Sustainability 14 01207 v2

sustainability
Article
Influence of the Geosynthetic Type and Compaction Conditions
on the Pullout Behaviour of Geosynthetics Embedded in
Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials
Castorina S. Vieira * and Paulo M. Pereira
CONSTRUCT, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, R. Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal;
paulmppereira@gmail.com
* Correspondence: cvieira@fe.up.pt
Abstract: The effects of the climate change that the planet has been experiencing, and the growing
awareness of citizens that natural resources are finite, highlight the inevitability of making society
more sustainable. Since the construction industry is responsible for a high consumption of natural
resources and it simultaneously produces high volumes of waste, it is of great importance to investi-
gate the feasibility of using construction and demolition (C&D) wastes as alternatives to common
natural materials. This paper investigates the feasibility of using fine-grain recycled C&D wastes as
backfill material of geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes, through a laboratory study focused mainly
on the pullout behaviour of two geosynthetics embedded in these alternative materials. The influence
of the geosynthetic type, moisture content and compaction degree of the recycled C&D material on
the pullout behaviour is assessed and discussed. The physical and mechanical characterization of
the filling material is also presented. The pullout test results have pointed out that, although the
two geosynthetics have similar tensile strength, the pullout resistance of the geogrid is higher than
that of the geotextile and is achieved at lower frontal displacements. While the reduction of the

compaction moisture content below the optimum value induced a slight decrease in the geogrid
Citation: Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M.
Influence of the Geosynthetic Type
pullout resistance (ranging from 5% to 7%), conversely the pullout capacity of the geotextile increased
and Compaction Conditions on the up to 22%. The compaction degree of the recycled C&D material had the expected effect on the
Pullout Behaviour of Geosynthetics geotextile pullout resistance, reflected in an increase of about 20% when the degree of compaction rose
Embedded in Recycled Construction from 80% to 90%. However, the expected trend was not observed on the geogrid pullout behaviour.
and Demolition Materials. The pullout interaction coefficient tended to decrease with the variation of the compaction moisture
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207. https:// content around the optimum value (maximum decrease of 33% and 16% for the geogrid and the
doi.org/10.3390/su14031207 geotextile, respectively) and with an increase in the vertical confining pressure from 10 kPa up to
Academic Editor: Václav Nežerka 50 kPa (decrease around 25%). The average value of the pullout interaction coefficient, fb, ranged
from 0.61 to 1.09 for the geogrid and from 0.67 to 1.25 for the geotextile. From all these findings it can
Received: 8 October 2021
be concluded that recycled C&D materials can be seen as an environmentally friendly alternatives to
Accepted: 13 January 2022
the natural resources commonly used in the construction of geosynthetic-reinforced embankments.
Published: 21 January 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Keywords: sustainability in geotechnics; geosynthetics; recycled construction and demolition materials;
with regard to jurisdictional claims in pullout behaviour
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
The construction industry has been identified as responsible for the consumption of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. around 50% of natural resources, 40% of energetic consumption and 50% of the total waste
This article is an open access article produced [1,2]. C&D wastes refer to the waste produced by construction, reconstruction,
distributed under the terms and conservation, demolition or downfall of structures and infrastructures, being produced in
conditions of the Creative Commons huge quantities, mainly in urban areas. These wastes must be properly managed so as to
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// avoid negative environmental impacts, and recycling alternatives should be found.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Recycling of C&D wastes has been studied over the years. Recycled C&D materials
4.0/). have been considered for use as alternative aggregates in concrete and mortars [3–8], as
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031207 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21
huge quantities, mainly in urban areas. These wastes must be properly managed so as to
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 avoid negative environmental impacts, and recycling alternatives should be found.2 of 21
Recycling of C&D wastes has been studied over the years. Recycled C&D materials
have been considered for use as alternative aggregates in concrete and mortars [3–8], as
sustainablereplacements
sustainable replacements forfor cement
cement in soilin stabilization
soil stabilization
[9–11] [9–11] or production
or mortar mortar production
[12,13],
[12,13], in base and sub-base layers of transportation infrastructure
in base and sub-base layers of transportation infrastructure [14–17], as backfilling [14–17], as backfilling
of
of pipes
pipes [18,19]
[18,19] or asorfilling
as filling materials
materials of geosynthetic
of geosynthetic reinforcement
reinforcement structures
structures [20–23].
[20–23].
Thispaper
This paperisisexpected
expectedtotobe beaacontribution
contributionto tothe
thelatter
latterapplication
applicationabove
abovementioned.
mentioned.
Geosynthetic-reinforcedsoil
Geosynthetic-reinforced soilstructures,
structures,such suchasassteep
steepslopes,
slopes,retaining
retainingwalls
wallsand andbridge
bridge
abutments,have
abutments, havegained
gainedwidewideacceptance
acceptancethroughout
throughoutthe theworld
worlddueduetototheir
theirtechnical,
technical,eco-
eco-
nomic and environmental benefits. If the replacement of the soil, the
nomic and environmental benefits. If the replacement of the soil, the natural resource used natural resource used
commonlyininthe
commonly theconstruction
constructionofofthese thesestructures,
structures,by byrecycled
recycledmaterials,
materials,suchsuchasasrecycled
recycled
C&D
C&Dwastes,
wastes,becomes
becomesaafeasible
feasiblesolution,
solution,the theenvironmental
environmentalbenefitsbenefitswill
willbebeenhanced.
enhanced.
The
Theinteraction
interactionbetween
betweenthe thefill
fillmaterial
material(soil
(soilororother)
other)andandthe
thegeosynthetics
geosyntheticsisisaatopic
topic
ofofgreat
greatrelevance
relevanceconcerning
concerningthis thisapplication,
application,sincesinceititlargely
largelyaffects
affectsthe
thestability
stabilityofofthe
the
geosynthetic-reinforced
geosynthetic-reinforcedsoil soilstructures.
structures. As As aamatter
matterof offact,
fact,the
thegeosynthetic
geosyntheticlengthlengthand,
and,
thereafter,
thereafter,thethesize
sizeofofthe
thereinforced
reinforcedblock blockdepends
dependsononthe theinterface
interfaceproperties.
properties.
Figure
Figure11illustrates
illustratesaapotential
potentialfailure
failuremechanism
mechanismofofaageosynthetic-reinforced
geosynthetic-reinforcedsteep steep
slope
slopeand
and the
the most laboratory tests
most suitable laboratory testsfor
forthe
thecharacterization
characterizationofof thethe interface’s
interface’s re-
resistance. Whenthe
sistance. When thepotential
potentialfailure
failure mechanism
mechanism tends tends to to provoke
provoke the the sliding
sliding ofof the
thefill
fill
mass
masson onthe
thegeosynthetic
geosyntheticsurface,
surface,the theinterface
interfaceshould
shouldbe becharacterized
characterizedthrough
throughdirect
direct
shear
sheartests.
tests.IfIfthe
thereinforcement
reinforcement tends
tends totobebepulled
pulledout, then
out, pullout
then tests
pullout should
tests shouldbe used to
be used
characterize soil–geosynthetic interaction.
to characterize soil–geosynthetic interaction.
Geosynthetic σ
Pullout test
σ
τ
Direct Shear
Potential test
failure surface
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the most suitable laboratory tests for characterization of
Figure 1. Schematic
fill–geosynthetic representation
interfaces (adapted of the[24]).
from most suitable laboratory tests for characterization of fill–
geosynthetic interfaces (adapted from [24]).
Over the last decades, soil–geosynthetic interactions have been studied through lab-
oratory Over the last
pullout testsdecades,
[25–30] soil–geosynthetic
(Table 1). Alfaro et interactions have been
al. [25] discussed studied
a new through
apparatus la-
and
boratory pullout
evaluated tests
the effects of [25–30] (Table Lopes
the dilatancy. 1). Alfaro
andet al. [25][26]
Ladeira discussed
reporteda new apparatus
the effects and
of spec-
evaluated
imen the effects
geometry, of theand
soil height dilatancy.
sleeve Lopes
lengthand Ladeira
on the [26]behaviour
pullout reported the effects of spec-
of geogrids. The
imen geometry,
influence soil height and
of the confinement sleevesoil
pressure, length on the
density andpullout behaviour
displacement rateofongeogrids. The
the pullout
behaviour
influence of the geogrids was discussed
confinement pressure, bysoil
[27]. Ferreira
density andetdisplacement
al. [28] studiedratetheon
influence of
the pullout
soil density of
behaviour and moisturewas
geogrids content on theby
discussed pullout behaviour
[27]. Ferreira of different
et al. geosynthetics.
