Moraci2006 XKLSDFJ Sldru I Sieurhfksdjfh LÑSDF LÑJ SKDF H

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 220242

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem
Factors affecting the pullout behaviour of extruded geogrids

embedded in a compacted granular soil
Nicola Moracia,, Piergiorgio Recalcatib
a
Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Dep. MECMAT, via Graziella Loc. Feo di Vito, I-89060, Reggio Calabria, Italy
b
Technical Manager, TENAX S.p.A., Geosynthetics Technical Office, V.le Monza 1, 20127 Milano, Italy
Received 5 December 2004; received in revised form 21 February 2006; accepted 1 March 2006
Available online 21 April 2006
Abstract
In order to study the factors affecting the behaviour of reinforcement geogrids embedded in granular compacted soils, a large-scale
pullout test apparatus has been designed. More than 40 pullout tests have been performed, at constant displacement rate, on three
different HDPE extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil by varying the specimen lengths and the applied vertical
effective pressures. The different geogrids used in the research have been tested using unconned tensile tests performed at different
speeds, and, in particular, at the same speed of the pullout tests; granular soil have been characterized through classication, Proctor and
shear tests.
The pullout test results showed the inuence of the different parameters studied on pullout behaviour. Moreover, on the basis of the
test results it was possible to evaluate the peak and the residual pullout resistance and the apparent coefcient of friction mobilized in the
same conditions.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Pullout; Structure; Dilatancy; Interface; Extensibility; Conning stress
1. Introduction
Pullout tests are necessary in order to study the
interaction behaviour between soil and geosynthetics in
the anchorage zone; hence these properties have direct
implications to the design of reinforced soil structures. The
test method is intended to be a performance test conducted
as closely as possible to replicate design or as built
conditions (ASTM D 6706-01).
In order to analyse the internal stability of reinforced
earth structures, it is necessary to evaluate the pullout
resistance of reinforcement, mobilized in the anchorage
zone.
The pullout resistance in a pullout test can be described
by the following equations:
PR 2 L s0V f b tan f0 ,
(1)
Corresponding author. Tel.: +390965875263; fax: +390965875201.
E-mail addresses: moraci@ing.unirc.it (N. Moraci),

piergiorgio.recalcati@tenax.net (P. Recalcati).
0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.03.001
PR 2 L s0V mS=GSY ,
(2)
PR 2 L s0V a F ,
(3)
where PR is the pullout resistance (per unit width); L the

reinforcement length in the anchorage zone; s0V the
effective vertical stress; f0 the soil shear strength angle; fb
the soilgeosynthetic pullout interaction coefcient; mS/GSY
the soilgeosynthetic interface apparent coefcient of
friction; F* the pullout resistance factor; a the scale effect
correction factor account for a non-linear stress reduction
over the embedded length of highly extensible reinforcements (FHWA, 2001).
The soilgeosynthetic pullout interaction coefcient fb
may be determined by means of theoretical expressions
(Jewell et al., 1985), whose limits have been investigated by
different researchers (Ghionna et al., 2001; Moraci and
Montanelli, 2000; Palmeira and Milligan, 1989; WilsonFahmy and Koerner, 1993), or by back-calculation from
pullout test results. In this case previous experimental
studies (Ghionna et al., 2001; Moraci and Montanelli,
2000; Palmeira and Milligan, 1989) have shown that the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
N. Moraci, P. Recalcati / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 220242
Nomenclature
a
d
din
DSi
f0
f0 cv
f0 p
gdmax
mR
S/GSY
mS/GSY
s0V
Ab
Ar
At
Br
Bt
scale effect correction factor account for a nonlinear stress reduction over the embedded
length of highly extensible reinforcements
(dimensionless)
soil-interface friction angle (1)
displacement of the rst node of geogrid
specimen (mm)
differential displacement between two nodes
(mm)
soil shear strength angle (1)
shear strength angle at constant volume (1)
peak shear strength angle (1)
maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3)
soilgeosynthetic residual interface apparent
coefcient of friction (dimensionless)
soilgeosynthetic peak interface apparent coefcient of friction (dimensionless)
effective vertical stress (kN/m2)
competent area of each rib element where the
passive resistance can be mobilized (mm2)
node embossment area (mm2)
bar portion between two nodes area (mm2)
node thickness (mm)
thickness of the bar portion between two nodes
(mm)
values of fb are largely inuenced by the choice of the value

of the soil shear strength angle.
According to FHWA (2001) the scale effect correction
factor can be obtained from pullout tests on reinforcements
with different lengths or derived using analytical or
numerical load transfer models which have been calibrated through numerical test simulations. In the absence
of test data, a 0:8 for geogrids and 0.6 for geotextiles.
In absence of a clear indication regarding the choice of
the soil shear strength angle to be used for the determination of fb (or of the development of new theoretical
expressions that include the evaluation of all the parameters that inuence the mobilisation of the interaction
mechanisms), and to avoid the use of sophisticated
numerical analyses, the problem of the determination of
the pullout resistance may be overcome by the use of the
soilgeosynthetic interface apparent coefcient of friction
determined by means of large-scale pullout tests, using the
following expression:
mS=GSY
PR
.
2 L s0V
(4)
It is important to note that the determination of mS/GSY

using Eq. (4) can be performed without any assumption
about the values of the soil shear strength angle mobilized
at the interface, since all the parameters of the above
equation can be easily determined from the pullout tests.
d50
F*
fb
h
HPB
J2%
J5%
lo
L
LPB
LR
P
Pin
PR
PRR
Td
TF
U
W
WPB
wopt
Wr
Wt
221
average grain size (mm)

pullout resistance factor
soilgeosynthetic pullout interaction coefcient
(dimensionless)
soil thickness above the geosynthetic (m)
pullout box height (mm)
tensile stiffness at 2% of strain (kN/m)
tensile stiffness at 5% of strain (kN/m)
distance between two nodes (mm)
reinforcement length in the anchorage zone (m)
pullout box length (mm)
specimen length (m)
pullout force (kN/m)
pullout trigger force (kN/m)
peak pullout resistance (kN/m)
residual pullout resistance (kN/m)
long-term tensile strength (kN/m)
tensile strength (kN/m)
uniformity coefcient (dimensionless)
specimen width (m)
pullout box width (mm)
optimum water content (%)
node width (mm)
width of the bar portion between two nodes
(mm)
Nevertheless, it is important to dene the role of all the

design (and test) parameters on the mobilisation of the
interaction mechanisms (frictional and passive) in pullout
condition, including geosynthetic length, tensile stiffness,
geometry and shape, vertical effective stress (acting at the
geosynthetic interface) and soil shear strength.
This paper deals with some results of an experimental
research carried out in order to study the factors affecting
the pullout behaviour of extruded geogrids.
2. Previous experimental studies
In order to study the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics
embedded in soils several tests devices were developed by
different researchers. A pullout test apparatus is composed
by a rigid pullout box, a vertical load application system,
a horizontal force application device, a clamping system,
and associated instrumentation. Table 1 summarizes the
principal characteristics of the existing devices.
From Table 1 it is possible to notice important
differences both in the box dimensions and in the methods
used to minimise the effects of the boundary conditions on
the test results. Other differences can be seen in terms of
testing procedures.
Moreover, it is apparent that much of the difference in
pullout response reported in literature for similar constituent material properties (soil and reinforcement) may be
ARTICLE IN PRESS
222
Table 1
Summary of pullout test devices and testing characteristics
Research centre/references
Dimensions
LPB WPB HPB
(mm)
Test apparatus characteristics
Soil specimen
preparation
Type of test
California Department of
Transportation (Chang et al.,
1977)
Asian Institute of Technology
(Voottipruex et al., 2000)
Nagota University of
Technology (Sugimoto et al.,
2001)
University of Porto (Lopes
and Ladeira, 1996)
1300 910 510
Removable front plates
Mechanical
compaction
Constant
displacement rate
1270 762 508
Metal sleeves at the front wall; clamping

system outside the box
Flexible and rigid front wall; lateral walls in
acrylic material for X-ray analysis
Mechanical
compaction
Air pluviation
Constant
displacement rate
Constant
displacement rate

system outside the box; revetment of the
internal walls with thick neoprene sheet
Aluminium front and rear walls; side walls
glued with glass sheet; measurement of
pressures on front wall; clamping system
outside the box
Mechanical
compaction
Constant
displacement rate
Air pluviation

system inside the box; lubricated rubber
membranes on internal walls
system inside the box; specimen narrower
than the box width
Lubricated inside walls by means of greased
rubber membranes
Tamping and
mechanical
compaction
Mechanical
compaction
Constant
displacement rate;
cyclic tests at
different amplitude
and frequency
(0.10.01 Hz)
Constant
displacement rate
Different roughness of front wall perspex

side wall
Sleeves at the front wall; clamping system
inside the box; lubricated inside walls by
means of adhesive Teon lm
Air pluviation
680 300 625
1530 1000 800
University of British
Columbia (Fannin and Raju,
1993; Raju, 1995)
1300 640 600
Saga University (Alfaro et al.,

1995)
1600 600 500
Lousiana State University

(Farrag et al., 1993)
1520 900 760
Kyushu University (Ochiai

et al., 1992)
600 400 400
Oxford University (Palmeira

and Milligan, 1989)
University of Reggio Calabria
(Moraci et al., 2004)
254 150 500;

1000 1000 1000
1700 600 680
attributed to differences in test procedures, devices and in

associated boundary effects (Juran et al., 1988, Moraci and
Montanelli, 2000).
In order to analyse the inuence of boundary conditions
it is possible to compare the results obtained by different
researchers using instrumented pullout test devices (Chang
et al., 2000; Farrag et al., 1993; Farrag and Morvant, 2000;
Johnston and Romstad, 1989; Palmeira and Milligan,
1989; Raju, 1995; Sugimoto et al., 2001); the comparison of
these tests allows the following factors affecting test results
to be identied: boundary conditions at the upper surface
of the soil specimen; boundary conditions at the front wall;
friction between side walls and soil; pullout box dimensions; clamping device.
The soil specimen is usually conned in a large box with
rigid base and lateral sidewalls. The vertical conning
stress is applied by means of a rigid plate in contact with
the soil or by means of a exible membrane (usually
rubber) lled with liquid or gas (air bag). The second
system allows constant normal stresses and the possibility
of free vertical displacement at every point of the soil
surface contact area.
Air pluviation
Tamping
Constant
displacement
steps load
Constant
displacement
cyclic test
Constant
displacement
Constant
displacement
rate;
rate;
rate
rate
The inuence of the two different vertical load application devices has been studied by Palmeira and Milligan
(1989) who compared the results of pullout tests performed
with both rigid and exible devices. These tests show
clearly (Fig. 1(a)) that using a exible type load application
device the maximum pullout force is lower than the values
obtained using a rigid load application device.
It is important to note that the use of a exible
membrane allows a better and more uniform load
distribution on the whole contact area and consequently
a more uniform distribution of the effective stresses at the
specimen upper surface (Farrag et al., 1993).
The inuence of the boundary conditions at the front
wall was studied by many authors by means of pressure
cells placed at the front wall at different positions. These
measurements have shown that the pressure applied on the
front wall grows continuously as the test progresses (Chang
et al., 2000; Johnston and Romstad, 1989; Raju, 1995;
Sugimoto et al., 2001); the peak value is found in the
vicinity of the geogrid and than the pressure on the front
wall decreases symmetrically towards top and bottom
boundaries.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
223
4.0
2.0
Rigid top boundary
b /y
Pp:kN/0.15 m
y
1.0
2.0
b
Flexible top boundary

Leighton Buzzard sand 14/25
Grid 1, Lr = 75 mm
Grid 1, Lr = 75 mm
Leighton Buzzard sand 14/25

y = 25 kPa
y = 25 kPa
0
0
0
(a)
5.0
10.0
p : mm
0
(b)
20
40
: deg
Fig. 1. Boundary effects on pullout tests: (a) effects of top boundary; (b) effect of wall roughness (Palmeira and Milligan, 1989).
By comparing pullout test results carried out with

different roughness at the front wall (Fig. 1(b)) Palmeira
and Milligan (1989) have demonstrated that the apparent
friction angle mobilized at the interface increases with the
interface friction angle d between the front wall and the ll
soil. Moreover, the experimental results demonstrate that
the inuence of the stiffness of the front wall is lower for
large pullout boxes and for boxes having a large distance
between the rst conned section of the specimen and the
front wall (sleeves).
In order to study the inuence of the stiffness of the front
wall, Sugimoto et al. (2001) performed pullout tests with a
special equipment capable of providing both rigid and
exible boundary conditions. In the case of the rigid
boundary no displacement at the front wall was allowed;
vice versa, for the exible boundary (obtained by means of
two membranes lled with air in pressure and arranged
between the soil and the front wall of the box), free
movements at the front wall was possible.
Using X-ray techniques it was possible to study
(Sugimoto et al., 2001), for both the boundary conditions
at front wall, the behaviour at the soil reinforcement
interface. It was found that the stiffness of the front wall
inuences the distribution of the displacements along the
reinforcement length and therefore the mobilisation of the
interaction mechanisms. With a exible front wall there is
an uniform distribution of the interaction mechanisms
along the reinforcement, while with a rigid front wall the
interaction mechanisms (the skin friction, between soil and
reinforcement solid surface, and the bearing resistance, that
develops against transversal elements) along the reinforcement are not uniform.
This effect is explained by Sugimoto et al. (2001) as
the consequence of the local increment of the relative
density of the soil close to the front wall caused by an
imposed discontinuity in the displacements eld (rigid
front wall), that in the case of exible front wall is not

signicant.
Generally, in order to minimise the friction effects at the
front wall, low friction materials glued to the walls are
used. In addition, in order to avoid front wall effects the
front conned section of the reinforcement specimen is
moved to a suitable distance from the front wall by means
of metal sleeves xed to the front wall.
Different researchers (Bolt and Duszynska, 2000; Farrag
et al., 1993; Lopes and Ladeira, 1996; Raju et al., 1996)
have studied the inuence of the sleeve length on pullout
test results.
From the comparison of pullout tests carried out
without sleeves and with different sleeve lengths Farrag
et al. (1993) have observed that increasing the sleeve length
causes a reduction of the pullout resistance and of the
pressure exerted on the front wall. On the basis of test
results performed with different sleeve lengths, the authors
proposed to use sleeve length of 0.30 m in order to
minimise front wall effects.
Raju et al. (1996) have performed FEM analysis in order
to simulate different boundary conditions related to the
presence of a sleeve. From these analyses the presence of
the sleeves causes a reduction of the mobilised apparent
friction angle (dened as F*a) with respect to values from
tests without sleeves. This reduction is not affected by the
type of contact (frictional or smooth) between the soil and
the front wall. It was determined that the procedures used
to reduce the friction at the front wall (smooth material or
lubrication) are not enough to reduce the effect of the
presence of a rigid front wall if sleeves of sufcient length
are not used (at least 40 times the geogrid transversal bar
thickness).
Another important aspect are the boundary conditions
on the side walls of the pullout box. In test equipment
the effective vertical conning stress acting at the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
224
soilreinforcement interface is due to the normal stress

applied on the top soil specimen and to the weight of the
soil above the interface. Considering the thickness of the
soil layer above the reinforcement the friction developed
along the lateral walls of the pullout box can lead to
conning stresses lower than expected.
Johnston and Romstad (1989) measured the normal
stress close to the reinforcement by means of pressure cells;
due to the friction along the lateral walls, the reduction of
the vertical effective conning stress at the soilreinforcement interface can be reduced up to 35% with respect to
the net value applied to the soil on the top specimen surface
(using a test device with a ratio h/W 0.27; where h is the
thickness of the soil layer above the geosynthetic and W is
the box width). The same results were found by other
researchers (Chang et al., 2000; Farrag et al., 1993) using
test devices with the ratio h/W ranging from 0.42 to 0.44.
Such phenomena could explain the increase of pullout
resistance observed as the width of the reinforcement
specimen decreases (Bolt and Duszynska, 2000; Chang
et al., 2000; Farrag et al., 1993).
Also in these cases, in order to minimize the friction
effects at the side walls, low friction materials glued to the
walls (Teon, smooth aluminium, glass, lubricated rubber
membranes) were used.
Theoretical and experimental studies carried out by
Hayashi et al. (1996) and by Ghionna et al. (2001) have
shown that for reinforcement specimens having a width
smaller than the pullout box (narrow reinforcements) the
tendency of soil dilatancy develops a three-dimensional
effect. In fact, the non-dilating zone in the soil surrounding
narrower geogrid specimens (zone a in Fig. 2) behaves as a
restrain against soil dilatancy in the dilating zone (zone b in
Fig. 2). This in turn generates shear stresses at the border
between the two zones and produces an increase of the
effective normal stress on the soilgeogrid interface
and, consequently, an increase of pullout resistance. By
increasing the specimen width, the above-cited effect is
reduced because the soil area that blocks the dilatancy
decreases, and the shear stresses cannot be generated
anymore, due to the smoothness of the box walls lined with
Teon lm (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Scheme of the pullout interaction for narrow and wide specimens
(Ghionna et al., 2001).
Measurements of the vertical stress obtained by means of

small pressure cells distributed along the entire width of the
reinforcement specimen and at a vertical small distance
(20 mm) from the reinforcement (Hayashi et al., 1997)
showed that, provided that proper techniques are used to
reduce the friction between soil and the lateral walls, a
uniform distribution of the initial conning stress can be
obtained also for specimens having a width equal to the
pullout box width.
Similar results have been obtained by pullout tests
performed by Chang et al. (2000) on geogrid specimens
having different width and varying the friction at the inner
lateral wall interface by applying on the walls materials
with different roughness.
From the analysis of these data it can be concluded that
use of narrow reinforcement, in order to reduce the
inuence of the friction between soil and lateral pullout
box walls, can result in overestimation of the interaction
parameters obtained by laboratory tests; this overestimation is non-conservative for design when the geosynthetic is
used in reinforced soil, where the reinforcement element is
loaded under plain strain conditions.
Referring to the pullout box dimensions ASTM (D670601) recommends that the width of the box should be at
least 460 mm, for smooth lateral walls, and should be the
greater than 20 times the D85 of the soil or 6 times
the maximum soil particle size; the minimum length should
be at least 610 mm and should be greater than 5 times the
maximum geosynthetic aperture size. Moreover, the thickness of the soil above or below the geosynthetic should be a
minimum of 150 mm and at least 6 times the D85 of the soil
or 3 times the maximum soil particle size.
Other indications on the choice of the proper height of
the pullout box for open mesh geosynthetics (geogrid or
metallic meshes) are given by Moraci and Montanelli
(2000), who observed that the choice of the height of the
box should be connected with the dimension of the passive
wedges that develop from any transversal rib of the
reinforcement; according to the authors, the maximum
size of the passive wedge can be taken as 40 times the
thickness of the transversal rib of the geogrid. Moreover,
the box width is a function of the structure of reinforcement specimens.
Another important topic is the conguration of the
clamping device that is necessary to apply the pullout
tensile force. The clamping system can be either outside the
pullout box or inside it. With the second system the
clamping device is inserted a given depth into the test box,
in order to allow total connement of the reinforcement
during the test.
A comparative analysis of the inuence of the type of
clamping device on the correct interpretation of test results
has been done by Farrag and Morvant (2000). According
to Farrag and Morvant (2000), in the tests performed with
an external clamping device pullout curves should be
plotted referring to the displacement of a point of the
specimen that is as close as possible to the clamping device
ARTICLE IN PRESS
but that remains within the conning soil during the whole
duration of the test. In fact, the rst nodal displacement
inside the soil is less than the displacement in correspondence of the pullout force application point.
Moreover, the adoption of an external clamping system
leads to a reduction of the specimen anchorage length as
the test proceeds; this reduction must be considered in the
interpretation of the test.
The internal clamping device has two main advantages:
the anchorage length is constant for the whole duration of
the test; the displacement measured at the clamping device
is exactly the displacement of the rst conned section of
the geogrid (assuming that no relative movement can occur
within the clamp), and can therefore be used directly in the
test interpretation.
This clamping system requires a series of preliminary
calibration tests, that have to be done with the same
boundary conditions, on the clamping system without any
reinforcement, in order to evaluate the pullout resistance
developed by the clamping system alone.
3. Experimental research
3.1. Test apparatus
The test apparatus is composed by a pullout box
(1700 600 680 mm), a vertical load application system,
a horizontal force actuator device, a special clamp, and all
the required instrumentation, Fig. 3.
225
The pullout box consists of steel plates welded at the

edges; the front wall, at mid height, has an opening 45 mm
wide. This opening is necessary to allow the insertion of the
clamping device and of the sleeves, 0.25 m long, xed to the
front wall itself. A smaller opening (3 mm wide) is provided
at the back wall of the box in order to allow the connection
between the systems used to measure the internal displacements of the specimen and the transducers xed on the
external wall of the box.
An air lled cushion, in which the air pressure was
carefully controlled, applies the vertical load. A steel plate
is used to restrain the air cushion on the upper side.
An electric jack applies the pullout force, which is
measured using a load cell placed between the electric jack
and the clamping system (Fig. 4).
The apparatus is capable to produce conned failure of
the geosynthetic specimen using a clamp placed inside
the soil, well beyond the sleeve in order to keep the
geosynthetic specimen always conned in the soil for the
test duration (Fig. 5).
Friction between the soil and the side walls of the box is
minimised by use of smooth Teon lms.
The equipment incorporates two sleeves near the slot at
the front of the pullout box in order to avoid front wall
effects as recommended by a number of researchers
(Ghionna et al., 2001; Moraci and Montanelli, 2000;
Palmeira and Milligan, 1989).
The specimen displacements have been measured and
recorded using inextensible steel wires connected to at least
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(1)
(6)
(7)
Fig. 3. Scheme of pullout test apparatus: (1) frame; (2) steel plate; (3) air bag; (4) electric engine; (5) reducer; (6) load cell; (7) electric jack.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
226
six different points along the geogrid specimen. The wires

were connected to displacements transducers (rotary
variable displacement transducersRVDT) xed to the
external back side of the box (Fig. 5).
All the measurements were digitally recorded on a
personal computer at dened constant time intervals.
3.2. Test materials
Pullout tests have been performed on three different
HDPE extruded mono-oriented geogrids (respectively
described as GG1, GG2 and GG3).
The three geogrids show similar geometrical characteristics in plan view. They all have the same number of tensile
elements per unit width and longitudinal rib pitch, and
similar elliptical aperture shape. However, the three
geogrids have different cross sectional shape with main
differences in rib and bar thickness.
A more detailed analysis of the transversal bar geometry has also shown a non-uniform shape with greater
thickness at the rib intersection. The passive interaction
mechanisms develop both at the node embossments and
at the transversal bars. Therefore, the node embossment
and the transversal bar geometry have been carefully
determined to calculate the effective passive resistance
surfaces.
The results of this analysis are reported in Table 2,

where Wr and Br are, respectively the node width and
thickness; Wt and Bt are, respectively the width and
thickness of the bar portion between two nodes (Fig. 6),
and Ab is the effective area of each rib element (composed
of the node embossment and of the bar portion between
two nodes At+Ar) where the passive resistance can be
mobilized.
Due to the physicalchemical properties of the constituent polymer (HDPE), the geogrids have a viscous-elastoplastic behaviour when subjected to a tensile force. Due to
the viscous behaviour the geogrid mechanical properties
depend on test temperature and test rate. So the mechanical properties of the different geogrids were evaluated by
wide width tensile tests (EN ISO 10319) performed at
different displacement rates of 1 and 100 mm/min. These
speeds are respectively the pullout test rate and the
standard wide width tensile test rate. The tensile test
results at 1 mm/min displacement rate are reported in
Table 3.
A granular soil was used in these tests. The soil was
classied as a uniform medium sand with uniformity
coefcient U d60/d10 1.5 and average grain size
d50 0.22 mm. Standard Proctor compaction tests gave a
maximum dry unit weight gdmax 16.24 kN/m3 at an
optimum water content wopt 13.5%.
Direct shear tests, performed at an initial unit weight
equal to 95% of gdmax (obtained at a water content of 9%),
yield very high single values of the peak shear strength
angle f0 p, in the range 481 (for s0V 10 kPa) to 421 (for
s0V 100 kPa), Fig. 7. The shear strength angle at constant
volume f0 cv was 341.
Table 2
Structural characteristics of the different geogrids
Fig. 4. Electric jack and load cell.
Geogrid
Wr (mm)
Wt (mm)
Br (mm)
Bt (mm)
Ab (mm2)
GG1
GG2
GG3
11.26
11.86
12.36
6.6
6.0
5.5
3.80
4.65
5.16
3.57
4.48
4.85
66.35
85.35
90.45
Fig. 5. Clamping system, sleeves and displacement transducers.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
227
Fig. 6. Schematic cross section AA of the geogrid bar.
Table 3
Tensile stiffness and strength of the different geogrids at 1 mm/min
displacement rate
Geogrid
J2% (kN/m)
J5% (kN/m)
TF (kN/m)
GG1
GG2
GG3
946.5
1338.5
1903.0
719.5
1049.0
1354.8
73.06
98.99
118.29
1.2
Soil
tan'
1.1
0.9
(3) positioning of the clamp and connection to the geogrid specimen; the parallelism of the specimen with
the box length and perfect horizontality have been
carefully checked; a small preload was applied to
the geogrid in order to avoid any weaving in the
specimen;
(4) insertion of the inextensible wires into PVC tubes and
connection to the geogrid bars and to the electrical
transducers. The choice of the position of the measurement points has been done in order to guarantee at
least one monitoring point for every transversal bar of
the reinforcement specimen. The inextensible steel wires
were placed as close as possible to each other and
attached to the central part of the specimen, where
width reduction or rotation phenomena of transversal
bars are less likely. In order to investigate possible
rotation effects, measurements were taken on the
external edges (close to the lateral walls);
(5) lling and compaction of the soil in the upper half of
the box;
(6) closing the pullout box and connection of the top cover
and of the clamp with the load application devices
(normal and axial) and with the displacement monitoring system;
(7) set-up of the control and data acquisition instrumentation; start of the test.
3.4. Experimental plan
0.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
'v [kPa]
Fig. 7. Variation of tan f0 versus s0V for the tested soil.
3.3. Test procedure

The pullout test procedure was the following:
(1) preparation of the surfaces of the pullout box: in order
to minimize the friction between the soil and the box,
all the box walls have been covered with adhesive
Teon lm;
(2) lling and compaction of the soil in the lower half of
the box: the soil was initially dried in a oven at 105 1C
for 24 h, and then prepared at a water content of 9.3%;
after it was laid in the box in 100 mm thick layers and
manually tamped to a nal thickness of 0.30 m;
Pullout tests have been performed varying the specimen

length (LR 0.40, 0.90, 1.15 m) while keeping the specimen
width constant (W 0.58 m). Applied vertical effective
pressures were equal to 10, 25, 50 and 100 kN/m2. The
displacement rate was 1.0 mm/min in all tests. So, in the
research 36 different pullout test combinations were
studied (in order to assess the test repeatability some tests
were performed three times)
For each test condition, the friction between the clamp
and the test soil was evaluated by performing the test
without the geogrid, Fig. 8. The pullout force values due to
the clamp measured at each displacement level were
subtracted from the pullout force measured in the test
with the geosynthetic at the same displacement.
All the tests have been performed until geogrid rupture
or a total horizontal displacement of 100 mm was achieved.
For all the tests, the geogrid specimens remained conned
within the soil for its whole length.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
228
7.0
6.0
100 kPa
50 kPa
25 kPa
10 kPa
P [kN]
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Displacement [mm]
Fig. 8. Pullout curves for clamp alone at the different conning stresses.
4. Analysis of test results

In a preliminary analysis of the results of the performed
tests (Moraci and Recalcati, 2005) it has been possible to
have very simple yet important qualitative and quantitative
information about the pull-out mechanisms; in particular,
the inuence of the conning stress on the tensile failure
force and the relevance of the dilatancy effect on the pullout results have been observed; in this second phase of the
research programme the results have been studied in a
more complete and careful way, in order to give an
interpretation to the preliminary observations already
described and in general to all the obtained results.
4.1. Pullout resistance
From a pullout test it is possible to evaluate the peak
pullout resistance PR, corresponding to the maximum
value of pullout force measured in the test, and the residual
pullout resistance PRR, corresponding to the ultimate value
of pullout force at large displacements.
Fig. 9 shows, for the three different geogrids, the pattern
of the pullout force (P) versus the displacement, measured
at the edge attached to the clamp, for the longer
reinforcement specimens (LR 1.15 m). Fig. 10 shows the
pullout curves for the shorter reinforcements specimens
(LR 0.40 m). The different curves on the graphs are
referring to the different applied conning pressures.
Analysing the pattern of the pullout curves it is evident
that the pullout behaviour is strongly inuenced by the
applied conning stress and by the embedded geogrid length.
In fact, for all the geogrids used, the tests performed with
long specimens (LR 0.901.15 m) and conning pressure higher than 25 kPa show a strain-hardening behaviour, with a progressive increase of the pullout resistance
with the increase of the displacement. In these tests, due to
the clamp inserted into the soil, the mechanism of pullout
tensile failure, with the specimen constantly and fully
conned by the soil, has been properly studied.
In the tests carried out on GG1 and GG2 specimens

and at conning pressure equal to 100 kPa, pullout
tensile failure occurred. The tensile strengths in pullout
conditions were very close to the tensile strength obtained
by the tensile tests performed at the same rate as the
pullout tests. This means that, under these test conditions,
the inuence of connement on tensile strength was
negligible.
The results of tests performed on short specimens
(LR 0.40 m) and on long specimens under low conning
stress (10 and 25 kPa) show a strain-softening behaviour,
with a progressive decrease of pullout resistance after a
peak value.
The different trends in the pullout curves are due to the
effects of reinforcement length and of conning stress.
Long reinforcement specimens under high connement
stresses show extensibility; this fact induces a progressive
mobilisation of the interaction mechanisms that determine
the pullout resistance (Fig. 11(a)). On the other hand,
short reinforcement specimens or long specimens under
low connement stresses show lower longitudinal strains
(Fig. 11(b)) and then an almost immediate development of
the interaction mechanisms.
According to these results, the effect of extensibility is
more evident for high values of the conning stresses and
for long specimens.
The inuence on the pullout resistance of the conning
stress and of reinforcement length can be analysed by
means of Fig. 12, in which the black symbols indicate the
tensile failure.
These charts represent the peak pullout resistance PR for
different values of the conning stress; it is possible to note
a clear curvature in the experimental curves. This curvature
is more evident for short specimens, because under
pullout conditions the interaction mechanisms (the skin
friction, between soil and reinforcement solid surface, and
the bearing stress, that develops against transversal
elements, Jewell, 1996) probably develop simultaneously
along the whole specimen length.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
50
100 kPa
50 kPa
25 kPa
10 kPa
LR= 1.15 m
80
GG1
229
LR =0.40 m
100 kPa
50 kPa
25 kPa
10 kPa
GG1
40
P [kN/m]
P [kN/m]
60
40
30
20
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
displacement [mm]
80
100
20
40
60
displacement [mm]
80
100
120
LR = 1.15 m
100 kPa
50 kPa
25 kPa
10 kPa
GG2
LR= 0.40 m
60
80
100 kPa
50 kPa
25 kPa
10 kPa
GG2
50
P [kN/m]
P [kN/m]
100
70
60
40
40
30
20
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
dispalcement [mm]
160
LR = 1.15 m
140
100 kPa
50 kPa
25 kPa
10 kPa
GG3
120
20
40
60
displacement [mm]
80
LR =0.40 m
60
100 kPa
50 kPa
25 kPa
10 kPa
GG3
50
100
80
60
40
100
70
P [kN/m]
P [kN/m]
100
40
30
20
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
displacement [mm]
80
100
Fig. 9. Pullout curves for LR 1.15 m.
0
0
20
40
60
displacment [mm]
80
100
Fig. 10. Pullout curves for LR 0.4 m.
The curvature decreases with an increase in specimen

length, probably because of a non-uniform distribution
of the pullout resistant mechanisms along the specimen.
Fig. 12 also shows two horizontal asymptotes representing,
respectively, the peak tensile force of the geogrid (TF) and
the long term tensile resistance (Td) measured in constant
tensile load unconned creep tests (Moraci and Montanelli,

1995). These curves, obtained for different soil reinforcement combinations, could be used in design practice to
calculate, using adequate factors of safety, the minimum
ARTICLE IN PRESS
230
50
'v=50kPa
GG3
80
PR=81.77 kN/m
GG2
PR=78.62 kN/m
GG1
PR=62.79 kN/m
60
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
100
40
20
'v=50kPa
40
GG3
PR=41.17 kN/m
GG2
PR=39.68 kN/m
GG1
PR=30.95 kN/m
30
20
10
0
0
0
200
400
600
1000
800
Position along the specimen (mm)
(a)
1200
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Position along the specimen (mm)
(b)
Fig. 11. Displacement along the specimens: (a) LR 1.15 m; (b) LR 0.40 m.
140
100
GG1
GG1
120
Pullout failure
80
Pullout failure
60
PR [kN/m]
PR [kN/m]
100
Td
Td
40
1.15 m
20
0.90 m
50
75
100
125
1.15 m
40
0.90 m
0.40 m
0
25
Td
60
20
0.40 m
80
150
25
50
75
100
125
150
'v [kPa]
'v [kPa]
140
GG3
120
Pullout failure
PR [kN/m]
100
80
Td
60
1.15 m
40
0.90 m
20
0.40 m
0
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
'v [kPa]
Fig. 12. Peak pullout resistance envelopes (black points indicate tensile failure).
anchorage length that is necessary to mobilise the longterm design strength, once the long-term resistance under
pullout conditions is known.
From the same charts it is possible to say that pullout
of reinforcement is the limit state for short specimens
(regardless of the normal stress) and longer specimens with
vertical stress s0V o100 kPa, while for long specimens with
conning stress s0V 4100 kPa, the limit state is tensile
failure of the reinforcement.
Furthermore, it is possible to note, for the all the
geogrids tested, that the pullout resistance for long geogrid
specimens, at low conning stresses (1025 kPa), and for

short geogrids is lower than the long-term design strength.
In Table 4, the peak and the residual pullout forces
obtained in the tests are summarised.
From these data it is possible to note that the reduction
in pullout resistance from peak to residual values depends
on the conning stress and on the geogrid length. In
particular, the largest reductions are observed for short
specimens under low conning stresses (DP 3040%);
long specimens have a reduction from peak to residual
pullout resistance (strain-softening behaviour) only at low
ARTICLE IN PRESS
231
Table 4
Peak (PR) and residual (PRR) pullout resistance (kN/m) measured in the tests
Geogrid
Spec. length (m)
Normal stress s0V

10 kPa
GG1
GG1
GG1
GG2
GG2
GG2
GG3
GG3
GG3
a
0.40
0.90
1.15
0.40
0.90
1.15
0.40
0.90
1.15
25 kPa
50 kPa
100 kPa
PR
PRR
PR
PRR
PR
PRR
PR
PRR
9.62
16.62
20.00
13.42
21.32
26.96
12.84
19.85
24.35
5.63
12.14
14.76
8.44
15.43
19.53
7.36
15.48
19.61
20.26
34.55
37.13
24.76
39.99
51.43
22.72
41.80
47.75
13.29
29.79
34.32
15.43
32.14
44.00
13.64
34.69
43.79
30.95
52.53
62.79
41.18
70.07
75.62
37.68
72.95
81.77
18.93
50.34
62.79
24.04
62.46
75.62
25.18
61.27
81.77
39.79
78.44a
72.48a
56.59
103.91
106.91a
58.68
97.59
115.19
26.43
37.51
103.91
49.04
97.59
115.19
Specimen failure.
conning pressure, and this reduction is between 7% and

27%.
In order to analyse the inuence of the anchorage length,
and therefore the extensibility of the reinforcement, pullout
curves have been normalised with respect to LR.
Fig. 13 shows example curves referring to pullout tests
on the different reinforcement types for different conning
stresses. From the analysis of these curves it can be
observed that short reinforcement specimens (LR
0.40 m) develop a greater normalised peak pullout resistance with respect to longer reinforcement. At ultimate
conditions the P/LR values appear to be independent of the
reinforcement length.
These results conrm the inuence of the specimen
length, and therefore the extensibility of the reinforcing
element, on pullout behaviour, particularly at peak load.
To further appreciate the inuence of the vertical
conning stress on pullout behaviour, the pullout curves
have been normalised with respect to s0V (Fig. 14).
From these charts it is possible to notice an important
reduction in the normalised resistance passing from low to
high connement stress, both at peak and residual load
conditions.
The experimental results can be explained by means of
the soil dilatancy phenomenon that develops due to the
three-dimensional passive failure surfaces at the node
embossments and at the geogrid transversal bars.
Due to this phenomenon, the effect of which decreases
with an increase in conning vertical effective stress, two
main effects develop: the rst is due to the different work
necessary to expand the dilatancy surface at different
vertical effective conning stresses; the second effect is due
to the restriction of the dilatancy connected to the nearby
soil stiffness (constrained dilatancy), which yields a local
increment of the effective conning stress.
Fig. 15 shows, for the same test condition in terms of s0V
(10 and 100 kPa) and LR (0.40 and 1.15 m), the pullout
curves obtained for the three different geogrids. These
graphs show the inuence of reinforcement stiffness and
structural characteristics on pullout resistance. The experimental results, interpreted as a function of the different
longitudinal tensile stiffness, do not show a correlation. In
fact, the three geogrids have a different tensile stiffness, but
the differences in tensile properties cannot be associated
with a corresponding difference in pullout resistance.
By comparing the pullout curves for the same reinforcement length and applied vertical effective stress, it is
possible to note that the lower values of the pullout
resistance are associated with geogrid GG1, while the
higher values are associated with geogrid GG2 or GG3.
Therefore, while there is always an increase of the
pullout resistance by passing from geogrid GG1 to
geogrids GG2 and GG3, the comparison between GG2
and GG3 is less signicant with differences in the order
of 10%.
Since geogrid GG2 and GG3 have similar structural
characteristics including similar bearing area Ab (effective
area of each unit element: composed of the node
embossments and the half bar portion between two nodes)
against which the passive resistance is mobilised (Fig. 6 and
Table 2), it is possible to suppose that the values of the
pullout resistance are mainly inuenced by the structural
characteristics (geometry and shape) of the geogrids.
In fact, by comparing the experimental results of the
tests carried out on the three different geogrids, with the
same anchorage length and normal stress, independent of
the reinforcement extensibility and soil dilatancy effects, it
is possible to observe that the maximum percentage
difference of pullout resistance is in the order of 2049%
with an average value of 34%. These values are very close
to the percentage difference of the effective bearing areas
(Ab) between geogrid types upon which the passive
resistance is mobilised.
4.2. Interface apparent coefficient of friction
Fig. 16 shows the trend of the peak pullout interface
apparent coefcient of friction mS=GSY as a function of the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
232
80
70
0.40 m
'v=25 kPa
0.90 m
1.15 m
50
GG2
70
P/LR [(kN/m).m-1]
P/LR [(kN/m).m-1]
60
GG1
40
30
20
0.40 m
'v=25 kPa
0.90 m
60
1.15 m
50
40
30
20
10
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
Displacement (mm)
100
20
40
60
80
100
Displacement (mm)
200
GG3
P/LR [(kN/m).m-1]
180
0.40 m
'v=100 kPa
160
0.90 m
1.15 m
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
Displacement (mm)
100
Fig. 13. Normalised pullout curves (P/LR).
3.5
GG1
LR= 0.40 m
25 kPa
P/'V [(kN/m).kPa-1]
GG2
10 kPa
50 kPa
100 kPa
0.75
0.5
0.25
10 kPa
25 kPa
LR= 1.15 m
50 kPa
2.5
100 kPa
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
40
3
2.5
GG3
10 kPa
LR= 0.90 m
25 kPa
50 kPa
0.2
100 kPa
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
60
Displacement (mm)
Displacement (mm)
-1
P/'V [(kN/m).kPa ]
P/'V [(kN/m).kPa-1]
1.25
20
40
60
80
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 14. Normalised pullout curves (P=s0V ).
100
80
100
ARTICLE IN PRESS
25
45
LR= 0.40 m
GG3
'v=10 kPa
20
40
GG2
35
GG1
15
10
LR= 1.15 m
GG3
'v=10 kPa
GG2
GG1
30
P [kN/m]
P [kN/m]
233
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
displacement [mm]
'v=100 kPa
GG2
140
LR= 1.15 m
GG1
120
'v=100 kPa
50
100
100
P [kN/m]
P [kN/m]
80
160
GG3
LR = 0.40m
60
60
displacement [mm]
80
70
40
40
30
80
GG3
60
GG2
20
40
10
20
GG1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
40
60
80
100
displacement [mm]
displacement [mm]
Fig. 15. Pullout curves for the different geogrids for different
vertical effective applied stress. In each graph, the results

refer to the three different specimen lengths used. In the
same graphs also the curve of the variation of tan f0 versus
s0V for the tested soil are plotted.
In all the analysed cases it is possible to observe a
reduction in the mobilized peak pullout interface apparent
coefcient of friction with an increase in applied vertical
effective stress. Moreover, it is possible to notice that the
lower values of mS=GSY apply to longer specimens.
These results are due to two different phenomena: the
rst, of greater importance, is related to the soil dilatancy
phenomena; the second effect, of less intensity, is due to the
extensibility of the reinforcement that modies the interface tangential stress distribution and the corresponding
pullout strength.
Moreover it is possible to observe that peak mobilized
interface apparent coefcient of friction is greater than tan
f0 only in the case of short reinforcement at lower
conning pressures.
Analysing the test results, for equal reinforcement
lengths, one can observe that the peak mobilized interface
apparent coefcient of friction for low vertical effective
conning stress (10 kPa) is much higher than the corresponding one measured at higher vertical effective stresses
(50100 kPa) due to the dilatancy behaviour. In particular,
20
s0V
(10100 kPa) and LR (0.401.15 m).
the percentage variations due to dilatancy are up to 148%

for GG1, up to 137% for GG2 and up to 135% for GG3.
The greater percentage increments are for the geogrids
having shorter anchorage lengths (LR 0.40 m) and the
lower increments are for the longer anchorage lengths
(LR 1.15 m).
The reinforcement extensibility effects can be explored
further by comparing, for equal vertical effective connement stress, the peak apparent interface coefcient of
friction values determined for the long reinforcement
specimens (LR 1.15 m) with those evaluated for the
short ones (LR 0.40 m). In these cases the percentage
differences due to the reinforcement extensibility are up to
45% for geogrid GG1, up to 46% for geogrid GG2 and up
to 52% for geogrid GG3.
Fig. 17 shows the inuence of the reinforcement stiffness
and structural characteristics on the mobilized peak interface apparent coefcient of friction.
In these charts, the peak interface apparent coefcient of
friction is plotted as function of the vertical effective
conning stress. Also in these cases the experimental
results, interpreted as function of longitudinal tensile
stiffness, do not show a correlation. Vice versa, the test
results conrm that the values of the soilgeosynthetic peak
interface apparent coefcient of friction mS/GSY are mainly
ARTICLE IN PRESS
234
1.4
1.4
GG1
Lr =0.40m
Lr=0.90m
Lr=1.15m
Soil
1.2
S/GSY
tan'
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
20
40
60
80
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
100
S/GSY
Soil
1.6
Lr=1.15m
tan'
1.2
GG2
Lr =0.40m
Lr=0.90m
1.6
20
40
'v [kPa]
60
80
100
'v [kPa]
GG3
1.6
Lr =0.40m
1.6
Lr=0.90m
Lr=1.15m
1.2
0.8
0.8
tan'
1.2
S/GSY
Soil
0.4
0.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
'v [kPa]
Fig. 16. Peak interface apparent friction coefcient vs. s0V for different reinforcement lengths.
inuenced by the structural characteristics (geometry and

shape) of the geogrids.
In fact, by comparing the experimental results of the
tests carried out on the three different geogrids, with the
same anchorage lengths and normal stress, independent of
reinforcement extensibility and dilatancy effects, it is
possible to observe that the maximum percentage differences of mS/GSY are very close to the percentage difference
of the effective bearing areas (Ab) between geogrid types
against which passive resistance is mobilized.
The residual interface apparent coefcient of friction can
be evaluated by means of the following expression:
mR
S=GSY
PRR
.
2 LR s0V
(5)
Fig. 18 shows, for the different geogrids, the trend of the

residual pullout interface apparent coefcient of friction as
a function of the vertical effective applied stress. These
results show that the residual pullout interface apparent
coefcient of friction does not depend on the reinforcement

length but only on applied conning stress.
Furthermore, comparing the results obtained for the
three different geogrids it is possible to note that mR
S=GSY
depends on geogrid geometry.
4.3. Displacements
Fig. 19 represents a qualitative distribution of the nodal
displacements of the reinforcement specimen for different
values of the applied pullout forces. The slope of every
curve (DSi/lo) represents the local strain ei (Fig. 19). By
comparing the slope, in the same location, of two different
nodal displacement curves (i.e. for two different values of
the applied pullout force) it is possible to obtain the
increment of strain. The pullout phase, in which the
interaction mechanisms develop along the whole reinforcement length, is characterized by a progressive reduction of
the strain increment rate until a limit state condition, in
ARTICLE IN PRESS
235
1.6
2
LR= 0.40 m
LR = 0.90m
GG3
1.6
GG2
GG3
GG2
1.2
GG1
1.2
S/GSY
S/GSY
GG1
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20
40
60
80
100
120
Normal stress 'V [kPa]

1.6
LR = 1.15m
GG3
1.2
GG2
S/GSY
GG1
0.8
0.4
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Fig. 17. Peak interface apparent coefcient of friction vs. s0V for different geogrids.
which no increment of strain along the reinforcement

occurs.
The pullout condition is reached when two adjacent
curves, as the two at the top in Fig. 19, are parallel each
other.
The curves in Figs. 2025 represent the distributions of
the nodal displacements of the reinforcement specimen for
different values of the applied pullout forces. These curves
refer only to the maximum and minimum values of the
applied stress (10 and 100 kPa) and to the maximum and
minimum values of the reinforcement length (LR 0.40
and 1.15 m).
In particular, Figs. 20(a)25(a) refer to tensile load
transfer phase and the onset of pullout (trigger force).
During the load transfer phase, the portion of the specimen
developing the interaction mechanisms that determines the
pullout resistance (active length) increases with the pullout
force until it reaches a limit value that causes the movement
of the last bar; this force can be dened as the pullout
trigger force, Pin.
Figs. 20(b)25(b) represent the displacement distributions corresponding to different applied pullout forces: the
pullout trigger force (Pin); an intermediate value between
the trigger force and the maximum pullout force measured
during the test; the maximum pullout force measured
during the test; the residual pullout force PRR measured

during the test.
It is important to note that for tests showing a strain
hardening behaviour in terms of pullout resistance (i.e. for
long reinforcements and high conning stresses
Figs. 23(b) and 25(b)) the displacements distributions show
a continuous increase in pullout force (from bottom to top).
The pullout condition is reached when the top curves in
Figs. 20(b)25(b) are parallel each other as in the case of
short reinforcements (LR 0.40 m) and for low values
of the connement stress (s0V 10 kPa). On the other hand,
for long reinforcements (LR 1.15 m) and for high
connement stresses (s0V 100 kPa), increments of the
average strains along the whole specimen length are also
present at large displacements of the rst conned node. In
this study, pullout conditions were also considered to be
reached for high values of the displacement (100 mm).
The nodal displacement distributions conrm the different pullout behaviour of reinforcement due to a variation
of the length and the connement stress. In fact short
reinforcements at all connement stresses and long
reinforcements for low values of s0V show an almost
uniform distribution of nodal displacements; vice versa
long reinforcement, at high connement stress, show
non-linearity of the nodal displacements distribution.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
236
1.6
1.6
0.40 m
Geogrid GG1
0.40 m
Geogrid GG2
0.90 m
1.2
1.15 m
R S/GSY
R S/GSY
1.2
0.90 m
0.8
0.4
1.15 m
0.8
0.4
0
0
20
40
60
'v [kPa]
80
100
120
20
40
60
'v [kPa]
80
100
120
1.6
Geogrid GG3
0.40 m
0.90 m
R S/GSY
1.2
1.15 m
0.8
0.4
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
'v [kPa]
Fig. 18. Residual interface apparent coefcient of friction vs. s0V for different geogrids.
=2-1
Pi=pullout load
displacement
s3
3=2
s2
2
P3
s1
P2
P1
|0
position along the specimen
Fig. 19. Nodal displacement curves.
These differences are related to the effect of reinforcement extensibility on the mobilization of interface mechanisms. In particular, for long reinforcements and for high
values of s0V , a progressive mobilization of the interface
interaction mechanism develops; on the other hand, for
short reinforcement and for long reinforcement at low
values of s0V these mechanisms are activated almost at the
same time along the whole reinforcement. As a consequence, for long reinforcements with high values of s0V , the
mobilized interface shear strength angle seems to be
between the peak and the constant volume values. Vice
versa, for short reinforcement and long reinforcement and
low values of s0V , because of an almost uniform mobilization of the resistance along the reinforcing element, the
mobilized interface shear strength angle is close to the peak
value.
Furthermore, the nodal displacement curves can be used
in displacement stability analysis methods because from
these curves it is possible to obtain, for different anchorage
length and connement stress, the pullout resistance values
that are mobilized for given displacement values of the
section that represents the boundary limit between the
active zone and the anchorage length, Fig. 26.
From the displacements curves it is also possible to
obtain the pullout force that causes the movement of the
last bar, Pin. This is the load value that occurs at complete
mobilization of the anchorage length, and the correspondent displacement of the last node din.
From the analysis of the experimental results it is
possible to note that, for geogrid GG1, Pin values fall
between 4.58 and 19.86 kN/m for short reinforcements
(LR 0.40 m) and between 14.59 and 45.09 kN/m (value
measured at 50 kPa) for long reinforcements (LR
1.15 m), Fig. 27. For geogrid GG2, Pin values are larger
than the GG1 ones and fall between 6.52 and 24.40 kN/m
ARTICLE IN PRESS
8
GG1
4.58 kN/m
LR = 0.40 m
1.2
Displacement [mm]
displacement [mm]
1.6
4.03 kN/m
'v = 10 kPa
0.8
0.4
100
200
300
Position along the specimen [mm]
(a)
11.69 kN/m
'v = 10 kPa
11.05 kN/m
9.00 kN/m
4.84 kN/m
200
400
400
600
800
1000
100
Displacement [mm]
100
Displacement [mm]
14.59 kN/m
LR = 1.15 m
0
0
80
5.63 kN/m
GG1
60
9.62 kN/m
LR = 0.40 m
40
5.63 kN/m
'v = 10 kPa
20
4.58 kN/m
80
60
40
GG1
14.76 kN/m
LR = 1.15 m
20.00 kN/m
14.75 kN/m
'v = 10 kPa
14.59 kN/m
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
200
(b)
400
600
800
1000
Fig. 20. Displacements measured along the specimen (for GG1 and
s0V
10 kPa): (a) tensile force transfer; (b) pullout phase.
48
GG1
19.86 kN/m
LR = 0.40 m
'v = 100 kPa
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
GG1
12.63 kN/m
3
2
1
40
GG1
72.48 kN/m
LR= 1.15 m
72.03 kN/m
32
'v = 100 kPa
42.39 kN/m
24
failure
29.57 kN/m
14.32 kN/m
16
8
0
0
(a)
237
100
200
300
400
200
600
800
1000

GG1
100
Displacement [mm]
400
LR = 0.40 m
80
'v = 100 kPa
60
40
26.36 kN/m
26.36 kN/m
39.78 kN/m
19.86 kN/m
20
0
0
(b)
200
400
Fig. 21. Displacements measured along the specimen (for GG1 and s0V 100 kPa): (a) tensile force transfer; (b) pullout phase.
for short reinforcements and between 18.61 and 90.53 kN/

m for long reinforcements, Fig. 28. Finally, analysing the
results obtained for geogrid GG3, it is possible to note that
Pin values are similar to the ones obtained for GG2; in

particular they fall between 5.07 and 27.51 kN/m for
LR 0.40 m and between 16.22 and 92.80 kN/m for
ARTICLE IN PRESS
238
8
GG2
6.52 kN/m
GG2
18.61 kN/m
LR = 0.40 m
4.71 kN/m
LR= 1.15 m
13.52 kN/m
1.6
'v= 10 kPa
'v = 10 kPa
13.14 kN/m
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
2.4
1.2
0.8
0.4
7.51 kN/m
2
0
0
0
100
200
300
400
200
GG2
LR =0.40 m
'v = 10 kPa
80
8.44kN/m
14.42 kN/m
8.45kN/m
60
40
600
800
1000
1200
GG2
LR = 1.15m
100
Displacement [mm]
100
400
(a)
Displacement [mm]
12.14 kN/m
6.52kN/m
20
80
'v = 10 kPa
60
19.53 kN/m
26.96 kN/m
19.50 kN/m
40
18.61 kN/m
20
0
0
0
100
200
300
400
200
(b)
400
600
800
1000
1200
GG2
LR = 0.40 m
'v = 100 kPa
60
24.40 kN/m
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
16.26 kN/m
3
2
1
0
'v = 100 kPa
46.18 kN/m
65.49 kN/m
39.99 kN/m
30
16.70 kN/m
20
10
100
200
300
400
(a)
100
GG2
LR = 0.40 m
100
'v = 100 kPa
80
37.51 kN/m
56.59 kN/m
37.54 kN/m
60
40
24.40 kN/m
20
200
400
600
800
1000
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
40
90.53 kN/m
0
0
GG2
LR = 1.15m
80
106.91kN/m
90.53 kN/m
'v =100 kPa
60
failure
40
20
0
0
0
(b)
50
GG2
LR= 1.15 m
200
400
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
LR 1.15 m, Fig. 29. In every analysed case the lower

values are obtained at low connement stress, and the
higher values at high connement stress.
Moreover, it is possible to note that the trigger force
represents a percentage of the peak pullout force that is
between 35% and 73% for geogrid GG1, between 30% and
72% for geogrid GG2 and between 32% and 72% for
geogrid GG3. In any case, the lower values of the ratio
Pin/PR refer to short reinforcements, while the higher
values refer to long reinforcement specimen lengths.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2.4
LR = 0.40 m
1.8
3.92 kN/m
'v= 10 kPa
1.2
0.6
0
100
200
'v = 10 kPa
16.22 kN/m
12.94 kN/m
9.63 kN/m
7.05 kN/m
5.76 kN/m
2
1
0
400
80
40
400
600
800
1000
80
GG3
LR = 1.15m
'v = 10 kPa
60
19.62 kN/m
100
7.36k N/m
10.84 kN/m
7.35 kN/m
60
200
1200
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
300
GG3
LR =0.40 m
'v = 10 kPa
100
5.07 kN/m
20
0
24.34 kN/m
40
19.61 kN/m
16.22 kN/m
20
0
0
100
200
300
400
(b)
GG3
30.81 kN/m
LR = 0.40 m
'v = 100 kPa
25.26 kN/m
s0V
400
600
800
1000
1200
24
3
2
1
GG3
LR= 1.15 m
'v = 100 kPa
20
Displacement [mm]
200
Displacement [mm]
LR= 1.15 m
(a)
16
75.11 kN/m
74.10 kN/m
51.01 kN/m
29.25 kN/m
12
10.43 kN/m
8
4
0
0
100
200
300
400
(a)
120
60
49.08
58.68
49.08
30.81
40
20
Displacement [mm]
80
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
GG3
LR = 0.40 m
'v = 100 kPa
100
Displacement [mm]
GG3
0
0
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
GG3
LR= 1.15 m
'v = 100 kPa
100
80
115.15 kN/m
101.79 kN/m
88.44 kN/m
75.11 kN/m
60
40
20
0
0
(b)
6
5.07 kN/m
Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]
GG3
239
200
400
400
600
800
1000
From the analysis of the displacement values that are

necessary to trigger the pullout mechanism, it is possible to
note that, these values increase with specimen length and
200
s0V
with effective connement stress. For the test performed on

geogrid GG1 the trigger displacements fall between 1.17
and 4.03 mm for LR 0.40 m and between 5.43 and
ARTICLE IN PRESS
240
100
DISPLACEMENTS
METHOD
Lr=1.15m
GG2
Lr=0.40m
80
j
Pin [kN/m]
z
j
j
p
Laj
zj
M
H
sheetj
60
40
j
Laj
II
I
20
Z
REINFORCED
SOIL MASS
0
0
20
40
Critical slip line

Fig. 26. Denition of the displacements method: (I) active zone; (II)
anchorage zone; Lpaj anchorage length (Gourc et al., 1986).
80
60
'v [kPa]
80
100
Fig. 28. Curves Pin vs. s0V for GG2.
100
GG1
Lr=0.40m
GG3
Lr=0.40m
Lr=1.15m
Lr=1.15m
80
Pin [kN/m]
Pin [kN/m]
60
40
20
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
'v [kPa]
20
40
60
80
100
'v [kPa]
43.60 mm for LR 1.15 m. For geogrid GG2 the same

values fall between 1.63 and 3.56 mm for short reinforcements and between 5.66 and 53.09 mm for long reinforcements. Finally, for geogrid GG3 the values fall between
1.60 and 4.16 mm for LR 0.40 m and between 4.13 and
55.08 mm for LR 1.15 m. In each of these cases the lower
values refer to low values of the connement stress while
the higher values refer to high values of the connement
stress.
It is noteworthy to highlight that for every test in which a

conned rupture of the specimen occurred, it happened
after reaching the pullout trigger condition and then in the
phase previously indicated as the pullout phase, apart
form the test carried on geogrid GG1 with LR 1.15 m
and s0V 100 kPa: in this test the tensile failure of the
reinforcing element has occurred before pullout trigger.
Therefore, the greatest displacements almost always refer
to pullout forces close to the conned peak tensile load of
ARTICLE IN PRESS
the reinforcement, and they are obtained at the highest

connement stress values and the highest specimen length.
5. Conclusions
The test results clearly show the inuence of the different
parameters studied (reinforcement stiffness and structure,
embedded length and vertical effective stress) on the
pullout behaviour of three mono-oriented extruded geogrids embedded in a granular soil. In particular, the main
conclusions are:

The tensile strength in pullout conditions is very close to

the tensile strength obtained by in air tests performed at
the same rate of displacement as pullout tests. This
means that the inuence of soil connement on
reinforcement tensile strength is negligible.
The pullout behaviour depends on reinforcement length
and on the applied vertical stress. In particular, the tests
performed with long specimens (LR 1.15 m) and
conning stresses larger than 25 kPa show a strainhardening behaviour. In this case it is possible to say
that the pullout interaction mechanism develops progressively along the reinforcement specimens, with a
progressive increase of the pullout resistance with an
increase in displacement. The tests performed on
short specimens (LR 0.40 m) and on long specimens
under low conning stress show a strain softening
behaviour, with a progressive decrease of pullout
resistance after peak load. In this case, the interaction
mechanisms develop almost at the same time along the
whole length of the specimen.
The phenomenon that has the largest inuence on
pullout strength and on the interface apparent coefcient of friction (mS/GSY), both at peak and residual load
conditions, is the dilatancy of the soil at the interface.
Due to dilatancy effects, the interface apparent coefcient of friction mobilized at low vertical effective
conning pressure (10 kPa) is higher than at high
conning pressure (50 or 100 kPa). The dilatancy
phenomenon is related to development of passive failure
surfaces, which are generated against the node embossments and the geogrid transversal bars. The maximum
percentage differences of interface apparent coefcient
of friction (up to 150%), due to the dilatancy effects,
were observed for the short reinforcement layers
(LR 0.40 m).
The experimental results have also shown that the
extensibility of reinforcement has an inuence on peak
pullout strength. In particular, extensibility effects are
more evident for long reinforcements and at high
conning stresses (up to 50%). Under residual pullout
load conditions, the extensibility effects are negligible.
The empirical results also show an increase of peak and
residual pullout strength, and therefore of the mobilized
interface apparent coefcient of friction, while increasing the competent bearing area of the each node (Ab),
241
against which passive mechanisms are mobilized. The

difference in values of interface apparent coefcient of
friction related to the geogrid structure (shape and
geometrical characteristics) are up to 49% with an
average value of 34%. These values are very close to the
percentage differences of the effective bearing areas (Ab)
between the geogrids against which the passive resistance is mobilized.
The pullout resistance decrement after peak load is
related to both reinforcement length and conning
stress.
The residual interface apparent coefcient of friction
depends only on applied vertical stress and geogrid
geometry. In these conditions mR
S/GSY does not depend
on reinforcement length.
The node displacements curves obtained by pullout tests
may be useful in stability analysis performed by means
of displacement methods.
References
Alfaro, M.C., Miura, N., Bergado, D.T., 1995. Soilgeogrid reinforcement
interaction by pullout and direct shear tests. Geotechnical Testing
Journal 18, 157167.
ASTM D 6706-01, 2001. Standard test method for measuring geosynthetic
pullout resistance in soil. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Bolt, A.F., Duszynska, A., 2000. Pull-out testing of geogrid reinforcement.
Proceedings of the Second European Geosynthetics Conference
EUROGEO 2000, vol. 2, Bologna, Italy, pp. 939943.
Chang, J.C., Hannon, J.B., Forsyth, R.A., 1977. Pullout resistance and
interaction of earthwork reinforcement and soil. Transportation
Research Record 640. National Research Council, Washigton, DC,
pp. 17.
Chang, D.T.T., Chang, F.C., Yang, G.S., Yan, C.Y., 2000. The inuence
factors study for geogrid pullout test. In: Stevenson, P.E. (Ed.), Grips,
Clamps, Clamping Techniques, and Strain Measurement for Testing of
Geosynthetics, ASTM STP 1379. American Society for Testing and
Materials, pp. 129142.
EN ISO 10319, 1992. Geotextile wide-width tensile test. International
Organization for Standardization, ISO, Geneve.
Fannin, R.J., Raju, D.M., 1993. Large-scale pull-out test results on
geosynthetics. Proceedings of Geosynthetics 93 Conference, vol. 2.
Vancouver, Canada. pp. 633643.
Farrag, K., Morvant, M., 2000. Effect of clamping mechanism on pullout
and conned extension tests. In: Stevenson, P.E. (Ed.), Grips, Clamps,
Clamping Techniques, and Strain Measurement for Testing of
Geosynthetics, ASTM STP 1379, American Society for Testing and
Materials, 8996.
Farrag, K., Acar, Y.B., Juran, I., 1993. Pull-out resistance of geogrid
reinforcements. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12, 133159.
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.
Ghionna, V. N., Moraci, N., Rimoldi, P., 2001. Experimental evaluation
of the factors affecting pull-out test results on geogrids. Proceedings of
International Symposium: Earth Reinforcement. Fukuoka, Kyushu,
Japan.
Gourc, J.P., Ratel, A., Delmas, P., 1986. Design of fabric retaining walls:
the displacement method. Proceedings of Third International Conference on Geotextiles, vol. 2, Wien, Austria, pp. 289294 and
10671072.
Hayashi, S., Alfaro, M.C., Watanbe, K., 1996. Dilatancy effects of
granular soil on the pullout resistance of strip reinforcement.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
242
Proceedings of the International Symposium: Earth Reinforcement,

Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan, pp. 3944.
Hayashi, S., Shaliu, J.T., Watanbe, K., 1997. Effect of restrained dilatancy
on pullout resistance of strip reinforcement. Proceedings of Geosynthetics Asia97, vol. 1, Bangalore, India, pp. 3944.
Jewell, R.A., 1996. Soil reinforcement with geotextiles. CIRIA Special
Publication 123, Thomas Telford ISBN:0-7277-2502-5.
Jewell, R.A., Milligan, G.W.E., Sarsby, R.W., Dubois, D., 1985.
Interaction between soil and geogrids. Proceedings from the Symposium on Polymer Grid Reinforcement in Civil Engineering, Ed.
Thomas Telford, London, pp. 1830.
Johnston, R.S., Romstad, K.M., 1989. Dilation and boundary effects in
large scale pull-out tests. Proceedings of 12th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 2, Rio De
Janeiro, Brasil, pp. 1263l266.
Juran, I., Knochenmus, G., Acar, Y.B., Arman, A., 1988. Pullout response
of geotextiles and geogrids (synthesis of available experimental data).
Symposium on Geosynthetics for Soil Improvement, vol. 18, ASCE
Geotechnical Publication, pp. 92111
Lopes, M.L., Ladeira, M., 1996. Role of specimen geometry, soil height
and sleeve length on the pull-out behaviour of geogrids. Geosynthetics
International 3 (6), 701719.
Moraci, N., Montanelli, F., 1995. Comportamento a breve ed a lungo
termine di due geosintetici con funzione di rinforzo. Associazione
Geotecnica Italiana. IXX Convegno Nazionale di Geotecnica. vol. 1,
Pavia, pp. 369380.
Moraci, N., Montanelli, F., 2000. Analisi di prove di sf` lamento di
geogriglie estruse installate in terreno granulare compattato. Rivista
Italiana di Geotecnica N. 4/2000, pp. 521.
Moraci, N., Recalcati, P., 2005. Pullout resistance of extruded geogrids
embedded in a compacted granular soil. Sixteenth International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3,

Osaka, Japan, pp. 13891392.
Moraci, N., Romano, G., Montanelli, F., 2004. Factors affecting the
interface apparent coefcient of friction mobilised in pullout condition. Third European Geosynthetics Conference, vol. 1, Monaco,
pp. 313318.
Ochiai, H., Hayashi, S., Otani, J., Hirai, T., 1992. Evaluation of pull-out
resistance of geogrid reinforced soils. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Fukuoka, Kyushu,
Japan, 141146.
Palmeira, E.M., Milligan, G.W.E., 1989. Scale and other factors affecting
the results of pull-out tests of grid buried in sand. Geotechnique 11 (3),
511524.
Raju, D.M., 1995. Monotonic and cyclic pullout resistance of geosynthetic. Ph.D. Thesis. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada.
Raju, D.M., Lo, S.C.R., Fannin, R.J., Gao, J., 1996. Design and
interpretation of large laboratory pullout tests. Proceedings of the
Seventh AustraliaNew Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Adelaide, Australia, pp. 151156.
Sugimoto, M., Alagiyawanna, A.M.N., Kadoguchi, K., 2001. Inuence of
rigid and exible face on geogrid pullout tests. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 19, 257277.
Voottipruex, P., Bergado, D.T., Ounjaichon, P., 2000. Pullout and
direct shear resistance of hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement in
weathered Bangkok clay. Geotechnical Engineering Journal 31 (1),
4362.
Wilson-Fahmy, R.F., Koerner, R.M., 1993. Finite element modelling of
soilgeogrid interaction with application to the behavior of geogrids in
a pullout loading condition. Geotextiles and Geornembranes 12,
479501.

Moraci2006 XKLSDFJ Sldru I Sieurhfksdjfh LÑSDF LÑJ SKDF H

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moraci2006 XKLSDFJ Sldru I Sieurhfksdjfh LÑSDF LÑJ SKDF H

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 220242

Factors affecting the pullout behaviour of extruded geogrids

Corresponding author. Tel.: +390965875263; fax: +390965875201.

E-mail addresses: moraci@ing.unirc.it (N. Moraci),

where PR is the pullout resistance (per unit width); L the

values of fb are largely inuenced by the choice of the value

It is important to note that the determination of mS/GSY

average grain size (mm)

Nevertheless, it is important to dene the role of all the

N. Moraci, P. Recalcati / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 220242

Test apparatus characteristics

1300 910 510

Removable front plates

1270 762 508

Metal sleeves at the front wall; clamping

Metal sleeves at the front wall; clamping

Metal sleeves at the front wall; clamping

Different roughness of front wall perspex

680 300 625

1530 1000 800

1300 640 600

Saga University (Alfaro et al.,

1600 600 500

Lousiana State University

1520 900 760

Kyushu University (Ochiai

600 400 400

Oxford University (Palmeira

254 150 500;

attributed to differences in test procedures, devices and in

Flexible top boundary

Leighton Buzzard sand 14/25

By comparing pullout test results carried out with

front wall), that in the case of exible front wall is not

N. Moraci, P. Recalcati / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 220242

soilreinforcement interface is due to the normal stress

Measurements of the vertical stress obtained by means of

The pullout box consists of steel plates welded at the

six different points along the geogrid specimen. The wires

The results of this analysis are reported in Table 2,

Fig. 4. Electric jack and load cell.

Fig. 5. Clamping system, sleeves and displacement transducers.

Fig. 6. Schematic cross section AA of the geogrid bar.

3.3. Test procedure

Pullout tests have been performed varying the specimen

4. Analysis of test results

In the tests carried out on GG1 and GG2 specimens

Fig. 9. Pullout curves for LR 1.15 m.

Fig. 10. Pullout curves for LR 0.4 m.

The curvature decreases with an increase in specimen

tensile load unconned creep tests (Moraci and Montanelli,

Position along the specimen (mm)

Position along the specimen (mm)

specimens, at low conning stresses (1025 kPa), and for

Spec. length (m)

Normal stress s0V

conning pressure, and this reduction is between 7% and

Fig. 13. Normalised pullout curves (P/LR).

vertical effective applied stress. In each graph, the results

(10100 kPa) and LR (0.401.15 m).

the percentage variations due to dilatancy are up to 148%

inuenced by the structural characteristics (geometry and