two. The specimen with five
fiber inclusion layers was 1.5 times stronger than
the specimen with one fiber inclusion layer in the
center when the same number of fibers were used to
strengthen both specimens [14].
The liquefaction resistance, undrained shear
strength, and stiffness all improved when polymer fibers and cement we re added to silty and clean
Toyoura sand. The inclusion of 0 – 2 % fibers
improves the situation only slightly. In proportion
International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug., 2022, Vol.23, Issue 96, pp.129-136
ISSN: 2186-2982 (P), 2186-2990 (O), Japan, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21660/2022.96.3394
Geotechnique, Construction Materials and Environment

International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug., 2022, Vol.23, Issue 96, pp.129-136
130
to the percentage added, cement increases the
stiffness and liquefaction resistance of the soil [15].
The strength of the recycled tiles improved
significantly, but only for samples with low cement
content. The strength of both samples treated with
OPC alone and those treated with Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC) plus 20 % recycled tiles was found
to be a maximum of 6% OPC [16]. On both
untreated and treated marine clay, a series of
laboratory stress-controlled cyclic triaxial
experiments were performed. The untreated marine
clay showed a higher permanent axial strain rate
under cyclic loading than the treated clay due to the
presence of extra cementing components following
treatment with recycled tiles and a minor amount
(2%) of cement [17]. In monotonic triaxial drained
compression tests, samples of Toyoura sand-
cement-fiber mixtures with varying percentages of
fiber and cement (for example, 0 – 3 %) additives
were tested. Small-strain stiffness is observed to be
marginally reduced when fibers are included.
Adding cement to pure Toyoura sand samples, on
the other hand, improves their small-strain stiffness
properties [18].This research uses cyclic triaxial
testing to characterize the liquefaction resistance of
sand–cement-fiber mixture. The majority of past
research has been focused on the strength and
deformation characteristics of fiber-reinforced soil
under static loads. However, as far as the authors are
aware, little research has been conducted to assess
the liquefaction resistance of sand–cement-fiber
mixture.
2.RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Soil liquefaction is a critical scientific and
engineering challenge that can cause substantial
damage to numerous engineering structures and
infrastructure around the world due to an increase
in pore water pressure and a drop in mean effective
stress. The main goal of this research is to use cyclic
stress-controlled triaxial testing to assess the
liquefaction resistance of different additives such as
geofibers, polypropylene fibers, cement, and
cemented fine sand specimens reinforced with
randomly polypropylene fibers. Finally, a
comparison between different types of additives is
conducted.
3.MA TERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Test Materials
The basic properties of the sand used in this
study are presented in Table 1. The sand is collected
from a site in New Damietta in the north of Egypt.
This sand is classified as poorly graded sand (S.P.)
according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
The maximum and minimum void ratios are 0.977
and 0.728, respectively. Fig. 1 presents the grain
size distribution for the sand used in this study.
Table 1 The properties of the sand used in this study
Property Value
The specific gravity of the solids 2.69
D10 (mm) 0.15
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) 1.75
Curvature coefficient (Cc) 0.87
Unified Soil Classification System SP
emax 0.977
emin 0.728
Fig. 1 Grain size distribution for sand used in the
study
Polypropylene fibers were utilized in this study
as soil reinforcement as shown in Fig.2. Polypropylene fibers are 0.018mm in diameter and
have lengths of 10 and 20 mm, and have a specific
gravity of 0.91. Fiber contents in reinforced samples
were 0.0, 0.5, and 1 % by weight of dry soil. For
geofibers specimens, as each sand layer is created,
the 6.5 cm diameter geofiber s inclusions are put
horizontally in the sample. The density of geofibers
is 520 gm/m
2
, with a thickness of 2.10 mm and a
tensile strength of 13.20 KN/m'. Fig. 3 depicts the
geofibers used in this work [19].
Fig. 2 Photograph of the polypropylene fibers used
in this work
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.010.1110
Percent Finer %
Grain size (mm)

International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug., 2022, Vol.23, Issue 96, pp.129-136
131
Fig. 3 Photograph of the geofibers used in this
work
3.2 Test Equipment
All of the stress-controlled cyclic triaxial tests in
this study were carried out using a tri-axial device
that can perform static and dynamic tensile and
compressive load tests in the threshold and
alternating load range. Cylindrical specimens
having a diameter of 70 mm and a height of 140 mm
were tested in this device. Fig. 4 depicts an
overview of the device. The following things make
up the primary system components: load frame and
actuator, triaxial cell, air/water bladder, and
pressure controlling APC to convert a regulated
pressure in a practical pressure range up to 9 bar
from a pneumatic pressure supply of up to 10 bar.
A sinusoidal loading frequency up to 5 Hz is
provided by the cyclic triaxial equipment. A
displacement transducer with a travel distance of 50
mm was used to measure axial displacement. A load
cell with a capacity of 10 kN was used to detect
axial load. The electronic volume measuring device
works on the differential pressure concept and is
designed for monitoring minor changes in liquid
volume at a high base pressure of up to 10 bar.
During testing, an air/water bladder was employed
to maintain cell pressure.
Fig. 4 The cyclic triaxial apparatus used in the
study
3.3 Sample Preparation
A moist tamping specimen preparation process
was used in this study. This method has the
advantage of allowing any specimen with a wide
range of void ratios to be prepared [1]. The under-
compaction technique is used to obtain
homogeneous specimens [20]. In the preparation
phase, the two operations are mixing and
fabrication. For the mixing procedure, the necessary
amount of oven- dried sand was combined with
cement and then with water. To allow the sand to
mix with the fibers and keep them from floating,
water is required. The water content used is about
10%. In an electric mixer, the fiber s are combined
with sand and cement. For sample fabrication, the
mixture was divided into five equal portions, each
of which was placed in a split mold measuring 70
mm in diameter by 140 mm in height and
compacted with a metal rod until the desired height
was obtained. To facilitate appropriate bonding, the
top of each layer was scraped slightly before laying
the following layer. To achieve the desired relative
densities of 30%, samples were produced in five
layers. For the geofibers addition, as each sand layer
is created, the 6.5 cm diameter geogrid inclusions
are put horizontally in the sample. Fig. 5 shows the
different arrangements of geofibers used in this
study.
0.5 H
0.4 H
0.4 H
0.2 H
0.2 H
0.2 H
0.2 H
0.2 H
0.2 H
Arrangement (A) Arrangement (B) Arrangement (C)
Fig. 5 Different geofibers arrangements in
specimens used in this study
3.4 Test Procedure
In this study, series of cyclic stress -controlled
tests were conducted using ASTM
D5311/D5311M- 13 and ASTM D3999/D3999M−
11 [21-22].
Table 2 summarizes the important characteristics of
the series of tests conducted throughout this study.
The series contains conducting tests on sand,
polypropylene fiber, cement, polypropylene fiber
with cement, and different arrangements of
geofibers. The sample was prepared, then a vacuum
of 5 kPa was given to the specimen to achieve the
required stability, and the mold was dismantled for
the non-cement samples. After the triaxial cell was
built and filled with water, the cell pressure was
adjusted to 50 kPa, and then distilled de-aired water
was passed through the sample at a pressure of 20
kPa to remove air bubbles in the sample pores.
Backpressure was used to achieve full saturation.
The samples containing cement do not require a
vacuum of 5KPa to achieve the required stability.
At a confining pressure (C.P.) of 100 kPa, the
specimens were isotopically consolidated. After the
consolidation phase was finished, stress-controlled
testing was performed under undrained conditions.

International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug., 2022, Vol.23, Issue 96, pp.129-136
132
Axial loads, vertical displacements, and pore water
pressures were measured at intervals of 0.005
seconds for the applied sinusoidal waveform with a
frequency of 1.0 Hz.
Table 2 Summary of the main series characteristics
of tests conducted during the current study (CP
=100 kPa and D
r = 30 %)
Type
Fiber
Content
(%)
Cement
Content
(%)
Fiber
Length
(mm)
Curing
period
1 sand - - - -
2 PF 1.0 - 10 -
3 PF 1.0 - 20 -
4 PF 0.5 - 20 -
5 C - 1.0 - 3days
6 C - 2.0 - 3days
7 PF+C 1.0 1.0 20 3days
8 PF+C 1.0 2.0 20 3days
9 Geofiber (A) - - - -
10 Geofiber (B) - - - -
11 Geofiber (C) - - - -
3.5 Formulation Used
As shown in Fig. 6, the shear modulus is
calculated as the slope of a secant line connecting the extreme points on a hysteresis loop at a given
shear strain. The slope of the secant line connecting
the extreme points on the hysteresis loop is the
young modulus (E) as determined by cyclic triaxial
test results [23].
Fig. 6 Hysteretic stress-strain relationship [24]
εµγ)(1+= (1)
max
max
E
ε
σ
d
=
(2)
)(12
E
Gµ+
=
(3)
*2
-
CSR
'
3
'
3
'
1
σ
σσ
=
(4)
where σ
1' and σ3' are, respectively, the maximum
and the minimum principal effective stresses.
The liquefaction improvement factor (LIF) that aids
in the evaluation of reinforcing efficiency is defined
as follows:
100*]
N
N-N
[= LIF
u
ur (5)
Where N
u and Nr are the numbers of liquefaction
cycles for unreinforced and reinforced samples,
respectively. 4.TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fig. 7(a)~(d) depicts typical outcomes from a
cyclic stress triaxial test on a reinforced specimen with a 30% initial relative density, 100 kPa
confining pressure, 1% polypropylene fiber, and
2% cement. As seen in the figure, applying cyclic
stress causes the pore water pressure to rise, the
axial deviator stress to fall and the corresponding
strain to increase. The axial stress was also found to
be quite low before liquefaction. Similar
observations were presented by [25]. When the
peak excess pore water pressure matches the
starting effective confining pressure, failure is
defined as a full or 100 % pore pressure ratio
( ).
Fig.7 (a) dynamic axial stress with the number of
cycles for reinforced sand
Fig.7 (b) dynamic axial stress with dynamic axial
strain for reinforced sand
Fig.7 (c) dynamic axial strain with the number of
cycles for reinforced sand
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
0 50 100 150 200
deviatoric
stress(kPa)
Number of cycles
-100
-50
0
50
100
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
deviatoric stress
(kPa)
Strain
-5
0
5
0 50 100 150 200
Strain(%)
Number of cycles
0.1
'
0
=
∆
=
σ
u
r
u

International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug., 2022, Vol.23, Issue 96, pp.129-136
133
(d)
Fig.7(d) dynamic excess pore water pressure with
the number of cycles for reinforced sand.
The influence of test parameters (such as fiber
content and fiber length) is shown and discussed in
this section. This includes cement content and
geofibers layers on liquefaction resistance and shear
modulus of unreinforced and reinforced specimens.
5.LIQUEFACTION RESISTA NCE
5.1 Shear Modulus
This section computes and explains the shear
modulus of unreinforced and reinforced sands. Fig. 8 depicts the variation in maximum shear modulus (G
max) as a function of fiber content percentage. The
values of (G
max) in Fig. 8 for plain sand and sand
with polypropylene fiber s are close to those
reported by [13].
Fig. 8 G
max vs. polypropylene fiber content (D r=30%,
CP=100 kPa)
5.2 Effect of the Fiber Length
Fig. 9 illustrates the effect of the length of
polypropylene fibers with different cyclic stress
ratios. The figure indicates that at the same fiber
content, polypropylene fiber with a length of 20mm
outperforms polypropylene fiber with a length of
10mm, indicating that fiber length is crucial in
liquefaction resistance. The number of liquefaction
cycles that the specimen with a length of 20mm can sustain is approximately twice that of the fibers with
a length of 10 mm at CSR=0.20. The liquefaction
improvement factor (LIF) of the addition of 1%PF of 20mm is equal to 215.38% at CSR =0.20 ,
D
r=30% and CP =100 kPa. The results are
comparable with the results presented by [13].
Fig. 9 CSR vs. number of cycles for different
polypropylene fiber lengths (D
r=30%, CP
=100kPa)
5.3 Effect of Fiber Content
Fig.10 illustrates the influence of fiber content
on liquefaction resistance. The addition of 1.0 % of
polypropylene fibers showed greater liquefaction
resistance than 0.50 % of polypropylene fibers. The
insertion of fibers improves soil grain interlocking
and allows for uniform pore water pressure
distribution within the specimen. The liquefaction
improvement factor (LIF) of the addition of 1.0 %
of polypropylene fibers is equal to 1.22 the addition
of 0.50 % of polypropylene fibers at CSR = 0.20,
D
r=30%, and CP=100 kPa, so the fiber content has
a great effect on the liquefaction resistance.
Fig.10 CSR vs. number of cycles for different
polypropylene fiber contents (D
r=30%,
CP=100kPa)
5.4 The Effect of Adding Geofibers
Fig.11 compares the results of the addition of
geofibers with a different arrangement, as shown in
Fig. 6. The arrangement (C) of geofibers gave more
liquefaction resistance than other arrangements. The
liquefaction improvement factor (LIF) of the
addition of geofibers (arrangement C) is equal to
165 % at CSR = 0.20, D
r =30% and CP =100 kPa.
Fig.12 shows the degree of enhancement of adding
geofibers to sand specimens. The increase in the
arrangement of geofiber layers gave a better
enhancement to the liquefaction resistance. Similar
findings were presented by [9].
410
460
510
560
610
0 50 100 150 200
Excess Pore water
pressure(kpa)
Number of cycles
35
40
45
0 0.5 1
G
max
Fiber content %
PF (10mm)
PF (20mm)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
CSR
No. of cycles
sand
1% PF(10mm)
1% PF(20mm)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 20 40 60 80 100
CSR
No. of cycles
sand
1% PF(20mm)
0.50% PF(20mm)

International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug., 2022, Vol.23, Issue 96, pp.129-136
134
Fig. 11 CSR vs. the number of cycles for different
arrangements of geofibers (D
r=30%, CP =100 kPa)
Fig. 12 CSR vs. LIF for different arrangements of
geofibers (D
r=30%, CP=100kPa)
5.5 The Effect of Adding Cement and Cement
with Polypropylene Fiber s
The effect of adding cement to sand specimens
and the effect of adding polypropylene fibers to
cement are shown in Fig.13.The inclusion of
cement increases the strength and resistance to
liquefaction phenomena, and the addition of fiber s
to cement increases the strength and resistance to
liquefaction phenomena even more because the
cement coats the fibers and bonds them to the sand.
The liquefaction improvement factor (LIF) of the
addition of 2.0 % C + 1% PF is equal to 1.70 times
the addition of 2.0 % C at CSR= 0.30, D
r=30%, and
CP=100 kPa so the addition of fibers to cement
enhances the liquefaction resistance to a large
extent.
Fig.13 CSR vs. number of cycles for specimens
reinforced with cement and polypropylene fibers (D
r=30%, CP =100 kPa)
5.6 Comparison between Different Types of
Additives
Fig.14 illustrates the degree of improvement in
the strength and liquefaction resistance of the
additives used in the present study. The addition of
2%C+1%PF gave the best liquefaction resistance
compared to other additives. LIF of samples
reinforced with 2%C+1%PF equals 893.33% at
CSR=0.30, D
r=30%, and CP =100 kPa, so the
reinforcement with cement and fiber s plays an
important role in liquefaction resistance.
Fig.14 CSR vs. number of cycles for specimens
reinforced with different additives (D
r=30%,
CP=100kPa)
6.CONCLUSIONS
An experimental program was conducted to
evaluate the effects of several types of additives on
the liquefaction behavior of sandy soil. A series of
cyclic stress triaxial tests was performed on both
unreinforced and reinforced sand.
The liquefaction improvement factor (LIF)
increased when fiber length increased. LIF of the
addition of 1%PF of 20 mm is equal to 215.38% at
CSR = 0.20, D
r=30 % and CP =100 kPa.
With increasing fiber content , the number of
liquefaction cycles increased. LIF of the addition of
1.0 % of polypropylene fibers is equal to 1.22 times
the addition of 0.50 % of polypropylene fibers at
CSR = 0.20, D
r =30 % and CP =100 kPa.
The addition of geofibers increased the
liquefaction resistance as the number of layers
increased. The arrangement (C) gave better
liquefaction resistance than other arrangements.
LIF of the addition of geofibers (arrangement C) is
equal to 165 % at CSR = 0.20, D
r=30% and CP
=100 kPa.
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 20 40 60 80
CSR
No. of cycles
sand
Arrangement (A)
Arrangement (B)
Arrangement (C)
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.00% 100.00% 200.00% 300.00%
CSR
LIF (%)
sand+1% PF(20mm)
Geofibers arrangement (C)
Geofibers arrangement (B)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200
CSR
No. of cycles
sand
1% PF(20mm)
1%C+1%PF
2%C+1%PF
1%C
2%C
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 50 100 150 200
CSR
No. of cycles
sand
Geofibers arrangement (C)
1%PF(20mm)
1%C
2%C
1%PF+1%C
1%PF+2%C

International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug., 2022, Vol.23, Issue 96, pp.129-136
135
The inclusion of cement increases the strength
and resistance to liquefaction phenomena, and the
addition of fibers to cement increases the strength
and resistance to liquefaction phenomena even
more. LIF of the addition of 2.0 % C + 1% PF is
equal to 1.70 times the addition of 2.0 % C at CSR=
0.30, D
r=30%, and CP=100 kPa at CSR= 0.30, Dr =
30%, and CP = 100 kPa.
In comparison to unreinforced sands, the
addition of 2% C+1% P.F. gave the best
liquefaction resistance in this study. LIF of samples
reinforced with 2%C+1%PF equals 893.33%, so
cement and fiber reinforcement play a significant
role in liquefaction resistance.
7.REFERENCES
[1] Ishihara K., Liquefaction and flow failure
during earthquakes, Geotechnique, vol. 43, no.
3, 1993, pp. 351 –451, DOI:
10.1680/geot.1993.43.3.351.
[2] Naeini S.A., Zakiyeh E., Effect of Geotextile
on the Liquefaction Behavior of Sand in
Cyclic Triaxial Test, Sci. Coop. Int. Work.
Eng. Branches, Koc Univ.
ISTANBUL/TURKEY, no. August 2014,
2014, pp. 63–67.
[3] Kumar S., Sahu A.K., Naval S., Study on the
swelling behavior of clayey soil blended with
geocell and jute fiber, Civ. Eng. J., vol. 7, no.
8, 2021, pp. 1327– 1340, DOI: 10.28991/cej-
2021-03091728.
[4] Iqhrammullah M., Suyanto H., Rahmi,
Pardede M., Karnadi I., Kurniawan
K.H.,Chiari W., Abdulmadjid S.N., Cellulose
acetate- polyurethane film adsorbent with
analyte enrichment for in-situ detection and
analysis of aqueous Pb using Laser-Induced
Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), Environ.
Nanotechnology, Monit. Manag., vol. 16, no.
May, 2021, p. 100516, DOI:
10.1016/j.enmm.2021.100516.
[5] Fathana H., Iqhrammullah M., Rahmi R.,
Adlim M., Lubis S., Tofu wastewater-derived
amino acids identification using LC- MS/MS
and their uses in the modification of
chitosan/TiO2 film composite, Chem. Data
Collect., vol. 35, no.
March,2021,p.100754,DOI:10.1016/j.cdc.202
1.100754.
[6] Safitri E., Humaira H., Murniana M.,
Nazaruddin N., Iqhrammullah M., Sani
N.D.M., Esmaeili C., Susilawati S., Mahathir
M., Nazaruddin S.L., Optical pH sensor based
on immobilization anthocyanin from
dioscorea alata L. Onto polyelectrolyte
complex pectin–chitosan membrane for a
determination method of salivary pH,
Polymers (Basel)., vol. 13, no. 8, 2021, DOI:
10.3390/polym13081276.
[7] Al-Bared M.A.M., Harahap I., Marto A., Abad
S., Ahmed M.O., Undrained shear strength
and microstructural characterization of treated
soft soil with recycled materials, Geomech.
Eng., vol. 18, no. 4, 2019, pp.427–437, DOI:
10.12989/gae.2019.18.4.427.
[8] Zainuddin N., Yunus N.M., Al-Bared M.A.M.,
Marto A., Harahap I.S.H., Ahmad S. A.,
Measuring the engineering properties of
marine clay treated with disposed granite
waste, Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed., vol. 131,
2019, pp. 50 – 60, DOI:
10.1016/j.measurement.2018.08.053.
[9] Alibolandi M., Moayed R.Z., Liquefaction
potential of reinforced silty sands, Int. J. Civ.
Eng., vol. 13, no. 3–4, 2015, pp. 195–202,
DOI: 10.22068/IJCE.13.3.195.
[10] Tang C., Shi B., Gao W., Chen F., Cai Y.,
Strength and mechanical behavior of short
polypropylene fiber reinforced and cement
stabilized clayey soil, Geotext.
Geomembranes, vol. 25, no. 3,2007, pp. 194
-
202,DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.11.002.
[11] Consoli N.C., Vendruscolo M.A., Fonini A.,
Rosa F.D., Fiber reinforcement effects on sand
considering a wide cementation range,
Geotext. Geomembranes, vol. 27, no. 3,2009,
pp. 196–
203,DOI:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.005.
[12] Sadeghi M.M., Masoud, Beigi F.H., Dynamic
behavior of reinforced clayey sand under
cyclic loading, Geotext.Geomembranes, vol.
42, no. 5, Oct.2014, pp.564- 572,
DOI:10.1016/J.GEOTEXMEM.2014.07.005.
[13] Noorzad R., Amini P.F., Liquefaction
resistance of Babolsar sand reinforced with
randomly distributed fibers under cyclic
loading, Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., vol. 66,2014,
pp. 281–
292,DOI:10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.07.011.
[14] Park S.S., Effect of fiber reinforcement and
distribution on unconfined compressive
strength of fiber-reinforced cemented sand,
Geotext. Geomembranes, vol. 27, no. 2, 2009,
pp. 162– 166, DOI:
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.09.001.
[15] Safdar M., Newson T., Schmidt C., Sato K.,
Fujikawa T. , Shah F., Effect of fiber and
cement additives on the small-strain stiffness
behavior of toyoura sand, Sustain., vol. 12, no.
24, 2020, pp. 1 –17, DOI:
10.3390/su122410468.
[16] Al-Bared M.A.M., Harahap I., Marto A., Abad
S.V., Mustaffa Z., Ali M., Mechanical
behaviour of waste powdered tilesand
portland cement treated soft clay, Geomech.

International Journal of GEOMATE, Aug., 2022, Vol.23, Issue 96, pp.129-136
136
Eng., vol. 19, no. 1, 2019, pp. 37 - 47, DOI:
10.12989/gae.2019.19.1.037.
[17] Al-Bared M.A.M., Harahap I., Marto A.,
Mohamad H., Abad S.V., Mustaffa Z., Cyclic
behavior of RT-cement treated marine clay
subjected to low and high loading frequencies,
Geomech. Eng., vol. 21, no. 5, 2020, pp. 433 -
445, DOI: 10.12989/GAE.2020.21.5.433.
[18] Safdar M., Newson T., Schmidt C., Sato K.,
Fujikawa T., Shah F., Shear wave velocity of
fiber-reinforced cemented toyoura silty sand,
Geomech. Eng., vol. 25, no. 3, 2021, pp. 207–
219, DOI: 10.12989/gae.2021.25.3.207.
[19] Enka Solutions. https://enkasolutions.com/
[20] Ladd R. S., Preparing Test Specimens Using
Undercompaction, Geotech. Test. J., vol. 1, no.
1, 1978, pp. 16– 23.
[21] ASTM D5311/D5311M- 13, Standard test
method for load controlled cyclic triaxial
strength of soil (D5311-92). Annual book of
ASTM standards, 2013.
[22] ASTM D3999/D3999M− 11."Standard Test
Methods for the Determination of the Modulus
and Damping Properties of Soils Using the
Cyclic Triaxial Apparatus.", 2013.
[23] Towhata I., Springer Series in Geomechanics
and Geoengineering: Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering. 2008.
[24] Kirar B., Maheshwari B. K., and Jakka R. S.,
Dynamic Properties of Solani Sand
Reinforced with Coir Fibers, 15th World Conf.
Earthq. Eng. Lisbon Port., 2012.
[25] Rasouli H., Fatahi B., Nimbalkar S.,
Liquefaction and post-liquefaction assessment
of lightly cemented sands, Can. Geotech. J.,
vol. 57, no. 2, 2020, pp. 173–188, DOI:
10.1139/cgj-2018-0833.
Copyright © Int. J. of GEOMATE All rights reserved,
including making copies, unless permission is obtained
from the copyright proprietors.