The aims of this study are to assess tensile strength of coated kenaf and ability of coated kenaf to act as reinforced to laterite soil in slope stabilization. This paper presents four types of different samples which are Uncoated Kenaf Mat, Coated Kenaf Mat with (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) ABS and Kenaf Mat Coated with Epoxy Resin using two different solutions. All samples were tested using Universal Testing Machine (UTM) to obtain maximum stress while direct shear test are used to determine the cohesion (c) and frictional angle (Ø). As the result from tensile test, the maximum stress for Kenaf Mat Coated with ABS and Kenaf Mat Coated with Epoxy Resin using two different solutions are 47.50N/mm2, 95N/mm2 and 96.20N/mm2 respectively. It was higher than uncoated kenaf that only able to produce 5.6 N/mm2 of maximum stress. The cohesion (c) value results for reinforced soil using Coated Kenaf Mat with ABS and Kenaf Mat Coated with Epoxy Resin using two different solutions are 9.31, 12.76 & 7.01 respectively. From the results, coated kenaf mat was able to yield maximum stress higher than uncoated kenaf mat. Meanwhile, coated kenaf has improved soil shear strength compared to unreinforced soil. As the conclusion, by coating kenaf with ABS and Epoxy resin it can improve the physical and mechanical properties of kenaf as well as shear strength for the soil. As such, coated kenaf mat has the potential to be used for slope stabilization to improve its stability.

1.
R.
Noorzad
and
S.
Mirmoradi
,
Geotext. Geomembranes
28
,
386
392
(
2010
).
2.
M.
Nurul
,
A. M.
Taib
,
M. A.
Kassim
,
M.
Ariffjamaludin
and
T.
Ismail
,
App. Mech. and Mater.
421
,
290
295
(
2013
).
3.
E.
Momeni
,
R.
Nazir
,
D. J.
Armaghani
,
M.
For
,
M.
Amin
and
E. T.
Mohamad
,
Jurnal Teknologi
11
,
43
50
(
2015
).
4.
S. M.
Hejazi
,
M.
Sheikhzadeh
,
S. M.
Abtahi
and
A.
Zadhoush
,
Constr. Build. Mater.
30
,
100
116
(
2012
).
5.
D. M.
Haile
and
T.
Hanna
, “
Study of inde Properties and Shear Strength Parameter of Laterite Soils in Southern Part Of Ethiopia the Case of Wolayita-Sodo
” (
Addis Ababa University
,
2008
).
6.
S.
Artidteang
,
D. T.
Bergado
,
T.
Tanchaisawat
and
J.
Saowapakpiboon
,
Lowl. Technol. Int.
14
,
1
8
(
2012
).
7.
T.
Hojo
,
X. U.
Zhilan
,
Y.
Yang
and
H.
Hamada
,
Energy Procedia
56
,
72
79
(
2014
).
8.
I.
Ali
,
K.
Jayaraman
and
D.
Bhattacharyya
,
Ind. Crops Prod.
61
,
293
302
(
2014
).
9.
F.
Bateni
,
F.
Ahmad
,
A. S.
Yahya
and
M.
Azmi
,
Constr. and Build. Mater.
25
,
1824
1829
(
2010
).
10.
S. V.
Prasad
,
C.
Pavithran
and
P. K.
Rohatgi
,
J Mater Sci.
18
,
1443
54
(
1983
).
11.
E. O.
Ozgul
and
M. H.
Ozkul
,
Constr. and Build. Mater.
158
,
369
377
(
2017
).
12.
S.
Kocaman
and
G.
Ahmetli
,
Progr. in Organ. Coating
97
,
53
64
(
2016
).
13.
C. B.
Monteiro
and
E. M.
Palmeira
, “
Backanalysis of an Instrumented Reinforced Abutment on Soft Soil
” (
Proceedings of the 8ᵗʰ International Conference on Geosynthetics
,
2007
),
1169
1172
.
14.
A. K.
Choudhary
and
A. M.
Krishna
, “
Parameters Influencung Dynamic Soil Properties: AReview Treatise
” (
National Conerence on Recent Advances in Civil Engineering
,
2013
),
60
68
.
15.
S. C.
Tuna
and
S.
Altun
,
Sci. Iran.
19
,
1044
1051
(
2012
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.