Journal Pre-proof

Novel experimental techniques to assess the time-dependent deformations of

geosynthetics under soil confinement

Carina Maia Lins Costa, Jorge Gabriel Zornberg

PII: S1674-7755(20)30140-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.09.006
Reference: JRMGE 724

To appear in: Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

Received Date: 1 May 2020

Revised Date: 11 July 2020
Accepted Date: 9 September 2020

Please cite this article as: Lins Costa CM, Zornberg JG, Novel experimental techniques to assess the
time-dependent deformations of geosynthetics under soil confinement, Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.09.006.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Novel experimental techniques to assess the time-dependent deformations
of geosynthetics under soil confinement
Carina Maia Lins Costaa, *, Jorge Gabriel Zornbergb
a Department of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Av. Senador Salgado Filho 3000, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, 59078-970, Brazil
b Department of Civil Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, 301 E. Dean Keeton, Austin, Texas, 78712-0280, USA

ARTICLEINFO ABSTRACT
Article history: A new experimental approach to assess the impact of soil confinement on the long-term behavior of
Received 1 May 2020 geosynthetics is presented in this paper. The experimental technique described herein includes a novel
Received in revised form laboratory apparatus and the use of different types of tests that allow generation of experimental data suitable
11 July 2020
for evaluation of the time-dependent behavior of geosynthetics under soil confinement. The soil-geosynthetic
Accepted 9 September 2020
interaction equipment involves a rigid box capable of accommodating a cubic soil mass under plane strain
Available online
conditions. A geosynthetic specimen placed horizontally at the mid-height of the soil mass is subjected to
Keywords: sustained vertical pressures that, in turn, induce reinforcement axial loads applied from the soil to the
Geosynthetics geosynthetic. Unlike previously reported studies on geosynthetic behavior under soil confinement, the
Geotextile equipment was found to be particularly versatile. With minor setup modifications, not only interaction tests but

of
Creep also in-isolation geosynthetic stress relaxation tests and soil-only tests under a constant strain rate can be
Stress relaxation conducted using the same device. Also, the time histories of the reinforcement loads and corresponding strains
Reinforced soil

ro
are generated throughout the test. Results from typical tests conducted using sand and a polypropylene woven
Long-term deformation
geotextile are presented to illustrate the proposed experimental approach. The testing procedure was found to
provide adequate measurements during tests, including good repeatability of test results. The soil–geosynthetic

-p
interaction tests were found to lead to increasing geotextile strains with time and decreasing reinforcement
tension with time. The test results highlighted the importance of measuring not only the time history of
displacements but also that of reinforcement loads during testing. The approach of using different types of tests
re
to analyze the soil–geosynthetic interaction behavior is an innovation that provides relevant insight into the
impact of soil confinement on the time-dependent deformations of geosynthetics.
© 2020 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier
lP

B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

the literature (e.g. McGown et al., 1982; Levacher et al., 1994; Wu and
na

1. Introduction Hong, 1994; Sawicki and Świdziński, 1999; Becker and Nunes, 2015).
However, there has been little consensus on the significance of the
Geosynthetics have become widely used in the construction of
impact of the soil confinement on the viscous response of a
ur

reinforced soil retaining structures. Yet, geosynthetic materials

geosynthetic-reinforced soil mass. While some authors have reported
exhibit a time-dependent stress–strain behavior that cannot be
a significant reduction in time-dependent strains due to the soil
overlooked when designing structures such as geosynthetic-
Jo

confinement (e.g. McGown et al., 1982), other researchers have

reinforced soil (GRS) walls (e.g. Benjamim et al., 2007; Yang et al.,
observed only minor effect due to such confinement (e.g. Levacher et
2009; Costa et al., 2016). Assessment of the time-dependent behavior
al., 1994; Wu and Hong, 1994; Becker and Nunes, 2015).
of geosynthetics is important for design of reinforced soil structures
The effect of soil confinement on the time-dependent response of
since reinforcements are expected to remain under tension
geosynthetics has been experimentally investigated using two
throughout the design life of the structure.
reasonably different approaches, depending on the loading approach
The stress–strain–time behavior of geosynthetics in isolation has
adopted to mobilize tension in the confined geosynthetic
been recognized as a complex mechanism, and two complementary
reinforcement. One type of device described in the literature allows
viscous behaviors, i.e. creep and stress relaxation, have been typically
for testing of geosynthetics placed between two layers of soil that are
evaluated. Creep involves the development of time-dependent
not allowed to deform during testing. After a target confining
deformations in a geosynthetic under constant axial loading. On the
pressure is applied to the soil, tensile forces are applied directly to
other hand, stress relaxation corresponds to the time-dependent
the reinforcement. This technique has been used exclusively to
decrease in unit tension in a geosynthetic subjected to imposed
evaluate the potential effect of soil confinement to reduce time-
constant strains.
dependent deformations, with focus on assessing the impact of the
Studies on geosynthetic long-term deformation in insolation were
type or structure of the geosynthetic under the soil confinement.
conducted by Bueno et al. (2005), Yeo and Hsuan (2010), Kongkitkul
Reduced time-dependent deformations have been typically reported
et al. (2014), Nuntapanich et al. (2018), Pinho-Lopes et al. (2018),
for the case of nonwoven geotextiles due to the restricted movement
and Dias Filho et al. (2019). Factors such as polymer type,
of the fibers and their alignment in the direction of loading as a result
temperature and loading rate are known to affect geosynthetic
of the soil confinement. This type of device was reported by McGown
viscous response. The influence of the soil confinement on the time-
et al. (1982), Levacher et al. (1994), Wu and Hong (1994), and França
dependent deformation of geosynthetics has also been evaluated in
and Bueno (2011). The equipment used to conduct tests following the
first approach has some advantages in comparison with the second
*Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: cmlins@gmail.com, carina@ct.ufrn.br one. It is less complex to develop, the tests are typically easier to
perform, and the results are less difficult to interpret. However, it has
the disadvantage of not allowing evaluation of the effect of soil
rheologic properties on geosynthetics’ long-term behavior.
The second approach involves a device in which a geosynthetic is
confined between two soil layers but; in this case, the soil layers
experience deformation. A constant vertical pressure is applied to the
soil, which in turn mobilizes the axial load in the reinforcement. This
testing approach allows both soil and reinforcement to exhibit time-
dependent deformations and accounts for soil–geosynthetic
interaction. This type of equipment is deemed to simulate closely the
typical load transfer mechanism anticipated in actual geosynthetic-
reinforced soil structures, a mechanism involving tensile loads that
are induced in the reinforcement by soil stresses. This approach
makes it feasible to evaluate the effect of soil rheologic properties on
geosynthetics’ long-term behavior. This is especially important
considering that some authors have emphasized that the time-
dependent deformation of geosynthetics is affected by the rheologic
characteristics of the confining soil (e.g. Boyle and Holtz, 1996; Wu
presented herein, except unconfined geosynthetic creep tests, which
were performed using a traditional apparatus in accordance with ISO
13431:1999 (1999).
2.1. Setup for soil–geosynthetic interaction test
A schematic of the equipment is shown in Fig. 1. In developing the
equipment, the researchers’ main objective was to design a device
capable of simulating the load transfer mechanism anticipated in GRS
structures and being able to obtain both tensile forces and
corresponding strains in the reinforcement over elapsed time. The
objective of the proposed soil–geosynthetic interaction test was not
to anticipate strains in any particular GRS wall, but to identify the
effect of soil confinement on reinforcement time-dependent behavior.

of
and Helwany, 1996; Liu et al., 2009; Li et al., 2012). Wu and Helwany
(1996) reported that if the confining soil exhibits less of a tendency to

ro
creep than the geosynthetic, the soil would then impose a restraining
effect on the deformation of the geosynthetic. Studies involving
centrifuge tests have not shown such restraining effect when
geosynthetic is confined with soils of low creep potential, such as
sands, in comparison with clayey soils (e.g. Costa et al., 2016). Also, in
-p
re
addition to showing contradicting conclusions, the number of studies
that investigated this loading approach was limited.
lP

Nonetheless, equipment based on the second approach

aforementioned has provided important contributions to the Fig. 1. Schematic of proposed equipment (three-dimensional view).

assessment of long-term soil–geosynthetic interaction behavior (e.g.

The apparatus involves a rigid box capable of accommodating a
Wu and Helwany, 1996; Helwany and Shih, 1998; Ketchart and Wu,
na

cubic soil mass under plane strain condition with side length
2002). The main differences amongst different devices in this
measuring 200 mm. A geosynthetic layer secured via clamps is placed
category are the specimen dimensions and testing instrumentation.
horizontally at the mid-height of the soil mass. The device is suitable
Only the equipment described by Wu and Helwany (1996) and
ur

to study the time-dependent behavior of geotextiles and geogrids. A

Ketchart and Wu (2002) focused on assessing the time-dependent
pressurized air system was used to apply sustained vertical pressure
strains developed in the reinforcement. The device proposed by
at the top and bottom of the soil mass. The equipment is capable of
Jo

Helwany and Shih (1998) measured lateral displacements at the mid-

measuring displacements along the geotextile layer to obtain
height of the soil–geosynthetic facing and tensile forces in the
reinforcement strains. The interfaces between the soil and walls of
reinforcement over time. However, displacements were measured for
the box were lubricated to minimize interface friction.
the facing specimen on one end of the geosynthetic, and axial force
Fig. 2 presents a schematic side view of the test box, which has two
(but not strain) was recorded on the other end; measurements of the
movable sidewalls composed of 13-mm thick steel plates. The
reinforcement axial tension and corresponding long-term strain
movable sidewalls, labeled S1 and S2 in Fig. 2, are connected to a
could not be obtained.
lateral steel frame and the linear low friction bearings are used to
This paper presents an experimental approach that includes a new
facilitate movement of sidewalls S1 and S2. The upper and lower
apparatus and the use of different types of tests that collectively
portions of the movable sidewall S1 displace outward together.
provide a robust set of data on long-term deformations of
Sidewall S2 has the same characteristics as sidewall S1 but it moves
geosynthetics. Unlike previous studies, the device can perform soil–
in the opposite direction. The other sidewalls are stationary and
geosynthetic interaction tests by providing geosynthetic strains and
consist of 30 mm-thick glass plates attached to a rigid steel frame.
the corresponding tension with time. The device is also capable of
Transparent sidewalls are used to allow visualization of the specimen
testing the soil and reinforcement separately, which is important to
during testing. As shown in Fig. 2, a load cell is installed to record the
ultimately characterize the soil–reinforcement interaction. The ability
force in the geosynthetic.
of testing the unreinforced soil at a constant strain rate constitutes a
unique experimental feature of this study. Typical results obtained
using this approach are presented for a sand and a polypropylene
woven geotextile.

2. Test apparatus

The equipment developed was used to perform all types of tests


Fig. 2. Schematic of test box (side view, not to scale).
The loading mechanism implemented in the test apparatus is
illustrated in Fig. 3. The vertical pressure (σv) is initially applied to
the soil through the pressurized air system, resulting in the
development of horizontal stresses within the soil mass and
consequently horizontal pressure (σh) on the sidewalls. The
horizontal pressure acting on the movable sidewall S1 is indicated in
Fig. 3 via the corresponding resultant forces Fh1 and Fh2, which are
induced by σh on the upper and lower parts of S1, respectively. Forces
Fh1 and Fh2 are then transferred to the geotextile reinforcement
through the clamp-frame connection shown in Fig. 3, which connects
the lateral frame to the clamp (and is the only connection between
re
the movable sidewall and clamp). With the load transfer mechanism
facilitated by the equipment design, the geosynthetic deforms but
lP
only because of displacement of the soil and movable sidewall S1.
Since the previously cited clamp-frame connection is the only
connection between the movable sidewall and the reinforcement, the
load cell, positioned between that connection and the clamp, is able to
na
record the total resultant force (Fh1 + Fh2) acting on the reinforcement
at point P (Fig. 3).
ur
Jo
Fig. 3. Load-transfer mechanism for soil–geosynthetic interaction tests showing forces
acting on movable sidewall S1 and corresponding reinforcement reaction force (not
to scale).
Incorporating the ability to measure reinforcement tensile loads
over time to the device was the main challenge in equipment
development. This capability was realized through the device’s
unique design involving movable sidewalls, the clamp-frame
connection system and the location and characteristics of the load
cell.
The load cell used for the device is manufactured by Precision
Transducers Ltd., and has a load capacity of 2.5 kN with a resolution
of 0.25 N. Calibration tests showed excellent repeatability and no
hysteresis. Additional tests carried out with a sustained constant load
applied for extended duration demonstrated good performance over
time. For example, an applied load of 1 kN that was maintained
constant for 48 h showed an oscillation of only 2.5 N.
Instrumentation also included telltales connected to the
geosynthetic at four different points, labeled A, B, C and D in Fig. 4, to
obtain geosynthetic strains. The telltales consisted of stainless steel
wires with a diameter of 0.6 mm to minimize soil disturbance. The
wires were lubricated with silicone grease and inserted into
protective stainless steel tubes of 0.8 mm in diameter. An electrical
device with a resolution of 0.01 mm monitored the telltale
displacements in order to calculate strains in segments AB, BC, and
CD, as shown in Fig. 4.
of
ro
-p
Fig. 4. Positions of telltale–geosynthetic connections (not to scale). Unit in mm.
The instrumentation used for the various device setups, with and
without reinforcement, was established considering the symmetry of
the box and specimen (see the axis of symmetry in Figs. 3 and 4).
During equipment development, results of calibration tests using load
cells on both sidewalls (S1 and S2) were found to be remarkably
similar, with equally good results obtained when evaluating the
consistency of telltale measurements.
2.2. Setup for tests using soil only
The equipment is capable of performing tests using soil only by
making minor modifications to the setup as previously described for
soil–geosynthetic tests. For tests using soil only, the soil stress–strain
behavior is evaluated for short-term conditions separately, without
geosynthetic. This is important to gain insight into the behavior of a
reinforced soil mass, which depends not only on the reinforcement
but also on the soil properties.
Testing of soil only was conducted by applying a sustained vertical
pressure to the top and bottom of the soil mass, while allowing
movable sidewalls S1 and S2 to displace outward. Fig. 5 presents the
device setup for tests using soil only. To allow movement of sidewalls
S1 and S2 at a constant displacement rate, each movable sidewall was
coupled to an individual shaft with roller bearings, as shown in Fig. 5.
The movement directions of S1 and S2, used in the soil–geosynthetic
interaction test (see Fig. 2), have been adopted in soil-only tests. Belt
drives connect the individual shafts to a main shaft supported by
roller bearings. A low-speed motor (100 resolutions per minute
(rpm)) with a set of gears rotates the main shaft to move sidewalls S1
and S2 simultaneously at a constant speed. Displacement rates of 0.1
mm/min, 0.7 mm/min, 1 mm/min and 4 mm/min were considered
depending on the selected set of gears. A dial gage was used to
measure the displacements of the movable sidewalls with a
resolution of 0.01 mm. As the movable sidewalls displaced, the total
resultant load acting on the movable sidewall S1 was recorded by the where εr is the reinforcement time-dependent strain, ε1 is the
load cell. reinforcement strain for t = 1 h, α is the creep rate, and t is the time.

Fig. 5. Schematic of device setup for testing soil only (top view, not to scale).

The ability of the equipment to conduct tests using soil only

of
allowed evaluation of the soil response under the same conditions
used for soil–geosynthetic tests, that is, the same specimen Fig. 6. Unconfined creep results for geotextile at different levels of ultimate tensile
dimensions, the same system for applying vertical pressure and strength (Tult).

ro
similar boundary conditions.
2.3. Setup for stress relaxation tests The soil is poorly graded quartz silica sand with rounded to sub-
rounded particles, and is classified as SP according to the unified soil
For unconfined stress relaxation tests, the reinforcement was
placed horizontally inside the box and attached to the clamps. The
target load was then achieved by displacing the movable sidewalls S1
-p
classification system (USCS). The sand has an average particle size of
0.23 mm, a coefficient of uniformity of 2.7, and a coefficient of
re
and S2, after which the strain kept constant. The load cell was used to curvature of 1.09. Fig. 7 presents the gradation curve for the sand.
record the force in the reinforcement over time. The load cell in tests The unit weight of the sand is 26.5 kN/m3, and the minimum and
lP

conducted using this configuration was positioned as indicated in Fig. maximum dry unit weights are 14.2 kN/m3 and 17.7 kN/m3,
3, similar to the case of soil–geosynthetic tests. respectively. The sand maximum void ratio (emax) equals 0.87 and its
minimum void ratio (emin) is 0.5. Shear strength properties of the sand
3. Description of the experiments were obtained from a triaxial testing program. For the selected
na

relative density used in the tests presented herein (Dr = 50%), the
3.1. Geotextile and sand used in specimen preparation
sand shows peak friction angles (φp) of 36°.
Testing was carried out using a woven geotextile and sand as the
3.2. Testing program
ur

confining soil. The geotextile was a polypropylene woven geotextile

3.2.1. Tests using sand only and sand–geotextile interaction tests
with a mass per unit area of 126 g/m2. Table 1 presents the average
Table 2 provides a summary of several tests conducted using the
unconfined ultimate tensile strength for the geotextile, the
Jo

proposed equipment. The initial character of the test designations

corresponding strain at failure and the geotextile secant tensile
shown in Table 2 corresponds to the type of test (“S” stands for the
stiffness at 2% strain. These values were obtained from wide-width
tests with soil only and “SG” for the sand–geotextile tests), followed by
strip tensile tests conducted in the machine direction in accordance
the values of applied vertical pressure. Three different values of
with ASTM D4595-17 (2017).
applied vertical pressure (100 kPa, 150 kPa and 200 kPa) were
Table 1. Wide-width tensile test results for geotextile reinforcement. adopted in the testing program and some tests were conducted
Ultimate tensile Strain at failure, εf Secant tensile stiffness specifically to evaluate the repeatability of the results. To denote
strength, Tult at 2% strain, J
Mean value COV (%) Mean value COV (%) Mean value COV (%) repeat tests, the letter "R" was appended to the test designation. For
(kN/m) (%) (kN/m) tests using sand only, most tests were performed using a
21 1.8 33 3 62.5 1.7
Note: COV is the coefficient of variation.
displacement rate equal to 0.7 mm/min. To indicate a different speed
value, the letter “V” was added to the test designation, followed by No.
Fig. 6 presents the results of a series of conventional creep tests 2 (V = 0.1 mm/min) or No. 3 (V = 4 mm/min). The specimen was
conducted without soil confinement, in accordance with ISO prepared with a soil relative density (Dr) of 50% for tests using sand
13431:1999 (1999). The applied load levels corresponded to 5%, only and for sand–geotextile interaction tests.
12% and 20% of the geotextile ultimate tensile strength (Tult). The in-
isolation geotextile creep can be evaluated by fitting the logarithmic
function indicated in Eq. (1). The regression line obtained for each
load level is also presented in Fig. 6. The coefficient of determination
(R2) was equal to 0.91, 0.99 and 0.99 for 5%, 12% and 20% of Tult,
respectively. As expected, larger load levels led to higher creep rates,
as shown by the values of α in Fig. 6.
ε r = ε1 + α log 10 t (1)
 DuPont Teflon powder composed of microspheres of 20 µm in
diameter was selected and the mixtures containing 20%, 30%, 40%
and 50% PTFE power were tested. The percentage of PTFE
corresponds to the weight of the powder in relation to the total
weight of the blend (grease + PTFE). Table 4 summarizes the results
of the interface friction angle for silicone grease with different
percentages of PTFE powder. The same setup previously described
was used for testing silicon grease with PTFE powder added. A
sustained vertical pressure equal to 50 kPa was applied.

Table 4. Interface friction angle for silicone grease with PTFE powder.
Content of PTFE powder (%) Interface friction angle (°)
Short-term a Long-term b
0 0.4 3
20 0.6 1.2
30 0.9 1.7
40 1 1.8
50 3.1 4.5
Fig 7. Gradation curve for the tested sand. a Shear test performed immediately after specimen preparation.
b The vertical pressure was maintained for 10 h before interface shearing.
Table 2. Tests carried out using soil only and using sand–geotextile specimens.
Vertical pressure, σv (kPa)

of
Test designation Displacement rate, V
(mm/min) As shown in Table 4, the use of PTFE powder increased the value of
S-100 100 0.7 the friction angle in relation to pure silicon grease. However,
S-100-R 100 0.7

ro
S-150 150 0.7 increasing PTFE dosage was found to decrease friction angle
S-200 200 0.7
S-200-R 200 0.7
variations over time. Upon evaluation of the interface test results,
S-100-V2 100 0.1 20% PTFE dosage was selected as it exhibited a significantly smaller
S-100-V3
SG-100
SG-100-R
SG-200
100
100
100
200
4
-
-
-
-p
variation in friction angle over time than pure grease while
presenting the lowest friction angle among the tested dosages.
re
SG-200-R 200 - 3.3.1.2. Placement conditions for soil and geosynthetic
Preparation of the soil–geosynthetic specimen after lubrication
3.2.2. Geotextile stress relaxation tests involved three main stages: placement of the first soil layer,
lP

The scope of the stress relaxation tests is presented in Table 3. Test placement of the geosynthetic with telltales attached, and placement
designations denote the type of test (“R” for stress relaxation) and of the top soil layer. The displacement of the movable sidewalls was
testing sequence. restrained throughout specimen preparation.
na

To achieve the soil target density, the layers were placed and
Table 3. Stress relaxation tests.
Test designation Geotextile strain, εr (%)
compacted by pluviating dry sand at controlled combinations of flow
R1 5.8 rate and drop height using a device constructed for sand pluviation
ur

R2 3.4
R3 2.6 (raining). This device was designed following recommendations
R4 2.1 reported by Rad and Tumay (1987). The sand raining apparatus
Jo

3.3. Testing procedure
3.3.1. Soil–geosynthetic interaction tests
This section describes different stages during testing, including
lubrication of the soil specimen interfaces, placement of soil and
geosynthetic, loading application and time-dependent monitoring.
3.3.1.1. Lubrication of the soil specimen interfaces
Lubrication between the soil specimen and the device sidewalls
was achieved using latex membrane and silicon grease to minimize
interface friction. The same silicone grease used by Tatsuoka et al.
(1984) was adopted in this study. The interface friction angle was
estimated from the results of interface shear tests conducted using a
direct shear test device (100 mm × 100 mm in plane) typically
employed to evaluate strength properties of soils.
For a displacement rate of 1 mm/min, the friction angle between
the lubricated latex membrane and glass was 0.4° for a vertical
pressure of 50 kPa. To minimize the increase in friction angle after
keeping the vertical pressure constant for extended periods of time,
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) powder (also known as Teflon) was
added to improve grease performance over time. The use of PTFE
powder was reported to reduce the flow of grease and consequently
the changes in friction angle over elapsed time (Tatsuoka et al.,
1984).
consists of a steel frame with a container at the top and two sieves
(with holes measuring 6.3 mm in diameter) located underneath. The
set of sieves, or diffuser, is fixed to the steel frame to facilitate
achieving specimens that are homogeneous. The sand raining
procedure involves releasing the sand stored in the container, which
then passes through the diffuser and into the test box.
The bottom of the container consists of a perforated cover
(shutter) that releases the sand through the opening of a trapdoor.
The relative density is mainly determined by the flow rate and drop
height of the sand. Soil specimens with different densities can be
prepared for soil–geosynthetic interaction tests by maintaining a
constant distance between the diffuser and top of the test box (drop
height) and changing the flow rate of the material. Flow rate variation
was accomplished by using shutters with varying hole diameters. For
the tests presented in this paper, shutter holes measuring 13 mm in
diameter were used to achieve a target relative density of 50%. The
shutter holes had a uniform pattern and spacing of 25 mm. The
distance from the diffuser to the top of the box was 650 mm. A margin
of error of less than 3% relative density was quantified for the target
relative density using the device constructed for sand pluviation.
3.3.1.3. Loading application and time-dependent monitoring
Testing was initiated by applying pressure through the air bladders
to induce a preload in the reinforcement of about 1% of its tensile
strength, and the corresponding displacements in the telltales and
movable sidewall S1 were recorded. After application of the preload,
the vertical pressure was gradually increased until the target value
was reached, after 1 min approximately. Once the loading process
was completed, the displacement data (telltales and movable
sidewall) were continually collected for up to 1000 h of testing
duration.
This procedure is consistent with guidelines provided for
geosynthetics creep test standards (e.g. ISO 13431:1999, 1999). For
the tests conducted as part of the study presented in this paper,
displacement data were recorded at 1 min, 2 min, 4 min, 8 min, 15
min, 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 8 h and 10 h after the prescribed vertical
pressure had been applied. The tensile force in the geotextile at point
P was recorded at the same intervals.
3.3.2. Tests using soil only Fig. 8. Lateral load on the movable sidewall S1 versus soil strain for different levels of
A single layer of sand 200 mm thick was prepared for testing soil vertical pressure and displacement rates (tests with soil only).

without reinforcement and specimen preparation was similar to that

As shown in Fig. 8, the load initially decreased to a strain of 1%–2%
for soil–geosynthetic tests. After applying a sustained vertical

of
approximately. For tests with the lowest vertical pressure (σv = 100
pressure, the motor system began displacing the movable sidewalls at
kPa), the force tended to remain constant after a minimum value was
a constant rate. The horizontal resultant force acting on the movable
reached. For the other tests, after reaching the minimum load value,

ro
sidewall S1 was also monitored during testing.
there was an increase in the load with strain, followed by a tendency
3.3.3. Stress relaxation tests
to stabilize as the specimen deformed. This behavior is consistent
For the unconfined stress relaxation test, the reinforcement was
loaded for a period of 1 min to achieve the target strain. The strain
was then kept constant as the load cell recorded the reinforcement
-p
with that anticipated for the mobilization of soil shear strength.
Initially, the mobilized shear strength increases with the specimen
re
deformation until its peak value is reached (as indicated in Fig. 8 by
force over elapsed time. For the tests presented herein, the load was
the minimum value recorded by the load cell). As strain increases, the
recorded at 1 min, 2 min, 4 min, 8 min, 15 min, 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 8
mobilized friction angle decreases toward the value corresponding to
lP

h and 10 h after the prescribed strain had been achieved.

the critical state condition and consequently the load cell records an
4. Typical test results and discussion increase in the load acting on the movable sidewall S1, as indicated in
Fig. 8 for tests S-200 and S-200-R. Test results showed good
na

Results from tests conducted using the developed apparatus are repeatability, demonstrated by comparing results of tests S-100 with
presented in this section. The room temperature was controlled, and S-100-R and S-200 with S-200-R, as shown in Fig. 8.
monitored throughout testing, presenting only slight variations Fig. 8 also displays the effect of displacement rate on load results,
ur

within the limit of fluctuations recommended for unconfined creep showing tests conducted at rates of 0.7 mm/min (test S-100), 0.1
tests with geosynthetics (e.g. ISO 13431:1999, 1999; ASTM D5262- mm/min (test S-100-V2) and 4 mm/min (test S-100-V3). Despite
07(2016), 2016). substantial variation in displacement rate, only minor effects were
Jo

Fig. 8 shows the results recorded by the load cell for the tests with
soil only. The load values in Fig. 8 were calculated per unit width of
movable sidewall. This approach was adopted to allow comparison of
the results with those from the tests with geosynthetics, whose
results are typically presented in units of force per unit width of
reinforcement. Strains were calculated using the displacement of
movable sidewall S1 and the corresponding initial specimen length
(equal to 100 mm, considering the axis of symmetry shown in Fig. 5).
observed in the test results. Nevertheless, the ability to perform tests
at different speeds was important for analysis of the data from soil–
geotextile interaction, as it was particularly relevant to identifying the
sources of time-dependent response in those tests.
The soil-only tests showed negligible impact of displacement rate
on the test results, suggesting a low creep potential of the sand used
in this study for the tested conditions. However, it should be noted
that granular materials have been reported to be capable of
presenting creep (Wang et al., 2011; Karimpour and Lade, 2013; Lv et
al., 2017; Levin et al., 2019). Nevertheless, sand creep is not as
significant as that usually anticipated for other soils such as clays.
Fig. 9 presents the changes in strain over time for soil–geotextile
interaction tests (SG-100 and SG-200) obtained using external and
telltale measurements. The term "external" in the figure’s caption
refers to as specimen deformations defined using the displacements
of movable sidewall S1 as registered by the dial gage. Telltale
displacements were used to calculate the strains, taking into account
the deformation of segments AB, BC and CD (Fig. 4). For example, the
strain values for segment AB correspond to the relative displacement
of telltales positioned at points A and B, divided by the length of this
segment.

Fig. 9. Reinforcement strains over time using external and internal measurements
(sand–geotextile interaction tests SG-100 and SG-200).
The data in Fig. 9 exhibit a uniform strain pattern along the
reinforcement length, which is consistent with the good agreement of
strains for external and internal displacement measurements. The
coefficient of variation (COV) of the strain at 1 min, obtained from
external and internal measurements, was approximately 3% and
3.6% for tests SG-100 and SG-200, respectively. These COV values are
of the same order of magnitude as those obtained for strain at failure
shown in the wide-width tensile tests (see Table 1).
re
Fig. 10 displays the strain over time for all soil–geotextile
interaction tests, and illustrates the good repeatability of the results.
lP
These strains correspond to the mean values considering the
previously cited different approaches (external and telltale
measurements). Regression lines for experimental data using the
na
logarithmic function presented in Eq. (1) are also shown in Fig. 10.
The maximum difference in time-dependent strain rate is about 5%
between tests SG-100 and SG-100-R (see values of α in Fig. 10).
ur
Jo
Fig. 10. Mean values of time-dependent reinforcement strains with time from sand–
geotextile interaction tests.
The load response over time obtained from the soil–geotextile
interaction tests can be seen in Fig. 11. The initial load (t = 1 min)
recorded in tests with reinforcement was remarkably similar to that
recorded on the movable sidewall S1 in tests with soil only, for the
same vertical pressure and magnitude of horizontal strain. As a
reference, the initial load shown in Fig. 11 for test SG-100 was found
to be 2.4 kN/m, corresponding to a horizontal strain of approximately
3%. The load for test S-100, involving the same strain level, was
found to be 2.35 kN/m (see Fig. 8).
of
Fig. 11. Reinforcement load over time from sand–geotextile interaction tests.
ro
A similar behavior was observed for the tests with higher vertical
pressure (SG-200 and S-200). The initial force in the reinforcement
-p
and the expected load based on the test with sand only were
analogous. The good agreement of the load data between the tests
with soil only and the soil–geotextile interaction tests provides
additional evidence on the consistency of the data presented herein.
In Fig. 11, a clear decrease in the load over time can be observed.
For the tests conducted using σv = 100 kPa, an approximate reduction
of 10% in the load occurred after 10 h. For the test conducted using
higher vertical pressures (SG-200), the load value decreased by 20%
over 10 h of testing. This indicates that maintaining a constant
vertical pressure over time to simulate the field conditions presented
in GRS walls does not guarantee a constant load in the reinforcement.
A time-dependent load reduction may occur in the geosynthetic as
specimen deforms. Since conventional in-isolation geosynthetic creep
test involves the development of deformations over time under a
constant axial loading, the reinforcement strains using the soil–
geosynthetic interaction device should not be referred to as creep
strains.
Figs. 10 and 11 show that neither the strain nor the load remains
constant over time, which means that an intermediate viscoelastic
behavior between creep and stress relaxation occurred. This finding
suggests that not only in-isolation creep tests but also stress
relaxation tests are relevant for an accurate interpretation of the
confined tests in order to broaden our understanding of sand–
geotextile interaction behavior.
The results of the geotextile stress relaxation tests presented in Fig.
12 demonstrate the significant potential to decrease the load in the
reinforcement as its deformation is restrained. The results for test R1,
for example, show that the force induced in the reinforcement after
10 h of testing decreased 50% in relation to the value recorded at 1
min.

Fig. 12. Reinforcement load with time from stress relaxation tests.
Fig. 13 depicts the geotextile strains over time for interaction tests
SG-100 and SG-200, both performed under soil confinement, in
comparison to those from conventional unconfined creep tests. The
initial load (t = 1 min) of the interaction test SG-100 is similar to the
applied load of the unconfined creep test performed with 12% of the
geotextile ultimate tensile strength (Tult). Similarly, the initial load of
the interaction test SG-200 corresponds to the applied load of the
re
unconfined creep test performed with 20% of Tult.
The geotextile strains for the confined test SG-100 shown in Fig. 13
were very similar to those without soil confinement. For test SG-200,
lP
the reinforcement strain at 10 h of testing was approximately 10%
smaller under soil confinement as compared with the conventional
creep test. This is found to be a consistent behavior, since a
na
comparatively larger decrease in the load (approximately 20%) is
observed throughout the test (Fig. 11).
ur
Jo
Fig. 13. Time-dependent strains obtained from sand–geotextile interaction tests and
unconfined creep tests.
The behavior of reinforcement load with time obtained from sand-
geotextile interaction tests and unconfined stress relaxation tests is
displayed in Fig. 14. The initial load (t = 1 min) of the interaction test
SG-100 is similar to the load of the unconfined stress relaxation test
R2. Tests SG-200 and R1 also present similar values of initial load.
Although both types of tests (soil–geosynthetic interaction tests and
stress relaxation tests) show decrease in load over elapsed time, the
load paths were significantly different. This behavior indicates that
load reduction in interaction tests was not as high as anticipated if
soil strain had been fully prevented as in the stress relaxation tests.
This is consistent with the better agreement between soil–
geosynthetic interaction tests and unconfined creep tests.
of
ro
Fig. 14. Reinforcement load over time from sand–geotextile interaction tests and
-p
unconfined stress relaxation tests.
Table 5 presents the reinforcement secant stiffness (J10) at 10 h
calculated by Eq. (2) for different types of tests (unconfined creep
tests, stress relaxation tests and sand–geotextile interaction tests).
The same equation can be used for different types of tests, although
the magnitude of creep stiffness, for example, is not necessarily equal
to the stress relaxation value. The initial load (t = 1 min) for all tests
presented in Table 5 is approximately the same.
10 = 10/ 10 (2)
where J10 is the reinforcement stiffness for t = 10 h, T10 is the
reinforcement load for t = 10 h, and ε10 is the reinforcement strain for
t = 10 h.
Table 5. Reinforcement stiffness (J10) at 10 h of testing.
Type of test Test J10 (kN/m)
Unconfined creep test 20%Tult 39.4
Unconfined stress relaxation test R1 32.7
Sand-geotextile interaction test SG-200 35.1
The effect of soil confinement due to the textile structure of
geotextiles (woven, nonwoven, knitted) is expected to cause an
increase in geosynthetic stiffness. However, despite the smaller
strains over time under the soil confinement, the magnitude of secant
stiffness (J10) obtained from the sand–geotextile interaction test was
not increased. In fact, the stiffness value obtained from the confined
tests lies between the values obtained from the unconfined creep test
and that from the unconfined stress relaxation test. Thus, the smaller
strain in test SG-200 for the geotextile under confinement after 10 h
of testing is due to the load reduction throughout the test, as shown
in Fig. 11, but not because of the confinement effect due to the
geotextile structure. The decrease in the load is believed to occur
because of the effect of the soil rheologic properties on the
geosynthetics’ long-term behavior. This finding from the data
presented in Table 5 illustrates the importance of using different
types of tests to analyze the effect of soil confinement on time-
dependent geosynthetic strains.
Reinforcement strain at 10 h in test SG-200 was approximately
10% smaller under soil confinement as compared with the result of
the corresponding conventional creep test. However, the reduction in Acknowledgments
the long-term strain was also not as high as anticipated, considering
This paper is dedicated to Benedito Bueno (in memoriam), a
that the soil used in this study belongs to a group of soils frequently
brilliant researcher and former professor at University of São Paulo,
considered to have negligible creep. Since the use of different types of
to whom the authors are indebted for his vision and enormous
geotextiles and soils may lead to different behaviors, this finding is
contribution during the development of this work. This study was
limited to the materials and test conditions used in the present study.
financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal
Overall, it should be noted that the geosynthetic time-dependent
de Nível Superior (CAPES), Brazil (finance code 001).
response obtained from different types of tests, as presented herein,
is capable of providing significant insight into the long-term response List of notations
of confined geosynthetics.
COV Coefficient of variation (%)
5. Conclusions Dr Soil relative density (%)
emax Maximum void ratio of sand
This paper described a unique test device and the integration of emin Minimum void ratio of sand
Fh1 Resultant force on the upper part of the movable sidewall
results from different types of tests to investigate geosynthetic long- Fh2 Resultant force on the lower part of the movable sidewall
term deformation under soil confinement. The following conclusions GRS Geosynthetic-reinforced soil
can be drawn: J10 Reinforcement stiffness for t = 10 h (kN/m)
PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene

of
SP Poorly graded sand
(1) The device was found to provide results consistent with the
USCS Unified soil classification system
expected trends for tests conducted with or without t Time (in min or h)

ro
reinforcement. The results of tests with soil only were Tult Ultimate geotextile tensile strength (kN/m)
consistent with the behavior expected from conventional soil T10 Reinforcement load for t = 10 h (kN/m)
α Creep strain rate, or time-dependent strain rate (%/h)
shear strength tests. Duplicate tests showed good
repeatability, providing additional indication of the
adequacy of the specimen preparation and testing
-p
εr
ε1
ε10
Reinforcement strain (%)
Reinforcement strain for t =1 h (%)
Reinforcement strain for t =10 h (%)
re
procedures. φp Peak friction angle of soil (°)
σh Horizontal pressure (kPa)
(2) The soil–geosynthetic interaction tests showed that the
σv Vertical pressure (kPa)
lP

initial tension in the reinforcement did not remain constant

with time for a constant applied vertical pressure. This result References
highlights the importance of measuring the reinforcement
na

load over time in order to properly interpret the results of ASTM D4595-17. Standard test method for tensile properties of geotextiles by the

geosynthetic tests under soil confinement. wide width strip method. West Conshohocken, USA: ASTM International; 2017.

(3) All tests conducted under soil confinement indicated time- ASTM D5262-07(2016). Standard test method for evaluating the unconfined tension
ur

dependent reinforcement strains and the tension in the creep behavior of geosynthetics. West Conshohocken, USA: ASTM International;

reinforcement decreased during the interaction tests. The 2016.

geosynthetic ultimate response was neither creep nor stress Becker LDB, Nunes ALLS. Influence of soil confinement on the creep behavior of
Jo

relaxation, but an intermediate viscoelastic behavior. Thus, geotextiles. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2015;43(4): 351–8.

not only in-isolation creep tests but also stress relaxation Benjamim CVS, Bueno BS, Zornberg JG. Field monitoring evaluation of geotextile-

tests are relevant for interpretation of the confined tests in reinforced soil-retaining walls. Geosynthetics International 2007; 14(2):100–18.

order to further understand the soil–reinforcement Boyle SR, Holtz RD. Discussion of ‘A performance test for assessment of long-term

interaction response. creep behavior of soil-geosynthetic composites’ by Wu JTH and Helwany SMB.

(4) The approach of using different types of tests was found to Geosynthetics International 1996;3(4):551–7.

be truly relevant to analyzing experimental data on the Bueno BS, Constanzi MA, Zornberg JG. Conventional and accelerated creep tests on

complex soil–geosynthetic interaction behavior. For the nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles. Geosynthetics International 2005;

geotextile tested in this study, a reduction of time-dependent 12(6):276–87.

strains under soil confinement occurred in comparison with Costa CML, Zornberg JG, Bueno BS, Costa YDJ. Centrifuge evaluation of the time-

in-isolation creep tests. The integration of various types of dependent behavior of geotextile reinforced-soil walls. Geotextiles and

tests revealed that long-term strains were not reduced Geomembranes 2016;44(2):188–200.

because of the effect of soil confinement due to the geotextile Dias Filho JLE, Maia PCA, Xavier GC. A short-term model for extrapolating unconfined

structure. Smaller strains over time obtained under soil creep deformation data for woven geotextiles. Geotextile and Geomembranes

confinement occurred as a result of the load decrease 2019;47(6):792–7.

throughout the test.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influenced
its outcome.
França FAN, Bueno BS. Creep behavior of geosynthetics using confined accelerated
tests. Geosynthetics International 2011;18(5):242–54.
Helwany SMB, Shih S. Creep and stress relaxation of geotextile-reinforced soils.
Geosynthetics International 1998;5(4):425–34.
ISO 13431:1999. Geotextile and geotextile related products – Determination of tensile
creep and creep rupture behavior. International Organization for Standardization;
1999.
Karimpour H, Lade PV. Creep behavior in Virginia Beach sand. Canadian Geotechnical behaviour from load relaxation behaviour of polymer geogrids. Geosynthetics
Journal 2013; 50(11): 1159–78. International 2018;25(3):334–49.
Ketchart K, Wu JTH. A modified soil-geosynthetic interactive performance test for Pinho-Lopes M, Paula AM, Lopes ML. Long-term response and design of two
evaluating deformation behavior of GRS structures. Geotechnical Testing Journal geosynthetics: effect of field installation damage. Geosynthetics International
2002;25(4):405–13. 2018;25(1):98–117.
Kongkitkul W, Chantachot T, Tatsuoka F. Simulation of geosynthetic load–strain–time Rad NS, Tumay MT. Factors affecting sand specimen preparation by raining.
behaviour by the non-linear three-component model. Geosynthetics International Geotechnical Testing Journal 1987;10(1):31–7.
2014;21(4):244–55. Sawicki A, Świdziński W. Unconfined versus confined testing of geosynthetics.
Levacher D, Blivet JC, Msouti F. Tensile and creep behavior of geotextiles. In: Geosynthetics International 1999;6(3):157–69.
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes Tatsuoka F, Molenkamp F, Torii F, Hino T. Behavior of lubrification layers of platens in
and Related Products, Vol. 3. Singapore: Southeast Asia Chapter of the International element tests. Soils and Foundations 1984;24(1):113–28.
Geotextile Society; 1994. p. 1131–4. Wang Z, Wong RCK, Qiao L. Investigation on relations between grain crushing amount
Levin F, Vogt S, Cudmani R. Time-dependent behaviour of sand with different fine and void ratio change of granular materials in one-dimensional compression and
contents under oedometric loading. Canadian Geotechnical Journal creep tests. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
2019;56(1):102–15. 2011;3(Supp.1):415–20.
Li FL, Peng FL, Tan Y, Kongkitkul W, Siddiquee MSA. FE simulation of viscous behavior Wu CS, Hong YS. Creep behavior of geotextile under confining stress. In: Proceedings
of geogrid-reinforced sand under laboratory-scale plane-strain-compression of the 5th International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related
testing. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2012;31:72–80. Products, 1994, Vol. 3. Singapore: Southeast Asia Chapter of the International

of
Liu H, Wang X, Song E. Long-term behavior of GRS retaining walls with marginal Geotextile Society; 1994. p. 1135–8.
backfill soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2009;27(4):295–307. Wu JTH, Helwany SMB. A performance test for assessment of long-term creep

ro
Lv Y, Li F, Liu Y, Fan P, Wang M. Comparative study of coral sand and silica sand in behavior of soil-geosynthetic composites. Geosynthetics International
creep under general stress states. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 1996;3(1):107–24.
2017;54(11):1601–11.
McGown A, Andrawes KZ, Kabir MH. Load-extension testing of geotextiles confined in
soil. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Geotextiles, Vol 3. Saint
-p
Yang G, Zhang B, Lv P, Zhou Q. Behaviour of geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall with
concrete-rigid facing. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2009;27(5):350–6.
Yeo SS, Hsuan YG. Evaluation of creep behavior of high density polyethylene and
re
Paul, USA: Industrial Fabrics Association International; 1982. p. 793–8. polyethylene-terephthalate geogrids. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
Nuntapanich N, Kongkitkul W, Tatsuoka F, Jongpradist P. Prediction of creep 2010;28(5):409–21.
lP

Carina Maia Lins Costa is a professor at the Department of Civil Engineering at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil. She
graduated from the Federal University of Alagoas and obtained her MSc and PhD degrees in Geotechnical Engineering from the University of
São Paulo, Brazil, in 1999 and 2004, respectively. She was a researcher at the University of Colorado at Boulder, USA (2002–2003), and a
na

postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas at Austin, USA (2018–2019). She has been involved in many research projects with an emphasis
on geosynthetic soil reinforcement and laboratory testing. Her current research interests also include retaining walls and foundation
engineering.
ur
Jo
Title: Novel Experimental Techniques to Assess the Time-dependent Deformations of Geosynthetics
under Soil Confinement

Authors: Carina Maia Lins Costaa and Jorge Gabriel Zornbergb

a
Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil (corresponding author)
b
The University of Texas at Austin, USA

Declaration of interests

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

of
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered

ro
as potential competing interests:

-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo