See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/277718282

Soil - geogrid interaction in pullout test at 2D - deformation conditions

Conference Paper · September 2002

CITATIONS READS

3 634

2 authors:

Angelika Duszynska Adam F. Bolt

Gdansk University of Technology Gdansk University of Technology
29 PUBLICATIONS 65 CITATIONS 28 PUBLICATIONS 47 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Angelika Duszynska on 05 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Soil - geogrid interaction in pullout test
at 2D - deformation conditions

ADAM F. BOLT, Faculty of Hydro and Environmental Engineering, Gdańsk Technical University, Poland
ANGELIKA DUSZYŃSKA; Faculty of Hydro and Environmental Engineering, Gdańsk Technical University, Poland

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the fundamental aspects of geotextile behaviour in a pullout test. The study consisted of pullout
tests for geogrid embedded in cohesionless soil and in Taylor – Schneebeli analogous medium and numerical analysis of the problem,
using Plaxis 7.2 code in plane state of strain. Based on the analysis of the investigation results, the influence of the apparatus
parameters, specimen length and the confinement pressure is discussed with general remarks and conclusions.

1 INTRODUCTION Table 2. Geogrid parameters

When a geotextile or a related product is used as reinforcement
and is pulled out from the soil, it is of great importance to have
the knowledge of its adherence capacity. The test, which can
provide information about this important factor, is a pullout test.
But there is a wide scatter in the available results of the
performed pullout tests for geotextiles. These differences in
results are often due to the use of different types of pullout
devices and the associated boundary effects. Therefore all
investigations, which make it possible to observe the influence
of these parameters on test results, are very important and
valuable.
The aim of the investigations presented in this paper, was to
analyse the conditions determined by European Standard prEN
13738 in laboratory tests and in numerical simulations.
2 TESTS IN COHESIONLESS SOIL
2.1 Test apparatus
The test apparatus (Fig. 1) consists of the following main parts:
− the steel container, for soil, with inner dimensions 1.60m in
length, 0.60 m in width and 0.36 m in height
− the rubber air bag capable of providing uniform normal
pressure up to 200 kPa with precision of 0.1 %
− the mechanical pullout force loading device (providing
constant rate of displacement up to 10mm/min) consisting of
a clamp, a frequency inverter, a worm gear unit, an electric
engine and a load cell of 50 kN capacity (with a precision of
0.027 %
− electronic displacement transducers to measure the
displacement of the geomaterial at the clamp and selected
points located along its embedded length
− the data acquisition system.
2.2 Materials used in the experiments
The main parameters of the coarse quartz sand Rybaki 2 and
geogrid Tensar used in the pullout tests are presented in Table 1
and Table 2.
Table 1. Soil and T-S media parameters
__________________________________________________________
Parameter Rybaki 2 sand T-S medium
__________________________________________________________
Dry unit weight [kN/m3] 16.7 21,9
Angle of internal friction [º] 35.8 28.0
__________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Parameter Tensar
__________________________________________________________
Aperture size [mm] 33 x 33
Tensile strength (both directions) [kN/m] 40.0
Loading at 2% strain (both directions) [kN/m] 14.0
Loading at 5% strain (both directions) [kN/m] 28.0
__________________________________________________________
2.3 Test conditions
The test conditions were as follows:
− the specimen length L=1.50 m and 1.20 m
− the specimen width B=0.40 m
− the confinement pressure σ =25 kPa, 50 kPa and 100 kPa
− the relative soil density Dr=0.381
− the displacement rate v=2.0 mm/min.
The specimen was loaded by the horizontal pullout force with
the constant displacement rate at the constant normal stress
applied to the top soil layer.
2.4 Test results
As a result of the performed tests, pullout forces and
corresponding displacements of the specimen at measuring
points were obtained. Based on the above, the pullout resistance
of geogrid was determined as follows:
Pr=(Fp⋅ ng) / Ng (1)
where: Fp = pullout force; ng = number of ribs per unit width of
geogrid; Ng = number of ribs of test specimen.
3 TESTS IN ANALOGOUS MEDIUM
3.1 Test apparatus
Pullout tests were also performed in Taylor – Schneebeli
analogous medium at two - dimensional deformation conditions.
The test set-up, following special modernisations, consisted of
the following main parts:
− the steel frame, inside which a stack (with dimensions 1.50 m
in length, 0.06 m in width and 0.30 m in height) of duralumin
rollers was formed
− the rubber air bag capable of providing an uniform normal
pressure up to 150 kPa
− the pullout force loading device (providing constant rate of
displacement up to 77,8 mm/min) consisting of a pneumatic
clamp, a frequency inverter, an electric engine and a load cell
of 20 kN capacity
 Figure 1. Schematic cross-section view of the testing device.
− electronic displacement transducers to measure the
displacement of the geomaterial at a clamp and selected
points located along its embedded length
− the data acquisition system.
3.2 Materials used in the experiments
The parameters of the analogous medium and the geogrid used
in the pullout tests are collected in Table 1 and Table 2.
3.3 Test conditions
The test conditions were as follows:
− the specimen length L=1.50m 1.00m and 0.50m
− the specimen width B=0.05m
− the confinement pressure Q=25kPa, 50kPa and 100kPa
− the displacement rate v=2.0mm/min and 77.8mm/min.
The experimental procedure was similar to test performed in
cohesionless soil.
3.4 Test results
The strain fields, the zone of soil-analogous medium interaction
and the resistance of the reinforcement for various anchoring
lengths and surcharge loads were determined during the tests.
Based on the analysis of the pullout tests results, the influence of
the following factors: specimen length, confinement pressure
and displacement rate on the pullout resistance of geogrid, was
determined.
4 NUMERICAL ANALYSIS IN PLANE STATE OF STRAIN
4.1 General
The numerical simulations of geosynthetic behaviour during
pulling out from the cohesionless soil, in the conditions of plane
state of strain were performed, using Plaxis 7.2 code, based on o
Finite Element Method.
4.2 Simulation program
All the assumptions made in the laboratory apparatus design as
well as during the performed tests, were reflected in numerical
analysis.
The pullout simulation were performed for:
− the specimen length L=1.50 m 1.00 m and 0.50 m
− the confinement pressure Q =25 kPa, 50 kPa and 100 kPa
− the relative soil density Dr=0.381.
4.3 Calculations
Calculations were performed for a plane strain model. The
model of a pullout box was described with the automatically
generated mesh composed of 15-node triangle elements, with the
refinement along geomaterial. The finite element mesh of pullout
box is shown in Fig. 2.
To set the boundary conditions of the pullout apparatus, the
model was fully fixed at the base (ux=uy=0) and the roller
conditions at the vertical sides (ux=0, uy=free), as well as at the
top (uy=0,ux=free) were generated.
Well-known elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model was
selected to describe Rybaki 2 sand behaviour (characterised by
parameters specified Table 3) in Plaxis calculations.
Table 3. Mohr-Coulomb model parameters for Rybaki 2
__________________________________________________________
Parameter Rybaki 2 Sand
__________________________________________________________
Young’s modulus E [MPa ] 40
Poisson’s ratio ν [- ] 0.31
Cohesion c [kPa] 1.0
Friction angle ϕ [°] 35.8
Dilatancy angle ψ [°] 5.8
__________________________________________________________
Figure 2. Plaxis mesh for pullout box
To model the interaction between the soil and the geomaterial,
interface elements (defined by five pairs of nodes) with a zero
thickness were used. The behaviour of the interface is described
using elastic-plastic model. The interface properties are
calculated from the soil properties in associated data set and the
strength reduction factor, which was taken as equal to adherence
factor from laboratory tests: Rinter=0,7.
A geomaterial is composed in Plaxis of geotextile elements
defined by 5 nodes. The geotextile elements are controlled by a
perfectly elastic behaviour rule. The only material property of
geotextile is elastic axial stiffness EA, which was taken, as equal
to: 500 kN/m.
The required confinement pressure was simulated by a
material layer with specified height and density.
The first step of the calculation was to generate initial stresses
based on K0 procedure. Next, the horizontal displacements of
geotextile were prescribed with 20mm steps. During calculations
the reaction (pullout) forces corresponding to prescribed
displacements were calculated. The calculations were performed
up to 150mm displacement of geotextile face.
5 COMPARISON OF THE INVESTIGATION RESULTS
The Plaxis calculation results are very valuable in making it
possible to visualise the effects occurring in soil during the
process of pulling geomaterial and to make comparisons
between the Plaxis results and Taylor-Scheebeli test results.
 As a result of visualising the calculation results it was The statement of maximum pullout resistance Pmax of geogrid
possible of localise the soil zones joined by geomaterial for embedded in soil, obtained in laboratory tests and numerical
interaction, for various anchoring lengths and surcharge loads. calculations, and corresponding displacement p (first
Having analysed the test results of different embedded length displacement measuring point on embedded part of geomaterial -
of geomaterial, L=150 cm and 120 cm, it was found that it has the point in the section A-A – Figure 2), is given in Table 4.
impact on the value of displacement of the surrounding soil, as In FEM calculations, for confinement pressures Q=50 kPa
well as on distribution of principal stresses (Fig. 3). Larger and 100 kPa, the peak value of geomaterial pullout resistance
concentration of stresses at the sleeves was observed. was not reached (Table 4, Figure 7). It was caused by the
In Figure 5 the results of numerical simulation for different geomaterial modelling method in the Plaxis code. There were no
confinement pressures and the comparison with T_S tests are limitations of the geotextile strength. In conclusion, there is no
presented. Increasing the normal stress causes an evident possibility of modelling geotextile rapture after exceeding the
increase in concentration of stresses on the geotextile surface. In maximum tensile strength of geomaterial, as occurred in
numerical simulations, the zone of fixing of the end of geotextile laboratory tests.
is well visible for confinement pressures Q=50 kPa and 100 kPa,
for which in laboratory tests the pullout of geomaterial has not Table 4. Statement of maximum pullout resistance Pmax
occurred. and corresponding displacement p2
__________________________________________________________
The statement of distribution of axial force in geotextile, in Test parameter Pmax [kN/m] for p2 [mm]
__________________________________________________________
successive steps of prescribed displacements, for different Laboratory tests Plaxis calculations
confinement pressures is given in Figure 4. The most distinct __________________________________________________________
differences were observed in respect of the front displacement 25 P= 38,55 kN/m P=36,23 kN/m
p1=8cm, between Q= 25 kPa (geotextile is pulling out along the for p=59,98 mm for p=62,18 mm
__________________________________________________
whole embedded length), and Q= 50 kPa and 100 kPa (only a Q [kPa] 50 P=41,91 kN/m
part of the length is mobilised). Significant differences in the for p=49,52 mm --*
__________________________________________________
value of pullout force were also found. 100 P=42,04 kN/m
No significant influence of the specimen length on the force for p=27,14 mm --*
__________________________________________________________
distribution in reinforcement has been observed. 150 P=38,55 kN/m P=37,32 kN/m
During Plaxis calculation it was possible to generate the load- L [cm] for p=59,98 mm for p=62,03 mm
_________________________________________________
displacement curves in chosen points. The comparison of curves
120 P=33,30 kN/m P=31,15 kN/m
obtained in laboratory tests (for displacement measuring point for p=42,33 mm for p=42,32 mm
p2) and FEM calculations are shown in Figures 6 and 7. __________________________________________________________
* The peak value of Pmax was not reached in Plaxis calculations

Figure 3. Numerical results for different specimen length (L)

L [cm] Total displacements Principal stresses

150

120

Figure 4. Distribution of axial force in geotextile for different confinement pressures (Q)
Prescribed frontal displacement
Q [kPa]
p1= 2 cm p1= 4 cm p1= 8 cm p1= 15 cm
F=16,54 kN/m F=24,97 kN/m F=35,76 kN/m F=36,69 kN/m
25

F=21,35 kN/m F=30,37 kN/m F=43,10 kN/m F=58,89 kN/m

50

F=25,67 kN/m F=36,58 kN/m F=52,39 kN/m F=72,86 kN/m

100
 Figure 5. The comparison of numerical and experimental (T-S medium) results for different confinement pressures
Q [kPa] PLAXIS Taylor-Schneebeli

25

50

100

45
In most cases, the obtained numerical calculation results did not
40 differ significantly from the laboratory pullout test results. The
35 small differences, which occurred between the values of
maximum pullout resistance, result from limitations and
pullout resistance [kN/m]

30
simplifications in modelling of geogrid behaviour during the
25 process of pulling out from the soil.
20
15 6 CONCLUSIONS
L=120 Test
10 L=150 Test
L=120 Plaxis Laboratory tests in large-scale pullout box provided a lot of
5
L=150 Plaxis information about the mechanical behaviour of soil-geosynthetic
0 system, the pullout resistance and how it is influenced by the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 apparatus parameters, the confinement pressure, specimen
displacement [mm] dimensions, etc. The tests performed in plane strain conditions,
Figure 6. Pullout resistance versus displacement for different specimen in Taylor-Schneebeli apparatus and the numerical analysis of
length (L) pulling out geomaterial from cohesionless medium, confirmed
70
the accuracy of the established pullout box parameters.

60
REFERENCES
pullout resistance [kN/m]

50
Bolt, A. F., Duszyńska, A. (1998): Współpraca układu grunt – geosiatka
40 w badaniu na wyciąganie w warunkach płaskiego stanu odkształceń
(Soil-geogrid interaction in plane strain pullout test – in Polish) - I
30
Q=25 Test
Problemowa Konferencja Geotechniki „Współpraca budowli z
Q=50 Test podłożem gruntowym” Białystok - Wigry,
20 Bolt A. F., Duszyńska A. (2000): “Pull-Out Testing of Geogrid
Q=100 Test
Q=25 Plaxis Reinforcements” – Proceedings of Second European Geosynthetics
10 Q=50 Plaxis Conference Eurogeo 2000, Bologna, Italy;
` Q=100 Plaxis prEN 13738. Geotextiles and related products. Determination of pullout
0 resistance in soil.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
displacement [mm]

Figure 7. Pullout resistance versus displacement for different

confinement pressure (Q)

View publication stats