Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Moisture on the Mechanical Behavior of Sand–Geogrid: An Experimental Investigation

  • Technical Note
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Soil–geosynthetic interaction is a key factor for designing and analyzing reinforced soil structures. In this investigation, the effect of different moisture content on the behavior of soil–geogrid interfaces is evaluated using direct shear and pullout tests. The results are presented and discussed in terms of direct shear and interface shear behavior, the frictional resistance of interfaces, efficiency factor, pullout resistance, pullout behavior, and apparent friction coefficient. The results revealed that a decrease in moisture content resulted in an increase in the both interface friction angle and adhesion of specimens. Moreover, the interface friction angle of sand–geogrid specimens in pullout tests was higher than that of direct shear tests. According to interface shear results, the efficiency factors ranged from 0.87 to 0.99. Based on pullout results, the apparent friction coefficient was found to be in the range of 0.77–1.72.

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

modified from Palmeira [7])

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Liu CN, Ho YH, Huang JW (2009) Large scale direct shear tests of soil/PET-yarn geogrid interfaces. Geotext Geomembr 27(1):19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ferreira FB, Vieira CS, Lopes M (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. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.15.00011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Infante DJU, Martinez GMA, Arrua PA, Eberhardt M (2016) Shear strength behavior of different geosynthetic reinforced soil structure from direct shear test. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(2):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0058-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Namjoo AM, Jafari K, Toufigh V (2020) Effect of particle size of sand and surface properties of reinforcement on sand-geosynthetics and sand–carbon fiber polymer interface shear behavior. Transp Geotech. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2020.100403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moraci N, Cardile G, Gioffrè D, Mandaglio MC, Calvarano LS, Carbone L (2014) Soil geosynthetic interaction: design parameters from experimental and theoretical analysis. Transp Infrastruct Geotechnol 1(2):165–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-014-0007-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Palmeira EM (2009) Soil–geosynthetic interaction: modelling and analysis. Geotext Geomembr 27(5):368–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bergado DT, Ramana GV, Sia HI (2006) Evaluation of interface shear strength of composite liner system and stability analysis for a landfill lining system in Thailand. Geotext Geomembr 24(6):371–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:7(540)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khoury CN, Miller GA, Hatami K (2011) Unsaturated soil–geotextile interface behavior. Geotext Geomembr 29(1):17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Esmaili D, Hatami K, Miller GA (2014) Influence of matric suction on geotextile reinforcement-marginal soil interface strength. Geotext Geomembr 42(2):139–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hatami K, Esmaili D (2015) Unsaturated soil–woven geotextile interface strength properties from small-scale pullout and interface tests. Geosynth Int 22(2):161–172. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.15.00002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. ASTM D3080 (2011) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  14. ASTM D2216 (2010) Standard test methods for laboratory determination of water (moisture content of soil and rock by mass). West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  15. CEN (2016) EN ISO 9863–1:2016 Geosynthetics—determination of thickness at specified pressures—Part 1: single layers. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  16. CEN (2005) EN ISO 9864:2005 Geosynthetics—test method for the determination of mass per unit area of geotextiles and geotextile-related products. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  17. CEN (2008) EN ISO 10319:2008. Wide-width tensile tests. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  18. ASTM D5321 (2014) Standard test method for determining the coefficient of soil and geosynthetic or geosynthetic and geosynthetic friction by the direct shear method. West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  19. Choudhary AK, Krishna AM (2016) Experimental investigation of interface behaviour of different types of granular soil/geosynthetics. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0044-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Toufigh V, Ouria A, Desai CS, Javid N, Toufigh V, Saadatmanesh H (2016) Interface behavior between carbon-fiber polymer and sand. J Test Eval 44(1):385–390. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE20140153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ASTM D698 (2012) Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort (12400 ft-lbf/ft3(600 kN-m/m3). West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  22. ASTM D6706 (2001) Standard test method for measuring geosynthetic pullout resistance in soil. West Conshohocken, PA

    Google Scholar 

  23. Toufigh V, Saeid F, Toufigh V, Ouria A, Desai CS, Saadatmanesh H (2014) Laboratory study of soil-CFRP interaction using pull-out test. Geomech Geoeng 9(3):208–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2013.813650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mirzaalimohammadi A, Ghazavi M, Roustaei M, Lajevardi SH (2019) Pullout response of strengthened geosynthetic interacting with fine sand. Geotext Geomembr 47(4):530–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Namjoo AM, Toufigh MM, Toufigh V (2019) Experimental investigation of interface behaviour between different types of sand and carbon fibre polymer. Eur J Environ Civ Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2019.1626290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. FHWA-NHI-00-043 (2001) Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes. Design and Constructions Guidelines. U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, USA

    Google Scholar 

  27. Prashanth V, Krishna AM, Dash SK (2016) Pullout tests using modified direct shear test setup for measuring soil–geosynthetic interaction parameters. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2(2):10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0050-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Civil and Surveying Engineering, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman, Iran

    Amir Mostafa Namjoo, Fazlollah Soltani & Vahid Toufigh

Authors
  1. Amir Mostafa Namjoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fazlollah Soltani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vahid Toufigh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Mostafa Namjoo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Namjoo, A.M., Soltani, F. & Toufigh, V. Effects of Moisture on the Mechanical Behavior of Sand–Geogrid: An Experimental Investigation. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 7, 5 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00243-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00243-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation