Stabilization of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway's Ojoo-Iwo Road Section Using Geosynthetics

*Corresponding author: D. E. Hassan Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. Stabilization of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway’s Ojoo-Iwo Road Section Using Geosynthetics Muslihudeen Olayinka Ibrahim 1, Folake Olubunmi. Akintayo 1 and Damilare Emmanuel Hassan 2, * 1 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Oyo State. Nigeria. 2 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Technology, Ajayi Crowther University, Oyo, Oyo State. Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 Publication history: Received on 26 April 2025; revised on 04 July 2025; accepted on 07 July 2025 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/gjeta.2025.24.2.0186 Abstract Road performance and longevity are greatly enhanced by geosynthetics. It carries out a number of functions, including reinforcement, stability, separation, fluid barrier, drainage, and filtration, to improve their use on road pavement. Geosynthetic materials were introduced to some sections of the subbase layer of the Lagos-Ibadan expressway to enhance the overall performance of the pavement. Soil samples were collected at a burrow pit at km 90 of the LagosIbadan Expressway. The contractor handling the Ojoo-Iwo road segment of the expressway provided the geosynthetic materials employed in the study. The natural moisture content of the soil, sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, optimum moisture content, Maximum Dry Density (MDD), and California Bearing Ratio (CBR) were determined using standard procedures. The soil is gapped-graded, sandy-gravel, and has a plasticity index of 8%. The natural and stabilized soils have corresponding MDDs of 2040 and 1960 kg/m3. After the geosynthetic materials were added to the subbase layer, the soil sample’s CBR rose from 26% to 30%. Keywords: Geogrid; Soil Stabilization; Atterberg Limit; CBR 1. Introduction The geotechnical performance of foundations and subbase materials is a critical aspect of construction and infrastructure development. Geosynthetics such as geotextiles, geogrids, and geomembranes, have gained significant attention for their potential to improve the stability and durability of these systems Anitha, J. (2017). The continuous decrease in availability of proper construction sites has led to the increased use of marginal ones, where the bearing capacity of the underlying deposits is very low. The conventional method is to provide deep and costly foundation on such weak deposits Jadhav et al., (2019). The necessity to develop cost effective solutions has made ground improvement a major research area. This research work identifies the geotechnical performance of foundation and subbase materials using geosynthetics such as geogrid to improve the stability, bearing capacity, and overall durability of construction projects Glen, James Barnes (2019). Soils are heterogeneous, they vary from place to place, hence the need to carry out soil test on a building sites, to determine if the soil have the capacity to bear the load that will be imposed on it (. Construction over soft soil has always been a challenge for geotechnical engineers. Figure 1 shows the multiple functions of geosynthetics in road way applications. Hence soft soils are difficult to build embankments on due to their low shear strength, poor compressibility, and low bearing capacity. If not managed properly, weak subsoil can cause significant issues. Geosynthetics are synthetic materials used in civil engineering and construction projects to enhance the performance and durability of geotechnical and environmental structures Shashank and Ajit (2021). They serve various functions and find applications in a wide range of projects. Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 162 Figure 1 Multiple Functions of Geosynthetics in Roadway Applications 2. Methodology Soil samples used for the research work were collected at burrow pit, km 90 Lagos-Ojoo Express Road, the geosythetic (geogrid) materials used for the research was collected from the one used on Lagos-Ojoo Express Road, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Tests were carried out on the soil samples in accordance with BS 1377(1990) Part 2 and BS 1377: Part 9: 1990 Standard, Natural Moisture Content NMC, Soil Grains Distribution Sieve Analysis, Atterberg Limits which includes Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plastcity Index, Compaction Test to obtain Optimum Moisture Content OMC and Maximum Dry Density MDD, California Bearing Ratio CBR Assessment. The map of the local government and the road axis of the study area shown in figure 2 and 3 respectively. Figure 2 Local Government Areas in Oyo State Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 163 Figure 3 Map of Lagos-Ibadan, Ojoo Expressway Road. 2.1. Natural Moisture Content The natural moisture content was carried out in accordance with BS 1377 (1990) Part 2. The soil sample from the burrow pit was weigh using a weighing balance to determine its initial weight and labelled W1, after oven dried of the soil sample, it was weighed then labelled W2. Hence, NMC – W1 X W2 X100 Where W1 is initial weight of the soil sample and W2 is dry weight of the soil sample. The moisture content of the soil samples show in the table 1 below. Table 1 Natural Moisture Content of soil sample NMC % % 15.1% Tare n 6 1 Wet weight + tare 29.40 26.60 Dry weight + tare 27.50 24.90 Weight of tare 14.50 14.00 Wet weight 14.90 12.60 Dry weight 13.00 10.90 Moisture content 14.62 15.60 2.2. Sieve Analysis Dried soil sample was weighed and poured inside set of sieves with different mesh sizes, placed the soil sample on the top sieve which was shaken gently for 5-10 minutes to separate the particles. The process was repeated for each sieve, working down to the smallest mesh size. The soil particles fraction retained on the sieve was collected and weighed. Hence, the result in figure 4 shows the percentage of soil particles passing through 200 was 9.8% and the result of Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 164 particle size distribution curve shows the soil sample gapped graded and table 2 shows the soil grains distribution/sieve analysis result. Table 2 Soil Grains Distribution/Sieve Analysis Result Sieve No. Sieve Diameter Sieve Wt (g) Sieve Wt+Soil Wt retained (g) %Wt retained Cum. % wt retained % Passing 4'' 100.000 0 100 3 1/2" 90.000 0 100 3" 75.000 0 100 2 1/2" 63.000 0 100 2" 50.000 0 100 1 1/2" 37.500 0 100 1" 25.000 0 100 3/4" 19.000 0 100 3/8" 9.500 0 100 4 4.750 527.5 530.8 3.3 3.3 3.3 96.7 10 2.000 571.4 591.7 20.3 20.3 23.6 76.4 1.180 488.3 515.2 26.9 26.9 50.5 49.5 40 0.425 450.7 468.6 17.9 17.9 68.4 31.6 70 0.212 415.9 426.2 10.3 10.3 78.7 21.3 140 0.150 407.2 412 4.8 4.8 83.5 16.5 200 0.075 409.7 416.4 6.7 6.7 90.2 9.8 <0.075 9.8 9.8 passing n.200 sieve Sum (g) 90.2 Initial Weight (g) 100 Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 165 Figure 4 Percentage passing (%) against Particle size (mm) 2.3. Atterberg Limit The Atterberg limit test was carried out on the soil samples so as to determine it plastic and liquid limit. The results in table 3 below shows that the plastic and liquid limit were 35.14% and 44.16% respectively. The Liquid Limit adopted Casagrande technique while the Plasticity Index chart result showed the soil sample has low plasticity, according to Unified Soil Classification System. Figure 5 shows the liquid limit, where soil shifts from liquid to plastic behavior under impact while figure 6 indicate how the soil behaves under varying moisture conditions. Table 3 Results of Liquid/Plastic Limit Test on Soil Sample Liquid/Plastic Limit Test L.L L.L P.L P.L Wet weight +tare (g) at 20.10 25.7 25.8 29.9 20.4 Wet weight +tare (g) at 19.10 22.3 22.4 25.1 19.1 Wet weight +tare (g) at 16.20 14.1 14.7 14.7 15.4 Wet weight +tare (g) at 3.90 11.6 11.1 15.2 5 Dry weight (g) 8.2 7.7 10.4 3.7 Moisture content % 41.46 44.16 46.15 35.14 No. of blows 34 25 14 7 Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 166 Figure 5 Moisture Content (%) against Number of Blows (mm) Figure 6 Plasticity Chart of plasticity (%) against liquid limit (%) 2.4. Compaction Test Compaction test was carried out to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content (Mdd and Omc) respectively. Soil sample was weighed mixed with water to create a uniform paste, filled into the mould in five layers and 25blow per later to achieve maximum compaction of the soil. The sample was weighed again and record of the result was taken. The process was repeated for both samples with geogrid and without geogrid. The result of the MDD and OMC of sample with geogrid were 1960 kg/m3 Figure 8 Dry Density (kg/m3) against Moisture Content (%) and 11.8% while the samples without geogrid are 2040 kg/m3 and 11% respectively. sample as shown in Figure 7 graph of dry density (kg/m3) against moisture content (%). Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 167 Figure 7 Graph of dry density (kg/m3) against moisture content (%) Figure 8 Dry Density (kg/m3) against Moisture Content (%) 2.5. California Bearing Ratio CBR The CBR test was carried out in accordance with ASTM D698, used to determine the strength of the subgrade of a road. A mould is filled with soil sample compacted with rammer of 55blows in three layers before taken to the CBR machine to determine the value. The results of the CBR value of sample without geogrid was 26% as shown in figure 9 below while CBR value of sample with geogrid was 29.9% which was approximated to 30% as shown in figure 10 below which is the standard in accordance with Federal Ministry of Work and Housing, Abuja, General Specification for Roads and Bridges in Nigeria. Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 168 Figure 9 Load (N) against Penetration (mm) (without geotextile Figure 10 Graph of Load (N) against Penetration (mm) (With geotextile) 3. Conclusion The integration of geogrid increased the bearing capacity of soil sample, the sample without geogrid maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was 1960kg/m3 and 11.8% while sample with geogrid maximum dry density and optimum moisture content was 2040kg/m3 and 11% respectively. The result of CBR value of sample without geogrid was 26% while CBR value of sample with geogrid increased to 29.9% approximated to 30% which is the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(02), 161-169 169 standard in accordance with Federal Ministry of Work and Housing, Abuja, General Specification for Road and Bridges in Nigeria. Compliance with ethical standards Acknowledgement The authors acknowledge the support of the management of University of Ibadan and Ajayi Crowther University for the conducive environment and access to the civil engineering laboratories, the technologist Engr Julius Ogunmodede for his time and assistance during his research work. Disclosure of conflict of interest The Authors, Muslihudeen Olayinka Ibrahim, Folake Olubunmi. Akintayo and Damilare Emmanuel Hassan thereby disclosed that there is no conflict of interest during the research work. All experiment undergone were done under professional scrutiny Conceptualization: Ibrahim M. O and Akintayo F. O, Methodology Ibrahim M. O and Hassan D. E, formal analysis: Ibrahim M.O and Akintayo F. O, Investigation Hassan D.E, writing original draft preparation Hassan D.E and Ibrahim M. O. Editing Ibrahim M.O and Akintayo F.O References [1] Anitha, J. 2017. Effect of Geosynthetic On Soft Subgrade –Literature Review. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). e-ISSN: 2395 -0056, Volume: 04 Issue: 01 | www.irjet.net, p-ISSN: 23950072 [2] Folake O. Akintayo and Toyin D. Osasona, FUOYE Journal of Engineering and Technology, ISSN:2579-0617 (Paper) 2579-06 (Online), Volume 7, Issue 3, September, 2022. [3] Glen, James Barnes 2019. An Experimental Investigation on The properties and performance Of Geogrid and Geocomposite as Subgrade Reinforcement in Granular Pavements. Bachelor of Science (Ecosystem Management). [4] Housing Foundations and Geotechnical Challenges: Best Practices for Residential Builders in British Columbia, 2015. ISBN 978-0-7726-6869-1 [5] Jadhav, G.S, Salunkhe S.S, Patne K.S, Khandekar S.H, & Ghorpade M.B. 2019. Review Paper on-Geosynthetic. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). e-ISSN: 2395-0056, Volume: 06 Issue: 10 | www.irjet.net, p-ISSN: 2395-0072 [6] Mohit, J.S and Gurpreet S. 2021. A Review Study on The Use of Geosynthetics in Road Constructions. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, Vol 4, no 7, pp 518-522 July 2023, www.ijcrt.org © 2021 IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 5 May 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882 [7] Oana E.C and Răzvan C. 2014. Geosynthetic reinforcement for base / subbase courses of road structures. “Highway and Bridge Engineering 2014”. International Symposium Iaşi, România. [8] Parveen A, Mr. Pardeep, & Vikas S. 2023. A Review Paper on Geosynthetics In Road Construction. International Journal of Progressive Research in Engineering Management and Science. Vol. 03, Issue 04, pp: 8085 [9] Prasath P, Dr. Suresh B.S. & Dr. Prakash, K.E. 2021. Studies on Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil for Cost Effective Foundation. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT) www.ijcrt.org IJCRT | Volume 9, Issue 5 May 2021 | ISSN: 2320-2882 [10] Shashank G. and Ajit S. 2021. A Reviews on Geosynthetic Materials Used in Road Construction. International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR) www.ijsdr.org ISSN: 2455-2631 IJSDR | Volume 6, Issue 3 [11] Shashank G. and Ajit S. 2021. Experimental Analysis and Use of Geosynthetic Materials in Road. Ijsdr2107061 Www.Ijsdr. Org International Journal of Scientific Development and Research. (IJSDR) 399, ISSN: 2455-2631 © July 2021.IJSDR | Volume 6 Issue 7.