[28] studied the influenceTheof
effects of cyclic
soil density andloading
moisture oncontent
pullouton resistance
the pullout of geogrids
behaviourembedded
of differentingeosynthetics.
compacted soils The
was analysed
effects by Ferreira
of cyclic loading et onal. [29] and
pullout Moraci and
resistance Cardile [30]—Table
of geogrids embedded in 1. compacted soils
wasThe laboratory
analysed studieset
by Ferreira onal.
the pullout
[29] behaviour
and Moraci andofCardile
geosynthetics embedded
[30]—Table 1. in recycled
C&D waste are more recent and scarce (Table 1). Soleimanbeigi et al. [31] and Vieira
etTable
al. [32] presented
1. Summary of results of direct
some relevant shear tests
laboratory andon
studies pullout
pullouttests carried
behaviour of out with various
geosynthetics.
geosynthetics embedded in a recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) [31] and in a mixed
Dimensions Pullout
Reference recycled C&D Geosynthetic
material [32].TypeThe effects of Material
Filling the specimen size and displacement
Assessed Parametersrate on the
Box—L × W × H (mm)
pullout behaviour of geogrids embedded in a recycled C&D material were investigated
New test apparatus
Alfaro et al. [25] 1600 by Vieira
× 600 × 500et al. [33].Geogrid
The influenceDenseof cyclic loading
granular soil on the pullout behaviour of various
Soil dilatancy
geosynthetics was studied by Vieira et al. [34].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 3 of 21
Table 1. Summary of some relevant laboratory studies on pullout behaviour of geosynthetics.
Dimensions Pullout
Reference Geosynthetic Type Filling Material Assessed Parameters
Box—L × W × H (mm)
New test apparatus
Alfaro et al. [25] 1600 × 600 × 500 Geogrid Dense granular soil
Soil dilatancy
Specimen geometry
Soil height
Sleeve length
Lopes and Ladeira [26,27] 1530 × 1000 × 800 Geogrid Granular soil
Confinement pressure
Soil density
Displacement rate
Geogrid Soil density
Ferreira et al. [28] 1530 × 1000 × 800 Geocomposite Granite residual soil Soil moisture content
Geotextile Geosynthetic type
Cyclic pullout loading
Cyclic load frequency
Ferreira et al. [29] 1530 × 1000 × 800 Geogrid Granite residual soil Cyclic load amplitude
Number of cycles
Soil density
Cyclic load amplitude
Moraci and Cardile [30] 1700 × 600 × 680 Geogrid Granular soil Cyclic load frequency
Vertical confining stress
Geogrid properties
Geogrid Recycled concrete Vertical confining stress
Soleimanbeigi et al. [31] 1270 × 760 × 510
Geotextile aggregate Geosynthetic type
Geosynthetic type
Geogrid
Fine-grain recycled C&D Geogrid specimen size
Vieira et al. [32,33] 1530 × 1000 × 800 Geocomposite
material Displacement rate
(high-strength geotextile)
Vertical confining pressure
Geogrid Pre-cyclic pullout load level
Fine-grain recycled C&D
Vieira et al. [34] 1530 × 1000 × 800 Geocomposite Cyclic load frequency
material
(high-strength geotextile) Cyclic load amplitude
Geosynthetic type
Recent studies regarding the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics embedded in bio-

cemented soils [35], marginal tropical soils [36] and in pond ash from thermal power
plants [37] should also be highlighted.
This paper evaluates and discusses the effects of the compaction conditions, namely
the moisture content and compaction degree of the recycled C&D material on the pullout
behaviour of two distinct geosynthetics (a polyester geogrid and a high-strength composite
geotextile). To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no studies in which the effects of
the compaction conditions of the recycled C&D material have been studied. Understanding
these effects is of great importance since the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics is strongly
influenced by these conditions.
2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials
The recycled C&D material used in this work was obtained from a Portuguese re-
cycling plant. C&D wastes used to produce this recycled material were mainly from the
rehabilitation or demolition of small residential buildings and the cleaning up of illegal
C&D waste dumps. As mentioned before, this study follows up on a previous work [33];
recycled material from the same batch was therefore used. It refers to a fine-grain fraction
produced during the recycling process and due, mainly, to the high soil content and hetero-
geneity, it has limited demand from building contractors. A sample of the recycled C&D
material is illustrated in Figure 2. Its geotechnical characterization will be presented in
Section 3.
C&D waste dumps. As mentioned before, this study follows up on a previous work [33];
C&D waste
recycled dumps.
material fromAs thementioned
same batchbefore, this study
was therefore follows
used. up on
It refers to aa fine-grain
previous work
fraction[33];
recycledduring
produced material thefrom the same
recycling batchand
process wasdue,
therefore used.
mainly, It refers
to the to a content
high soil fine-grain
and fraction
het-
produced during the recycling process and due, mainly, to the high soil
erogeneity, it has limited demand from building contractors. A sample of the recycled content and het-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207
erogeneity, it has limited demand from building contractors. A sample of the
C&D material is illustrated in Figure 2. Its geotechnical characterization will be presented recycled
4 of 21
inC&D material
Section 3. is illustrated in Figure 2. Its geotechnical characterization will be presented
in Section 3.
Figure 2. Visual appearance of the recycled C&D material used in this study.
Figure2.2.Visual
Figure Visualappearance
appearanceofofthe
therecycled
recycledC&D
C&Dmaterial
materialused
usedininthis
thisstudy.
study.
A laid uniaxial geogrid manufactured of extruded polyester (PET) bars with welded
AAlaid
laiduniaxial
rigid junctions uniaxial
(Figure geogrid
geogrid manufactured
3a) andmanufactured
a high-strengthofofcomposite
extrudedpolyester
extruded polyester(PET)
geotextile (PET) barswith
bars
consisting with
of welded
welded
polypro-
rigid
rigid junctions
junctions (Figure
(Figure 3a)
3a) and
and a a high-strength
high-strength composite
composite geotextile
geotextile consisting
consisting
pylene (PP) continuous-filament needle-punched nonwoven and high-strength PET yarns of of polypro-
polypropy-
pylene
lene
(Figure(PP)(PP)
3b) continuous-filament
continuous-filament
were needle-punched
needle-punched
used in this study. nonwoven
nonwoven
Both geosynthetics areandand high-strength
high-strength
currently used as PETPETyarns
yarns
reinforce-
(Figure
(Figure
ment 3b)were
3b)
materialswere used
inused in in
thisthis study.
study. Both
Both
geosynthetic-reinforced geosynthetics
geosynthetics
structures are currently
are currently
(steep slopes used as reinforce-
usedretaining
and as reinforcement
walls).
ment
materialsmaterials
in in geosynthetic-reinforced
geosynthetic-reinforced structuresstructures
(steep (steep
slopes andslopes and
retaining
The main physical and mechanical properties of these geosynthetics are summarized retaining
walls). The walls).
main
in
The main
physical
Table 2. and physical and
mechanical mechanical
properties ofproperties
these of these
geosynthetics geosynthetics
are summarizedare summarized
in Table 2. in
Table 2.
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Geosynthetics: (a) GGR—uniaxial PET geogrid; (b) GCR—high-strength geotextile.
Figure3.3.Geosynthetics:
Figure Geosynthetics:(a)
(a)GGR—uniaxial
GGR—uniaxialPET
PETgeogrid;
geogrid;(b)
(b)GCR—high-strength
GCR—high-strengthgeotextile.
geotextile.
Table 2. Main properties of the geosynthetics.
Table2.2.Main
Table Mainproperties
propertiesofofthe
thegeosynthetics.
geosynthetics.
GGR GCR
GGR GGR GCR GCR
Raw material PET PP & PET
Raw
Aperture Raw
materialmaterial(mm)
dimensions PET 30 ×PET
73 PPPET
PP & -& PET
Aperture dimensions
Aperture (mm) (mm)
dimensions 30 × 73 30 × 73 - -
Mass per unit area2(g/m 2)
380
380 340
340 340
Mass per
Massunit
perarea (g/m
unit ) (g/m2)
area
Mean
Mean value
value oftensile
of the the tensile strength
strength (kN/m) (kN/m) 80 80380 7575
Mean value
Elongation
Elongation
ofatthe tensile
maximum
at maximum
strength
load (%)
load (%)
(kN/m) ≤8 ≤880 1010
75
Elongation at maximum
Secant stiffness at 2% strain (kN/m) load (%) 1920 ≤8 650 10
2.2. Pullout Tests

Several pullout test devices have been developed by different researchers around the
world [26,38–43]. Commonly, the pullout test apparatus is composed of a rigid pullout box,
a vertical load application system, a horizontal force application device, a clamping system
and associated instrumentation [26,44].
Secant stiffness at 2% strain (kN/m) 1920 650
2.2. Pullout Tests

Several pullout test devices have been developed by different researchers around the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 world [26,38–43]. Commonly, the pullout test apparatus is composed of a rigid pullout 5 of 21
box, a vertical load application system, a horizontal force application device, a clamping
system and associated instrumentation [26,44].
TheThelarge-scale
large-scalepullout
pullouttest
testapparatus
apparatusused usedininthis
thisstudy
study(Figure
(Figure4)4)waswasdeveloped
developedatat
the
the University of Porto within the scope of previous research [26]. The pullout boxconsists
University of Porto within the scope of previous research [26]. The pullout box consists
ofofa amodular
modularstructure
structurewith
withinternal
internaldimensions
dimensionsofof1.5 1.5mmlong,
long,1.0
1.0mmwide
wideandand0.8 mm
0.8 deep.
deep.
The
The box is equipped with a 0.2 m long sleeve in order to minimize the frictional effectsofof
box is equipped with a 0.2 m long sleeve in order to minimize the frictional effects
the
thefront
frontwall
wall(Figure
(Figure4).
4).Considering
Consideringthat thatthe
theclamping
clampingsystem
systemisisinserted
insertedinto
intothe
thepullout
pullout
box
boxthrough
througha ametal
metalsleeve,
sleeve,thetheinitial
initialunconfined
unconfinedlengthlengthofofthethespecimens
specimensisisnegligible.
negligible.
The
Thenormal
normalstress
stressisisapplied
appliedthrough
throughten tensmall
smallhydraulic
hydraulicjacks
jacksonona wooden
a wooden loading
loading plate.
plate.
Between
Between the top layer of the structural fill (soil or other material) and the loading plate,a a
the top layer of the structural fill (soil or other material) and the loading plate,
2525mm mmthick
thickneoprene
neoprenesheetsheetisisplaced
placedtotoreduce
reducetoptopboundary–soil
boundary–soilfriction.
friction.
Hydraulic jacks
Loading plate
Neoprene sheet
Metal sleeve
Load cell Linear
Clamp Geosynthetic potentiometers
v
Pullout
direction
Inextensible wires
0.2 m
0.3 m Structural fill
v v v v
v
1.5 m
(a)
Geosynthetic Linear
Inextensible wires potentiometers
a
1.0 m
1.5 m
(b)
Figure
Figure4.4.Schematic
Schematicillustration
illustrationofofthe
thepullout
pullout test
test apparatus:
apparatus: (a) longitudinal section; (b)
longitudinal section; (b)top
topview
viewat
atgeosynthetic
geosyntheticlevel.
level.
The displacements throughout the geosynthetic length can be monitored using inexten-
sible wires connected to the geosynthetic specimen, at one end, and to linear potentiometers
placed outside the pullout box, at the other end (Figure 4). The frontal displacement of the
specimen is obtained through a linear potentiometer and the pullout force recorded by a
load cell.
The backfill material (or structural fill) was previously prepared at the required mois-
ture content and then it was placed inside the pullout box, levelled and compacted using
a compacting hammer to fill the volume of each layer (150 mm thick) identified on the
walls of the box. After compacting the first two layers, the geosynthetic was fixed in the
tensible wires connected to the geosynthetic specimen, at one end, and to linear potenti-
ometers placed outside the pullout box, at the other end (Figure 4). The frontal displace-
ment of the specimen is obtained through a linear potentiometer and the pullout force
recorded by a load cell.
The backfill material (or structural fill) was previously prepared at the required mois-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 ture content and then it was placed inside the pullout box, levelled and compacted 6using of 21
a compacting hammer to fill the volume of each layer (150 mm thick) identified on the
walls of the box. After compacting the first two layers, the geosynthetic was fixed in the
clampingsystem
clamping systemand
andintroduced
introduced into
into thethe pullout
pullout box
box over
over thethe compacted
compacted backfill
backfill mate-
material.
Ifrial.
the If
use ofuse
the potentiometers is intended,
of potentiometers the inextensible
is intended, wires arewires
the inextensible fixedare
to the geosynthetic
fixed to the geo-
specimen
syntheticand connected
specimen andtoconnected
the linear to
potentiometers (Figure 5b). Afterwards
the linear potentiometers twoAfterwards
(Figure 5b). more lay-
ers
twoof more
recycled C&D
layers of material
recycledwith
C&D150 mm thick
material each
with 150are
mm compacted
thick eachover
arethe geosynthetic
compacted over
specimen.
the geosynthetic specimen.
(a) (b)
Figure5.5.Geotextile
Figure Geotextile(GCR)
(GCR)specimens:
specimens:(a)
(a)dimensions
dimensionsof
ofthe
thespecimens
specimens(in
(inmetres)
metres)and
andlocation
locationofof
the measurement points; (b) photograph of the specimen inside the pullout box.
the measurement points; (b) photograph of the specimen inside the pullout box.
Oncethe
Once thecompaction
compaction is completed,
is completed, the neoprene
the neoprene sheetsheet
and the and the loading
loading plate areplate are
placed
placed over the fill and the hydraulic jacks are properly positioned.
over the fill and the hydraulic jacks are properly positioned. Before starting the pullout Before starting the
pullout loading,
loading, the normal the stress
normal stress previously
previously establishedestablished
was applied was applied
on the on testthe test samples
samples for a
for a period
period of 30 min.
of 30 min.
AAconstant
constantpullout
pulloutdisplacement
displacementrate rateofof2 2mm/min
mm/minwas wasconsidered
consideredininaccordance
accordance
withthe
with theEuropean
EuropeanStandardStandard[45]. [45].
Thegeosynthetic
The geosynthetic specimens were weretested
testedwithwithdimensions
dimensions of of
250250mmmm × 750× mm, com-
750 mm,
plying with the ratio of confined length to width equal to three,
complying with the ratio of confined length to width equal to three, as recommended by as recommended by the
standard
the standard [45]. TheThe
[45]. displacements
displacements throughout
throughout the the
length
lengththe the
geotextile
geotextile(GCR)(GCR) were rec-
were
orded byby
recorded linear
linearpotentiometers
potentiometersatatthe thelocations
locations shown
shown in Figure 5a. 5a. In
In the
thetests
testsperformed
performed
withthe
with thegeogrid
geogrid(GGR),(GGR),the theuse
useofofpotentiometers
potentiometerswas wasnot notviable,
viable,since
sincethethefixing
fixingsystem
system
induced
inducedthe thepremature
prematurerupture ruptureininthe thejunctions
junctionsofofthethebars
barsduring
duringthethepullout.
pullout.
The
Thelaboratory
laboratorystudy studywas wasdesigned
designedtotoappreciate
appreciatethe theinfluence
influenceofofthe thegeosynthetic
geosynthetic
type,
type, compaction conditions and confining pressure at the interface level onthe
compaction conditions and confining pressure at the interface level on thepullout
pullout
behaviour
behaviourofofdifferent
differentgeosynthetics
geosyntheticsembedded
embeddedininaarecycled
recycledC&D C&Dmaterial.
material.To Toinvestigate
investigate
the
theinfluence
influenceofofthe themoisture
moisturecontent,
content,thetherecycled
recycledmaterial
materialwas wascompacted
compactedatatits itsoptimum
optimum
moisture
moisturecontent
content(OMC),(OMC),OMC OMC-3%−3% and OMC+3% for 80% or or 90%
90% ofofthe
themaximum
maximumdry dry
density
density(MDD).
(MDD).The Theinfluence
influenceofofthe thevertical
verticalconfining
confiningpressure
pressurewas wasevaluated
evaluatedcarrying
carrying
out
outpullout
pullouttests
testsforfor10,
10,2525andand 5050
kPakPaat at
thetheinterface
interfacelevel. The
level. pullout
The pullout testtest
programme
programme is
summarized in Table 3. Note that for each condition, three specimens
is summarized in Table 3. Note that for each condition, three specimens were tested. were tested.
Table 3. Pullout test programme.
Geosynthetic Moisture Content % Maximum Dry Confining Number of

Test Number
Material (%) Density Pressure (kPa) Specimens
T1 10 3
T2 GGR 9* 80 25 3
T3 50 3
T4 10 3
GGR 6 80
T5 25 3
T6 10 3
T7 GGR 12 80 25 3
T8 50 3
T9 10 3
GGR 9* 90
T10 25 3
T11 10 3
T12 GCR 9* 80 25 3
T13 50 3
T14 10 3
GCR 6 80
T15 25 3
T16 10 3
T17 GCR 12 80 25 3
T18 50 3
T19 10 3
GCR 9* 90
T20 25 3
* Optimum moisture content (OMC) = 9%.
2.3. Pullout Interaction Coefficient

The behaviour of the interfaces between the geosynthetic and the filling material plays
a major role in the design and stability analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced structures. The
strength of these interfaces is typically established on interaction coefficients.
The pullout interaction coefficient, fb , is usually defined as the ratio between the
maximum shear stress mobilized at the interface during pullout and the shear strength of
the backfill material for the same confining pressure, σ:
max ( σ )
τpullout τp
fb = max = (1)
τdirect shear ( σ ) τds
The pullout interaction coefficients for the interfaces under analysis were evaluated
and will be presented and discussed in the next section.
3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical and Mechanical Characterization of the Recycled C&D Material
The particle size distribution of this fine-grained recycled C&D material determined
by sieving and sedimentation is illustrated in Figure 6. The gradation limits for backfill
materials of geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining walls (SRW) specified by the Na-
tional Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) [46] and mechanically stabilized earth walls
(MSEW) and reinforced soil slopes (RSS) indicated by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) [47] are also shown in Figure 6.
In spite of the high fine content (16.9%), the particle size distribution of this recycled
material is consistent with the requirements of NCMA for segmental retaining walls (SRW)
and those of FHWA for reinforced soil slopes (RSS). This recycled material does not meet
the gradation limits for backfill materials of mechanically stabilized earth walls (MSEW).
