Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mechanical Behaviour of Sand-Geotextile Interface: Sharif University of Technology
Mechanical Behaviour of Sand-Geotextile Interface: Sharif University of Technology
Research note
KEYWORDS
Geotextiles;
Interface behaviour;
Direct shear test;
Sand.
Abstract In this study, interface direct shear tests were undertaken to investigate improvement in the
mechanical behaviour of granular soils when reinforced with geotextile inclusions. Unlike past studies,
various different parameters were investigated in the same study to uncover more assuring results. As
expected, the interface friction angle of the reinforced sand was found to be lower than that of the
unreinforced sand. No remarkable difference was seen in the shear strength of reinforced and unreinforced
sands, but in reinforced sand, there was no post-peak loss of strength, as seen in unreinforced sand.
Unexpectedly, geotextile inclusions did not restrict the soil from dilating. If the geotextile content was
increased in the test specimen, only then did the dilation of the sand decrease. At the end of the results,
it was concluded that the interface behaviour depends on the combined effects of the surface properties
and deformability of the geotextiles, and also on the index properties of the soil.
2012 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Composite materials combine the strength of two or more
different materials in a supplementary way and are extensively
used in different fields of engineering. From the same
point of view, reinforcements in soil have been extensively
used from Bablyonian times. Reinforcements enhance the
tensile force capacity of the composite system, thus reducing
the probability of potential failure and increasing overall
capacity. Nowadays, geosynthetic reinforcements are used as
an alternative design material, especially considering their
environmental and economical superiority in nearly all civil
engineering fields.
The interaction between soils and geosynthetics plays an
important role in general stability concerns. Thus, interface
behavior is one of the important factors in the design
of structures in order to check the internal stability of
geosynthetic-reinforced soils. There are two most important
failure criteria to be analysed in geosynthetic-reinforced
1026-3098 2012 Sharif University of Technology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scient.2012.06.009
S.C. Tuna, S. Altun / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 10441051
1045
Type/value
SW
SP
0.08
0.60
1.92
10.00
2.18
SW
2.65
17.90
66.7025.00
0.38
0.72
0.23
0.47
0.75
2.61
1.34
SP
2.65
15.80
63.0025.00
0.56
0.86
Figure 2: Different types of geotextiles used in the experiments (top from left
to right: the non-woven geotextiles NW1, NW2-a, and NW2-b; bottom from left
to right: the woven geotextiles, W1 and W2).
of all, and are softer and more flexible than the NW1 type nonwovens and W type woven geotextiles. NW1 have an average
mechanical behaviour compared to the other two types. Woven
geotextiles have the highest tensile strength, but the lowest
elongation at break values, which implies the stiffer nature of
the material compared to the other two groups.
From the literature survey, 5 of the possibly most important
factors to have important effects on the mechanical behaviour
of reinforced soils are selected and listed in Table 3.
As per ASTM D 5321 [14], both square and rectangular shear
boxes could be used for finding interface shear displacement
characteristics. These boxes should have a minimum dimension
of greater than 300 mm, 15 times the D85 of the coarser soil used
in the test, or a minimum of 5 times the maximum opening
size (in plan) of the geosynthetic tested. Most recent testing
1046
S.C. Tuna, S. Altun / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 10441051
Table 2: Types of geotextile used in the study (provided from the suppliers technical brochures).
Geotextile label
NW1
NW2-a
NW2-b
W1
W2
Geotextile type
Non-woven
Non-woven
Non-woven
Woven
Woven
Effect to be investigated
Equipment effect
Physical properties of
geomaterials
Confining pressure
Geosynthetic properties
0.46
2.50
1.00
Tensile strength
(N/m)
10,300
8,000
2,500
80,000
25,000
Elongation at
failure (%)
52
50
80
8.5013.50
1315
Openinge
size (mm)
0.10
0.17
0.12
0.23
Thickness
(mm)
Variables
Well-graded sand
Uniformly-graded sand
60 mm 60 mm shear box
100 mm 100 mm shear box
65% relative density
25% relative density
Low C . pressure
High C . pressure
5 different types
S.C. Tuna, S. Altun / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 10441051
Figure 6: Strength ratio of well-graded sand (SW) at 66.7% relative density with
5 different geotextiles.
1047
SWSW
SW-W1
SW-NW2-b
SW-NW2-a
SW-NW1
SW-W2
Normal stress/peak
shear stress (kPa)
27.20
54.50
109.00
39.00
45.60
49.10
44.60
24.70
67.20
71.10
75.00
67.50
77.00
51.50
69.20
128.60
104.70
124.40
115.10
102.90
106.80
Cohesion
Interface
(kPa)
friction angle ()
36.00
39.00
48.00
55.00
13.00
40.00
36.50
32.00
38.40
35.60
35.60
33.70
1048
S.C. Tuna, S. Altun / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 10441051
Table 5: Size effect on the results.
100 mm 100 mm shear box
Interface type
SPSP
SP-W1
SP-NW2-b
SP-NW1
SWSW
SW-W1
SW-NW2-b
SW-NW1
60 mm 60 mm shear box
Cohesion (kPa)
Cohesion (kPa)
18.16
14.33
8.37
8.27
0.00
12.76
9.77
8.00
30.58
30.10
36.23
35.23
42.13
32.57
37.61
35.30
39.56
22.17
29.23
30.02
36.47
39.31
48.93
13.38
34.31
30.89
32.73
32.95
36.57
32.32
38.47
35.65
2 layers of geotextile
No geo.
1 layer geotextile
SW-NW2-b
SW-NW1
SW-W1
SWSW
SW-NW2-b
SW-NW1
SW-W1
299.3
280.8
282.6
321.7
352.3
259.8
263.9
654
65.04
54.72
93.96
27.98
54.57
36.56
41.63
469.6
469.6
439.3
473.5
644.3
455.4
455.1
Cohesion
(kPa)
Interface
friction angle ()
981
100
100
100
44
43
50
41
641.9
641.9
617.8
781
767
730.3
652.9
100
100
100
41
52
54
50
127.7
103
111.4
36.48
48.93
13.38
39.31
27.66
28.91
27.15
36.57
38.47
35.65
32.33
Figure 10: Effect of soil dry density on peak shear stress with SP interfaces.
looser sand, as expected. In loose sands, the geotextile inclusions have some constraint on the volumetric expansion
behaviour of the sand, whereas, in the dense specimen, it is difficult to come to a result, because some geotextiles may move
into the soil and replace more of the sand particles than normally occurs. That is why the direct effect of geotextiles in
tan
tan
(1)
S.C. Tuna, S. Altun / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 10441051
1049
Table 7: Geotextile opening sizes and opening ratios (from manufacturers technical brochure).
Geotextile type/property
O90 (mm)
O90 /D50 -SW
O90 /D50 -SP
Tensile strength (kN/m)
W1
0.12
0.2
0.29
80
W2
0.2
0.33
0.48
25
W3
0.23
0.38
0.55
30
W4
0.25
0.42
0.6
40
W5
0.18
0.3
0.43
60
NW2-b
0.17
0.28
0.40
NW1
0.1
0.17
0.24
Figure 14: Effect of tensile strength of geotextile on the interface friction angle
under P = 327 kPa with SW sand.
Figure 11: Volumetric change relationship of a dense and loose SW sand with
different reinforcements. (a) under 27.2 kPa; and (b) under 327 kPa.
Figure 12: Two different woven geotextile types: PP 105/105 and PP 25/25
(right).
E
1.00
0.88
0.92
0.94
0.92
0.95
Interface type
SPSP
SP-W1
SP-W2
SP-W3
SP-W4
SP-W5
E
1.00
0.90
0.98
1.07
1.05
1.01
1050
S.C. Tuna, S. Altun / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 10441051
Figure 15: Results of direct shear tests with different reinforcements. (a) SP
(%25 rel. density); and (b) SW (%25 rel. density).
S.C. Tuna, S. Altun / Scientia Iranica, Transactions A: Civil Engineering 19 (2012) 10441051
Sahin Caglar Tuna received his B.S. degree from the Department of Civil
Engineering at Bogazici University, Turkey, in 2005. He is currently studying for
his Ph.D. degree in the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Geotechnical
Engineering, at Ege University, in Turkey. His main research topic includes
geotechnical earthquake engineering and experimental studies.
1051
Selim Altun received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Civil Engineering from Istanbul Technical University, Turkey, in 2002. Currently, he is Associate Professor
in the Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Geotechnical Engineering, at
Ege University, Turkey. His research interests include experimental geotechnical engineering and geotechical earthquake engineering.