Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clayey Sand Soil Interactions with Geogrids and Geotextiles Using Large-Scale Direct Shear Tests

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Access to suitable materials for the construction of reinforced earth structures in some areas may challenge the profitable feasibility of the project. In such areas, replacing the common embankment materials with materials containing numerous fine grains available on-site can lead to significant cost savings. Providing solutions for the use of this type of material has always been the focus of researchers. Finding suitable reinforcement and correct evaluation of shear strength parameters of the soil-reinforcement interface are among these solutions. To investigate the effects of geosynthetics, soils fine grains, and water content, the shear strengths of the clayey sand soils-reinforcements interface were compared, using large-scale direct shear tests. The results revealed that the strength curve of the interface was near to the soil strength curve in soil with 5% fine grains; however, the reinforcement in the saturated state for large shearing displacements led to a higher shear strength than the soil strength. For the soil containing 20% and 40% fine grains with optimum water content, the use of geogrids and geotextiles dropped the shear strengths of the interfaces to values lower than the soil strength for small shearing displacements. In the saturated state, the shear strengths of both reinforcement interfaces with soil were vastly higher than the internal soil strength. The results revealed that soils containing fine grains could be perfectly reinforced using geogrids and geotextiles. However, the effect of using geogrids in sandy soils with lower fine grain contents was greater than the geotextile. Conversely, in soils containing a high percentage of fine grains, especially those that have high water content, the geotextile as reinforcement was more efficient than the geogrid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

References:

  1. Berg RR, Christopher BR, Samtani NC (2009) Design and construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes. US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute

    Google Scholar 

  2. Zornberg JG, Leshchinsky D (2003) Comparison of international design criteria for geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement (Vol. 2, pp. 1095–1106)

  3. AASHTO (1996) Standard specifications for highway bridges. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Concrete Masonry Association (2010) Design manual for segmental retaining walls. National concrete masonry Association, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  5. Christopher BR, Stulgis RP (2005) Low permeable backfill soils in geosynthetic reinforced soil walls: state-of-the-practice in North America. In: Proceedings of North American Geo-synthetics Conference (NAGS 2005) (p. 14e16)

  6. British Standard B (2010) Standards Publication Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills. BS 8006-1: 2010, ISBN, 940005429, pp 1–21

  7. Koerner RM (2005) Designing with geosynthetics. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vahedifard F, Tehrani FS, Galavi V, Ragno E, AghaKouchak A (2017) Resilience of MSE walls with marginal backfill under a changing climate: quantitative assessment for extreme precipitation events. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(9):04017056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee HS, Bobet A (2005) Laboratory evaluation of pullout capacity of reinforced silty sands in drained and undrained conditions. Geotech Test J 28(4):370–379

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sandri D (2005) Drainage recommendations for MSE walls constructed with marginal fills. In: Proceedings of North American Geo-synthetics Conference (NAGS2005), Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, GRI-19 (CD-volume)

  11. Raja J, Dixon N, Frost M, Fraser I, Fowmes G (2012) Designing wih marginal fills: understanding and practice. In: Proceedings of 5th European Geosynthetics Congress

  12. Khoury CN, Miller GA, Hatami K (2011) Unsaturated soil–geotextile interface behavior. Geotext Geomembr 29(1):17–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Powell W, Keller G, Brunette B (1999) Applications for geosynthetics on forest service low-volume roads. Transport Res Rec J Transport Res Board 1652:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Musser SW, Denning C (2005) Deep patch road embankment repair application guide, Management

  15. Zornberg JG, Mitchell JK (1994) Reinforced soil structures with poorly draining backfills. Part I: reinforcement interactions and functions. Geosynth Int 1(2):103–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Heshmati S (1993) The action of geotextiles in providing combined drainage and reinforcement to cohesive soil. Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University

  17. Mitchell JK (1995) Reinforced soil structures with poorly draining backfills part II: case histories and applications. Geosynth Int 2(1):265–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tan SA, Chew SH, Ng CC, Loh SL, Karunaratne GP, Delmas P, Loke KH (2001) Large-scale drainage behaviour of composite geotextile and geogrid in residual soil. Geotext Geomembr 19(3):163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Portelinha FHM, Bueno BS, Zornberg JG (2013) Performance of nonwoven geotextile-reinforced walls under wetting conditions: laboratory and field investigations. Geosynth Int 20(2):90–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hara K, Mitsui J, Mitsumune K, Chae JG, Shibuya S (2008) In-soil hydraulic transmissivity of geosynthetic drains in the laboratory. In: Geosynthetics in civil and environmental engineering: Geosynthetics Asia 2008 Proceedings of the 4th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics in Shanghai, China. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 434–439

  21. Raisinghani DV, Viswanadham BVS (2010) Evaluation of permeability characteristics of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil through laboratory tests. Geotext Geomembr 28(6):579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Raisinghani DV, Viswanadham BVS (2011) Centrifuge model study on low permeable slope reinforced by hybrid geosynthetics. Geotext Geomembr 29(6):567–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Raisinghani DV (2011) Studies on the performance of hybrid geosynthetic reinforced slopes. Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India

  24. Porbaha A, Goodings DJ (1996) Centrifuge modeling of geotextile-reinforced steep clay slopes. Can Geotech J 33(5):696–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Yasuhara K, Murakami S, Ghosh C, Recio-Molina J (2001) A diagrammatic evaluation of geo-composites for reinforcing cohesive soils. Landmarks Earth Reinf 1:299–304

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ochiai H, Otani J, Yasufuku N, Omine K, Yasuhara K, Murakami S, Molina J (2001) A diagrammatic evaluation of geo-composites for reinforcing cohesive soils. Proceedings of the international symposium on earth reinforcement held Japan, November 2001 (Vol. 1)

  27. Yasuhara K, Ghosh C, Juan-Molina JA (2002) Advantageous features of the geo-composite learned from small-scaled model tests. In: Proc. 7th Inten’l Cong. Geosynthetics, 1:435–440

  28. Ingold TS (1981) A laboratory simulation of reinforced clay walls. Geotechnique 31(3):399–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fabian K, Fourie A (1986) Performance of geotextile-reinforced clay samples in undrained triaxial tests. Geotext Geomembr 4(1):53–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Indraratna BUDDHIMA, Satkunaseelan KS, Rasul MG (1991) Laboratory properties of a soft marine clay reinforced with woven and nonwoven geotextiles. Geotech Test J 14(3):288–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ling HI, Tatsuoka F (1993) Laboratory evaluation of a nonwoven geotextile for reinforcing on site soil. Proc Geosynth 93(2):533–546

    Google Scholar 

  32. Abdi MR, Sadrnejad A, Arjomand MA (2009) Strength enhancement of clay by encapsulating geogrids in thin layers of sand. Geotext Geomembr 27(6):447–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Noorzad R, Mirmoradi SH (2010) Laboratory evaluation of the behavior of a geotextile reinforced clay. Geotext Geomembr 28(4):386–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Abdi MR, Arjomand MA (2011) Pullout tests conducted on clay reinforced with geogrid encapsulated in thin layers of sand. Geotext Geomembr 29(6):588–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu CN, Ho YH, Huang JW (2009) Large scale direct shear tests of soil/PET-yarn geogrid interfaces. Geotext Geomembr 27(1):19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bergado DT, Shivashankar R, Alfaro MC, Chai JC, Balasubramaniam AS (1993) Interaction behaviour of steel grid reinforcements in a clayey sand. Geotechnique 43(4):589–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Athanasopoulos GA (1996) Results of direct shear tests on geotextile reinforced cohesive soil. Geotext Geomembr 14(11):619–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Zornberg JG, Kang Y (2005) Pullout of geosynthetic reinforcement with in-plane drainage capability. In: Geosynthetics research and development in progress, 2005 pp. 1–6

  39. Abu-Farsakh M, Coronel J, Tao M (2007) Effect of soil moisture content and dry density on cohesive soil–geosynthetic interactions using large direct shear tests. J Mater Civ Eng 19(7):540–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. O’Kelly BC, Naughton PJ (2008) On the interface shear resistance of a novel geogrid with in-plane drainage capability. Geotext Geomembr 26(4):357–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hatami K, Granados J, Esmaili D, Miller G (2013) Reinforcement pullout capacity in mechanically stabilized earth walls with marginal-quality soils. Transport Res Rec J Transport Res Board 2363:66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Esmaili D, Hatami K, Miller GA (2014) Influence of matric suction on geotextile reinforcement-marginal soil interface strength. Geotext Geomembr 42(2):139–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ferreira FB, Vieira CS, Lopes ML (2015) Direct shear behaviour of residual soil-geosynthetic interfaces- influence of soil moisture content, soil density and geosynthetic type. Geosynth Int 22(3):257–272

  44. Bathurst RJ, Ezzein FM (2017) Insights into geogrid–soil interaction using a transparent granular soil. Géotechnique Letters 7(2):179–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Jotisankasa A, Rurgchaisri N (2018) Shear strength of interfaces between unsaturated soils and composite geotextile with polyester yarn reinforcement. Geotext Geomembr 46(3):338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Abdi MR, Safdari Seh Gonbad M (2018) Enhancement of soil–geogrid interactions in direct shear mode using attached elements as anchors. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 24(8):1–19

  47. Makkar FM, Chandrakaran S, Sankar N (2019) Experimental Investigation of Response of Different Granular Soil–3D Geogrid Interfaces Using Large-Scale Direct Shear Tests. J Mater Civ Eng 31(4):04019012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. ASTM, D (2014) 854. Standard test method for the specific gravity of soils

  49. ASTM, D. (2006) 2434–68, “.Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant-head).” Annu Book of ASTM Stand 4:191–195

    Google Scholar 

  50. AASHTO (2005) Standard methods of test for the moisture-density relations of soils and soil-aggregate mixtures using 5.5-lb (2.5-kg) rammer and 12-in. (305-mm) drop. AASHTO T 99

  51. AASHTO T 180-20 Standard method of test for moisture-density relations of soils using a 4.54-kg (10-lb) Rammer and a 457-mm (18-in.) Drop

  52. ISO, E (2008) Geosynthetics—Wide-width tensile test. EN ISO, 10319

  53. ISO, E. (1999). 11058, Geotextiles and geotextile-related products—Determination of water permeability characteristics normal to the plane, without load. European Committee for Standardization

  54. ISO E (1999) 12958, Geotextiles and geotextile-related products—Determination of water flow capacity in their plane. European Committee for Standardization

  55. ISO E (2010) 12956, Geotextiles and geotextile related products—Determination of the characteristic opening size

  56. ASTM (2014) Standard test method for determining the shear strength of soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic-geosynthetic interfaces by direct shear. D5321/D5321M.

  57. Bacas BM, Cañizal J, Konietzky H (2015) Shear strength behavior of geotextile/geomembrane interfaces. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 7(6):638–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhou J, Chen JF, Xue JF, Wang JQ (2012) Micro-mechanism of the interaction between sand and geogrid transverse ribs. Geosynth Int 19(6):426–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Punetha P, Mohanty P, Samanta M (2017) Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct shear test. Geotext Geomembr 45(3):197–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Vieira CS, Pereira PM (2015) Interface shear properties of geosynthetics and construction and demolition waste from large-scale direct shear tests. Geosynth Int 23(1):62–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S, Maghoolpilehrood F, Samingthong W, Du YJ, Shen SL (2015) Evaluation of interface shear strength properties of geogrid reinforced foamed recycled glass using a large-scale direct shear testing apparatus. Adv Mater Sci Eng 2015

  62. Biabani MM, Indraratna B, Nimbalkar S (2016) Assessment of interface shear behaviour of sub-ballast with geosynthetics by large-scale direct shear test. Proc Eng 143:1007–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pinho-Lopes M, Paula AM, Lopes MDL (2016) Soil-geosynthetic interaction in pullout and inclined-plane shear for two geosynthetics exhumed after installation damage. Geosynth Int 23(5):331–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Sakleshpur VA, Prezzi, M, Salgado R, Siddiki NZ, Choi YS (2017) Large-scale direct shear testing of geogrid-reinforced aggregate base over weak subgrade. Int J Pavement Eng 20(6):1–10

  65. Samanta M, Punetha P, Sharma M (2018) Influence of surface texture on sand–steel interface strength response. Géotechnique Letters 8(1):40–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sweta K, Hussaini SKK (2019) Behavior evaluation of geogrid-reinforced ballast-subballast interface under shear condition. Geotext Geomembr 47(1):23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhang B, Shi ML (2005) Research on directshear test and pullout test between clay and geotextile. Rock Soil Mech-Wuhan- 26:61

    Google Scholar 

  68. Tatlisoz N, Edil TB, Benson CH (1998) Interaction between reinforcing geosynthetics and soil-tire chip mixtures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(11):1109–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ghazavi M, Roustaei M (2013) Freeze–thaw performance of clayey soil reinforced with geotextile layer. Cold Reg Sci Technol 89:22–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hsieh CW, Chen GH, Wu JH (2011) The shear behavior obtained from the direct shear and pullout tests for different poor graded soil-geosynthetic systems. J GeoEng 6(1):15–26

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The equipment of the Geotechnical Engineering Scientific Research Centre and the Geo-Environmental Scientific Research Centre of Iran University of Science and Technology was employed for investigations. Moreover, the geosynthetic materials were provided by Geoparsian company support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, 13114-16846, Iran

    Hamid Reza Razeghi & Abbas Ensani

Authors
  1. Hamid Reza Razeghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abbas Ensani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

HRR conceived of the presented idea. He made substantial contributions to conception and design and supervised the findings of this work. AE carried out the experiments and drafted and wrote the manuscript. He contributed to the interpretation of the results. Both authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamid Reza Razeghi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Razeghi, H.R., Ensani, A. Clayey Sand Soil Interactions with Geogrids and Geotextiles Using Large-Scale Direct Shear Tests. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 9, 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-023-00443-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-023-00443-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation