Geotechnical & Geological Engineering

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 357–375 | Cite as

Finite element modeling of a geosynthetic pullout test

  • S. W. Perkins
  • M. Q. Edens


Advanced numerical modes used for the description of performance of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures in terms of displacements corresponding to working loads well below collapse levels has created the need for material models for the geosynthetic and geosynthetic-soil interaction accounting for stiffness, yielding and strength properties. A direction dependent isotropic hardening, elastic-plastic-creep model for the geosynthetic, an elastic-perfectly plastic direction and normal stress dependent geosynthetic-soil interaction model, and a bounding surface plasticity model for soil material have been used in a finite element model of a geosynthetic pullout test. Predictions from the model have been compared to a series of pullout tests where it is seen that the model provides reasonable predictions of load-displacement pullout behavior. Systematic removal of material model components has shown that geosynthetic creep properties have a noticeable but minor impact on load-displacement predictions, while geosynthetic plasticity properties have a more significant role for load simulations where the material approaches rupture during pullout. Replacement of the bounding surface plasticity model for the soil material with a linear elastic model resulted in no significant differences in predictions.


Material Model Soil Material Elastic Model Creep Property Plasticity Property 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AMOCO (1996), Personal Fax Communication, 6–12–1996.Google Scholar
  2. ASTM (2002), Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic Pull-out Resistance in Soil, ASTM D6706, ASTM Annual Book of Standards, Section Four, Vol. 4.09, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Dafalias, Y. F. and Hermann, L. R. (1986), Bounding surface plasticity. II: Application to isotropic cohesive soils, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 112(12), 1263–1291.Google Scholar
  4. Geotechnical Fabrics Report. (1994), 1995 Specifier's guide, 12(9), 169.Google Scholar
  5. Geotechnical Fabrics Report. (1997), 1998 Specifier's guide, 15(9), 74.Google Scholar
  6. Farrag, K. (1991), Pull-Out Testing Facility For Geosynthetics, Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Project No. 87-1GT, 225 p.Google Scholar
  7. Hibbitt, Karlson and Sorensen (1998), ABAQUS Standard User's Manuals, Version 5.8, Pawtucket, RI, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Perkins, S. W. (2001a), Numerical Modeling of Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana, Report No. FHWA/MT-01/ 003/99160–2, 97 p.Google Scholar
  9. Perkins, S.W. (2001b), Mechanistic-Empirical Modeling and Design Model Development of Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana, Report No. FHWA/MT-01/002/99160-1A, 170p.Google Scholar
  10. Perkins, S.W. (2000), Constitutive modeling of geosynthetics, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 18(5), 273–292.Google Scholar
  11. Perkins, S.W. and Cuelho, E.V. (1999), Soil-geosynthetic interface strength and stiffness relationships from pullout tests, Geosynthetics International, 6(5), 321–346.Google Scholar
  12. Wilson-Fahmy, R.F. and Koerner, R.M. (1993), Finite element modelling of soil-geogrid interaction with application to the behavior of geogrids in a pullout loading condition, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12(5), 479–501.Google Scholar
  13. Yogarajah, I. and Yeo, K.C. (1994), Finite element modelling of pullout tests with load and strain measurements, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 13(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
  14. Yuan, Z. and Chua, K.M. (1990), “Numerical Evaluation of the Pullout Box Method for Studying Soil-Reinforcement Interaction”, Transportation Research Record 1278, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, pp. 116–124.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. W. Perkins
    • 1
  • M. Q. Edens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations