Geomechanics and Engineering

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of hemp geotextile to shear strength of soils

  • Eren Bayrakci (Vocational School of Transportation, Eskisehir Technical University) ;
  • Eren Balaban (Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Eskisehir Technical University) ;
  • Mehmet Inanc Onur (Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Eskisehir Technical University) ;
  • Yucel Guney (School for the Handicapped, Anadolu University) ;
  • Yekta Karaduman (Department of Materials and Energy, Hemp Research Institute, Yozgat Bozok University)
  • Received : 2025.04.04
  • Accepted : 2025.10.10
  • Published : 2025.10.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Natural geotextiles have been increasing instead of synthetic geotextiles used in various geotechnical engineering applications because they are more environmentally friendly. In this study, a new type of geotextile called "Geo-Hemptex" is produced from hemp fibers for the first time that may be an alternative to synthetic and natural geotextiles. Unconsolidated-Undrained (UU) and interface shear box tests were conducted to determine the interaction between Geo-Hemptex and granular soil. Geo-Hemptex was placed in one and two layers during UU tests, and three different confining pressures were applied during tests. Interface shear box tests were conducted under three different normal stresses to determine the interface characteristics between Geo-Hemptex and granular soil. All tests were also carried out using synthetic woven and non-woven geotextiles to compare with Geo-Hemptex. UU tests were modelled using the finite element method. All geotextiles provided approximately similar results in interface shear strength. However, higher adhesion was determined for Geo-Hemptex compared to synthetic woven geotextile. Geotextile placement, axial stiffness of geotextile, and interface strength influenced the UU test results. The synthetic woven geotextile yielded higher strength in the case of single-layer orientation. In contrast, Geo-Hemptex and woven synthetic geotextiles resulted in similar strength increases in the case of double layer orientation. The results of this study demonstrate that Geo-Hemptex can be used as an alternative to synthetic geotextiles, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and synthetic residues in the soil, thus providing more environmentally friendly solutions to geotechnical engineering problems.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Eskisehir Technical University Scientific Research Project supported this work under project number 22DRP218. The authors express their gratitude for the support.

References

  1. Afzali-Nejad, A., Lashkari, A. and Shourijeh, P.T. (2017), "Influence of particle shape on the shear strength and dilation of sand-woven geotextile interfaces", Geotext. Geomembranes, 45(1), 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.07.005.
  2. Akdere, İ. (2023), "The usability of Hemp fiber in the production of foam concrete", Master's thesis, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon.
  3. Ammar, A., Najjar, S.S. and Sadek, S. (2019), "Mechanics of the interface interaction between Hemp fibers and compacted clay", Int. J. Geomech., 19(4), 04019015. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001368.
  4. Arvin, M.R., Ghafary, G.R., Hataf, N. and Ghafary, A.R. (2021), "Shear behavior of EPS geofoam reinforced with polypropylene fiber", Geomech. Eng., 25(5), 347-355. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2021.25.2.347.
  5. Aslan, İ. (2020), "Investigation of usability of natural Hemp fiber instead of cellulosic fiber in stone mastic asphalt", Master's thesis, Yozgat Bozok University, Yozgat.
  6. ASTM D698 – 12 (2021), Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  7. ASTM D854 – 14 (2016), Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  8. ASTM D2487 -11 (2020), Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Soil Classification Engineering Purposes (Unified System). ASTM International, West Conshohocken,PA.
  9. ASTM D2850 – 23 (2023), Standard Test Method for Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Compression Test on Cohesive Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  10. ASTM D3080/3080M-23 (2023), Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  11. ASTM D4253 – 16 (2019), Standard Test Methods for Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  12. ASTM D4254 – 16 (2016), Standard Test Methods For Minimum Index Density And Unit Weight Of Soils And Calculation Of Relative Density. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  13. ASTM D5321 – 21 (2021), Standard Test Method for Determining the Shear Strength of Soil-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic-Geosynthetic Interfaces by Direct Shear. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  14. ASTM D6913 – 17 (2017), Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  15. ASTM D7928-21e1 (2021), Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Fine-Grained Soils Using the Sedimentation (Hydrometer) Analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
  16. Balčiūnas, G., Kizinievič, V. and Gargasas, J. (2017), "Physical properties of building blocks from hemp shives aggregate and cementitious binder, manufactured in the expanded clay (Vibro Pressing) production line", Materials Science Forum, 908, 118-122. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.908.118.
  17. Bennai, F., Ferroukhi, M.Y., Benmahiddine, F., Belarbi, R. and Nouviaire, A. (2022), "Assessment of hygrothermal performance of hemp concrete compared to conventional building materials at overall building scale", Constr. Build. Mater., 316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126007.
  18. Cicek, E. (2020), "Experimental and theoretical investigation for highways incorporating geotextile design methodology", Road Mater. Pavement Design, 21(4), 965-984. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2018.1532314.
  19. Cicek, E. (2019), "The effects of different types of fibres and geotextiles for pavement design", Road Mater. Pavement Design, 20(4), 793-814. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1417890.
  20. Diab, A.A., Sadek, S., Najjar, S. and Daya, M.H.A. (2016), "Undrained shear strength characteristics of compacted clay reinforced with natural Hemp fibers", Int. J. Geotech. Eng., 10(3), 263-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2015.1132122.
  21. Dinarvand, R. and Ardakani, A. (2022), "Shear behavior of geotextile-encased gravel columns in silty sand-experimental and SVM modeling", Geomech. Eng., 28(5), 505-520. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2022.28.5.505.
  22. El Ahmad, M.E., Sadek, S. and Najjar, S. (2019), "Drained triaxial response of clay reinforced with natural hemp fibers", Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers, 305-314. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784482117.031.
  23. Gedik, G., Avinç, O.O. and Yavaş, A. (2010), "Hemp fiber properties and its advantages in textile industry", Electron. J. Text. Technol., 4(3), 39-48.
  24. Ghalieh, L., Awwad, E., Saad, G., Khatib, H. and Mabsout, M. (2017), "Concrete columns wrapped with hemp fiber reinforced polymer–an experimental study", Procedia Eng., 200, 440-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.062.
  25. Goodarzi, S. and Shahnazari, H. (2019), "Strength enhancement of geotextile-reinforced carbonate sand", Geotext. Geomembranes, 47(2), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.12.004.
  26. Gruchot, A., Zydroń, T. and Michalska, A. (2020), "The influence of compaction and water conditions on shear strength and friction resistance between geotextiles and ash-slag mixture", Energies, 13(5), 1086. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13051086.
  27. Guo, A., Sun, Z., Qi, C. and Sathitsuksanoh, N. (2020), "Hydration of portland cement pastes containing untreated and treated hemp powders", J. Mater. Civil Eng., 32(6). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-533.0003209.
  28. Gürbüz, S. and Afacan, K. B. (2022), "Influence of silts on very loose clean sand's static liquefaction and dilative response", Eskişehir Osmangazi University Engineering and Architecture Faculty, 30(2), 242-252. https://doi.org/10.31796/ogummf.1073656.
  29. Haeri, S.M., Noorzad, R. and Oskoorouchi, A.M. (2000), "Effect of geotextile reinforcement on the mechanical behavior of sand", Geotext. Geomembranes, 18(6), 385-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(00)00005-4.
  30. Hamzaoui, R., Guessasma, S., Abahri, K. and Bouchenafa, O. (2020), "Formulation of modified cement mortars using optimal combination of fly ashes, shiv and hemp fibers", J. Mater. Civil Eng., 32. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002918.
  31. Hegde, A. and Roy, R. (2018), "A comparative numerical study on soil–geosynthetic interactions using large scale direct shear test and pullout test", Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng., 4(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0119-1.
  32. Jayawardane, V.S., Anggraini, V., Li-Shen, A.T., Paul, S.C. and Nimbalkar, S. (2020), "Strength enhancement of geotextile-reinforced fly-ash-based geopolymer stabilized residual soil", Int. J. Geosynth Ground Eng., 6(4), 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00233-y.
  33. Jotisankasa, A. and Rurgchaisri, N. (2018), "Shear strength of interfaces between unsaturated soils and composite geotextile with polyester yarn reinforcement", Geotext. Geomembranes, 46(3), 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.12.003.
  34. Kallakas, H., Närep, M., Närep, A., Poltimäe, T. and Kers, J. (2018), "Mechanical and physical properties of industrial hemp-based insulation materials", Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 67(2), 183-192. https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.2018.2.10.
  35. Kantesaria, N. and Sachan, A. (2021), "Undrained shear behaviour of fly ash-geosynthetic system with woven and non-woven geotextile", Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference 2019: IGC-2019, Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-6466-0_14.
  36. Karakaya, E. (2021), "Ecological pretreatment of Hemp fibers", Master's thesis, Erciyes University, Kayseri.
  37. Koerner, R.M. (2005), Designing with Geosynthetics, 5th Ed., New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall, 796p.
  38. Kremensas, A., Kairytė, A., Vaitkus, S. and Vėjelis, S. (2018), "Physical-mechanical properties of composites from hemp shives and starch", Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent., 7, 43-49.
  39. Lankaran, Z.E., Nik Daud, N.N., Rostami, V. and Yusoff, Z.M. (2022), "Consolidated drained triaxial test on treated coastal soil and finite element analysis using PLAXIS 2D", Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng., 15 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7263333.
  40. Latha, G.M. and Murthy, V.S. (2007), "Effects of reinforcement form on the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced sand", Geotext. Geomembranes, 25(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.09.002.
  41. Lopes, M.L. and Silvano, R. (2010), "Soil/geotextile interface behaviour in direct shear and pullout movements", Geotech. Geol. Eng., 28, 791-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-010-9339-z.
  42. Mahmoodi, K., Motlagh, N.M. and Ardakani, A.R.M. (2024), "An investigation into the effects of lime-stabilization on soil-geosynthetic interface behavior", Geomech. Eng., 38(3), 231-247. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2024.38.3.231.
  43. Mangut, M. and Karahan, N. (2011), Textile Fibers, 4th Ed., Bursa.
  44. Markou, I.N. (2018), "A study on geotextile—sand interface behavior based on direct shear and triaxial compression tests", Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng., 4, 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0121-7.
  45. Mungkung, R., Intrachooto, S., Srisuwanpip, N., Lamai, A., Sorakon, K. and Kittipakornkarn, K. (2018), "Life cycle assessment of hempstone for green buildings", Chem. Eng. Transact., 63, 247-252. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1863042.
  46. Murphy, F., Pavia, S. and Walker, R. (2010), "An assessment of the physical properties of lime-hemp concrete", Proceeding of the bridge and concrete research in Ireland, Cork.
  47. Najjar, S.S., Sadek, S. and Taha, H. (2014), "Use of hemp fibers in sustainable compacted clay systems", Proceedings of the Geo-Congress 2014: Geo-characterization and Modeling for Sustainability, Atlanta, 1415-1424. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413272.138.
  48. Nouri, S., Nechnech, A., Lamri, B. and Lopes, M.L. (2016), "Triaxial test of drained sand reinforced with plastic layers", Arabian J. Geosci., 9, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-015-2017-y.
  49. Ok, B., Colakoglu, H. and Dagli, U. (2023), "Evaluation of the geogrid-various sustainable geomaterials interaction by direct shear tests", Geomech. Eng., 34(2), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2023.34.2.173.
  50. Ouagne, P., Renouard, S., Michel, D. and Laine, E. (2017), "Mechanical properties of flax and hemp yarns designed for the manufacturing of geotextiles. Improvement of the resistance to soil born microorganisms", J. Textile Eng. Fashion Technol., 1(5), 210-215. https://doi.org/10.15406/jteft.2017.01.00034.
  51. Peev, P.I. (2012), "Is industrial hemp a sustainable construction material?", Bachelor of Architectural Technology and Construction Management, Denmark: Via University College, Horsens.
  52. Pradhan, S.K. and Pothal, G.K. (2024), "Shear strength characteristics of pond ash reinforced with polymeric and natural fiber geosynthetic", Geotech. Geol. Eng., 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-024-02765-w.
  53. Pundiene, I., Vitola, L., Pranckeviciene, J. and Bajare, D. (2022), "Hemp shive-based bio-composites bounded by potato starch binder: the roles of aggregate particle size and aspect ratio", J. Ecol. Eng., 23(2), 220-234. https://doi.org/10.12911/22998993/144637.
  54. Punetha, P., Mohanty, P. and Samanta, M. (2017), "Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil - geosynthetic interface in direct shear test", Geotext. Geomembranes, 45(3), 197-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
  55. Razeghi, H.R. and Ensani, A. (2023), "Clayey sand soil interactions with geogrids and geotextiles using large-scale direct shear tests", Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng., 9(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-023-00443-0.
  56. Rezvani, R. (2020), "Shearing response of geotextile-reinforced calcareous soils using monotonic triaxial tests", Mar. Georesour. Geotec., 38(2), 238-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2019.1566936.
  57. Roy, R., Venkateswarlu, H. and Hegde, A. (2019), "Numerical study on cyclic shear behavior of soil–geosynthetics interface.", In Geotechnics for Transportation Infrastructure: Recent Developments, Upcoming Technologies and New Concepts, 2, 235-245. Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6713-7_19.
  58. Sayeed, M.M.A., Ramaiah, B.J. and Rawal, A. (2014), "Interface shear characteristics of jute/polypropylene hybrid nonwoven geotextiles and sand using large size direct shear test", Geotext. Geomembranes, 42(1), 63-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.12.001.
  59. Serin, S., Macit, M.E., Çınar, E.C. and Çelik, S. (2018), "Effect of using natural Hemp fiber on asphalt concrete mixtures", Düzce University Journal of Science and Technology, 6(4), 732-744. https://doi.org/10.29130/dubited.428492.
  60. Shamsi, M., Ghanbari, A. and Nazariafshar, J. (2019), "Behavior of sand columns reinforced by vertical geotextile encasement and horizontal geotextile layers", Geomech. Eng, 19(4), 329-342. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2019.19.4.329.
  61. Shewalul, Y. W., Quiroz, N.F., Streicher, D. and Walls, R. (2023), "Fire behavior of hemp blocks: A biomass-based construction material", J. Build. Eng., 2352-7102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.108147.
  62. Skuodis, Š., Dirgėlienė, N. and Medzvieckas, J. (2020), "Using triaxial tests to determine the shearing strength of geogrid-reinforced sand", Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica, 42(4), 341-354. https://doi.org/10.2478/sgem-2020-0005.
  63. Son, D.G. and Byun, Y.H. (2023), "Shear strength characteristics of two-layer geotextile reinforced with flowable fill", Constr. Build. Mater., 367, 130207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.130207.
  64. Stacho, J., Sulovska, M. and Slavik, I. (2023), "Analysis of the shear strength of a soil-geosynthetic interface", Civil Environ. Eng., 19(1), 452-463. https://doi.org/10.2478/cee-2023-0040.
  65. Subaida, E.A., Chandrakaran, S. and Sankar, N. (2008), "Experimental investigations on tensile and pullout behaviour of woven coir geotextiles", Geotext. Geomembranes, 26(5), 384-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.02.005.
  66. Talamkhani, S. and Naeini, S.A. (2021), "The undrained shear behavior of reinforced clayey sand", Geotech. Geol. Eng., 39, 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-020-01490-4.
  67. Tanchaisawat, T., Bergado, D.T., Voottipruex, P. and Shehzad, K. (2010), "Interaction between geogrid reinforcement and tire chip–sand lightweight backfill", Geotext. Geomembranes, 28(1), 119-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.07.002.
  68. Toufigh, V., Ouria, A., Desai, C.S., Javid, N., Toufigh, V. and Saadatmanesh, H. (2016), "Interface behavior between carbon-fiber polymer and sand", J. Test. Eval., 44(1), 385-390. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20140153.
  69. TS EN ISO 9863-1 (2020), Geosynthetics - Determination of thickness at specified pressures - Part 1: Single layers, TSE.
  70. TS EN ISO 9864 (2005), Geosynthetics - Test method for the determination of mass per unit area of geotextiles and geotextile related products, TSE.
  71. TS EN ISO 10319 (2015), Geosynthetics - Wide-width tensile test, TSE.
  72. TS EN ISO 12236 (2007), Geosynthetics - Static puncture test (CBR test), TSE.
  73. TS EN ISO 13433 (2008), Geosynthetics - Dynamic perforation test (cone drop test), TSE.
  74. Vashi, M.J., Desai, A.K. and Solankib, C.H. (2013), "Behavior of geotextile reinforced flyash+ clay-mix by laboratory evaluation", Geomech. Eng., 5(1), 331-342. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2013.5.4.331.
  75. Vieira, C.S., Lopes, M.D.L. and Caldeira, L. (2015), "Sand-Nonwoven geotextile interfaces shear strength by direct shear and simple shear tests", Geomech. Eng., 9(5), 601-618. https://doi.org/10.12989/gae.2015.9.5.601.
  76. Vieira, C.S., Lopes, M.D.L. and Caldeira, L.M. (2013), "Sand-geotextile interface characterisation through monotonic and cyclic direct shear tests", Geosynth. Int., 20(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.12.00037.
  77. Wasti, Y. and Özdüzgün, Z.B. (2001), "Geomembrane–geotextile interface shear properties as determined by inclined board and direct shear box tests", Geotext. Geomembranes, 19(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(00)00002-9.
  78. Xiangjing, H. and Jianqing, J. (2010), "Finite element analysis of triaxial tests of a new composite reinforced soil", Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation, IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICTA.2010.67.