Table
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 summarizes the main physical and mechanical properties of the recycled C&D
8 of 21
material. According to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), this recycled material
can be classified as a silty sand (SM).
100
Limiting gradation requirements
of reinforced backfill soil :
90
According to NCMA for SRW structures
80 According to FHWA for MSEW structures
According to FHWA for RSS structures

70
Percentage passing (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size (mm)
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Particle
Particle size
size distribution
distribution of
of the
the recycled
recycled C&D
C&D material
material and
and gradation
gradation limits
limits recommended
recommended
by NCMA
by NCMA[46][46]and
andFHWA
FHWA[47].[47].
Table In spite physical

4. Main of the high
and fine contentproperties
mechanical (16.9%), of
the
theparticle
recycledsize
C&Ddistribution
material. of this recycled
material is consistent with the requirements of NCMA for segmental
Properties
retaining walls
Values
(SRW) and those of FHWA for reinforced soil slopes (RSS). This recycled material does
D10 [mm] 0.01
not meet the gradation limits for backfill materials of mechanically stabilized earth walls
D30 [mm] 0.27
(MSEW). D50 [mm] 0.61
Table 4 summarizes Dthe main physical and mechanical properties0.97
60 [mm]
of the recycled
C&D material. According to Cthe u Unified Soil Classification System (USCS),
97 this recycled
material can be classified as a silty sand (SM).
C c 7.5
Fines fraction (No. 200 sieve) [%] 16.9
Minimum
Table 4. Main physical void ratio,
and mechanical emin
properties of the recycled C&D material.0.434
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.877
Properties
Particle density, Gs Values2.58
3]
Maximum dry D10 [mm]
unit weight, γ d,max [kN/m 0.0120.1
Optimum moisture content, OMC [%] 9.0
D30 [mm] 0.27
D50 [mm] 0.61
Large-scale direct D 60 [mm]
shear tests (shear box with internal dimensions0.97 300 mm × 600 mm
× 200 mm) were carried out Cu to evaluate the internal shear strength of the recycled C&D
97
material for all the compaction conditions considered in the test programme (Table 3).
Cc 7.5
The direct shear tests were performed on a prototype apparatus presented in previous
Fines fraction (No. 200 sieve) [%] 16.9
publications [22,24,48] under normal stresses of 25, 50, 100 and 150 kPa. As recommended
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.434
by the standard EN ISO 12957-1 [49], the tests were carried out twice for the normal stress
of 100 kPa. Maximum void ratio, e max 0.877
Particle density, G s 2.58
The potential variability of the results of direct shear tests carried out on recycled C&D
Maximum
materials dry unitinweight,
was evaluated γd,maxwork
a previous [kN/m 3
[22].] In that study, performed
20.1 with a material
provided Optimum moisture
by the same content,
recycling plant OMC
and[%] 9.0
similar particle size distribution, each direct
Large-scale direct shear tests (shear box with internal dimensions 300 mm × 600 mm
× 200 mm) were carried out to evaluate the internal shear strength of the recycled C&D
material for all the compaction conditions considered in the test programme (Table 3). The
direct shear tests were performed on a prototype apparatus presented in previous publi-
cations [22,24,48] under normal stresses of 25, 50, 100 and 150 kPa. As recommended by
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 the standard EN ISO 12957-1 [49], the tests were carried out twice for the normal stress 9 of 21of
100 kPa.
The potential variability of the results of direct shear tests carried out on recycled
C&D materials
shear test was evaluated
was performed in a under
three times previous workconditions,
similar [22]. In that
andstudy, performed
the authors foundwith
that a
material provided by the same recycling plant and similar
the variability among the results was low (in general below 8%). particle size distribution, each
direct
Theshear test shear
internal was performed three times
strength parameters of under similarC&D
the recycled conditions,
materialandfor the
eachauthors
com-
found condition
paction that the variability among
are presented the results
in Table 5. was low (in general below 8%).
The internal shear strength parameters of the recycled C&D material for each com-
paction
Table condition
5. Internal shearare presented
strength in Table
parameters 5. recycled C&D material.
of the
Table 5. Internal shear strength parameters80% MDD

of the recycled C&D material. 90% MDD
Parameter OMC−3% OMC OMC+3% OMC
80% MDD 90% MDD
Cohesion, c
Parameter 21.1 OMC-3%16.3 OMC OMC+3%
12.4 OMC
18.0
[kPa]
Cohesion,
Peak friction c [kPa] 21.1 16.3 12.4 18.0
40.5 37.6 37.5 40.3
angle, ϕ [◦ ]
Peak friction angle, φ [°] 40.5 37.6 37.5 40.3
FromTable
From Table5 5it itcan
canbebeconcluded
concludedthat
thatthe
theincrease
increaseininthe
themoisture
moisturecontent
content(from
(from
OMC-3% to OMC+3%) leads to the decrease of the internal shear strength
OMC−3% to OMC+3%) leads to the decrease of the internal shear strength of the recycled of the recycled
material.As
material. Asexpected,
expected,increasing
increasingthethecompaction
compactiondry drydensity
densityinduced
inducedthe
theincrease
increaseofofthe
the
backfill shear strength.
backfill shear strength.
3.2.Influence
3.2. Influenceofofthe
theGeosynthetic
GeosyntheticType
TypeononthethePullout
PulloutBehaviour
Behaviour
Thepullout
The pulloutbehaviour
behaviourofofboth
bothgeosynthetics
geosyntheticsand andthe
thevariability
variabilityamong
amongthe thethree
threetest
test
specimensare
specimens arecompared
comparedininFigure
Figure7.7.The
Theresults
resultspresented
presentedininthese
thesegraphs
graphsrefer
refertotopullout
pullout
testscarried
tests carriedout
outunder
undervertical
verticalconfining
confiningpressure
pressureatatthe
theinterface
interfacelevel
levelofof1010kPa
kPa(tests
(testsT1
T1
andT11).
and T11).
50
50
Sample 1
Sample 1
Sample 2
40 Sample 2
Sample 3 40
Sample 3
Pullout force (kN/m)
Pullout force (kN/m)
30 30
20 20
10
10
0
0 0 50 100 150 200
0 50 100 150 200 Frontal displacement (mm)
Frontal displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure7.7.Comparison
Figure Comparisonofofthe
thepullout
pulloutbehaviour
behaviourofofthe
thegeosynthetics
geosyntheticsand
andvariability
variabilityamong
amongthe
thethree
three
specimens (σ = 10 kPa): (a) Test T1-GGR; (b) Test T11-GCR.
specimens (σ = 10 kPa): (a) Test T1-GGR; (b) Test T11-GCR.
FromFigure
From Figure77 itit can
can be
be seen
seen that
thatthere
thereisissome
some variability of of
variability results in terms
results of both
in terms of
pullout
both resistance,
pullout PR, and
resistance, PR , corresponding
and corresponding frontal displacement,
frontal dPR. The
displacement, dPR coefficient of var-
. The coefficient
ofiation for thefor
variation resistance PR was P10%
the resistance R wasand10%
6% for
andthe6%geogrid and
for the the geotextile,
geogrid and therespectively.
geotextile,
Concerning Concerning
respectively. the displacement dPR, the variability
the displacement was
dPR , the slightly higher
variability in the geotextile
was slightly than
higher in the
in the geogrid (coefficient of variation of 15% and 12%, respectively). It
geotextile than in the geogrid (coefficient of variation of 15% and 12%, respectively). It should be men-
tionedbethat
should the variability
mentioned that theofvariability
the resultsof tends to betends
the results lowertofor higherfor
be lower vertical
higherconfining
vertical
stresses. stresses.
confining
Figure 7 shows that the pullout resistance of the geogrid is higher than that of the
geotextile and is achieved at lower frontal displacements. It is worth mentioning that the
stiffness of the geogrid is much higher than that of the geotextile (the geogrid in-isolation
secant stiffness at 2% strain is about three times higher—Table 2). Thus, it was already
expected that the geogrid pullout resistance would be achieved for smaller displacements.
Regarding the pullout resistance, it should be recalled that the pullout resistance of the
Figure 7 shows that the pullout resistance of the geogrid is higher than that of the
geotextile and is achieved at lower frontal displacements. It is worth mentioning that the
stiffness of the geogrid is much higher than that of the geotextile (the geogrid in-isolation
secant stiffness at 2% strain is about three times higher—Table 2). Thus, it was already
expected that the geogrid pullout resistance would be achieved for smaller displacements.
Regarding the pullout resistance, it should be recalled that the pullout resistance of the
geogrids
geogridsresults
resultsfrom
fromthetheskin
skinfriction
frictionalong
alongthe
thereinforcement
reinforcementand andthe
thepassive
passivethrust
thrustonon
the
thetransversal
transversalmembers
membersofofthe thegeogrid,
geogrid,while
whileininthe
thegeotextiles
geotextilesthe
thesecond
secondcomponent
component
does
doesnot notexist.
exist.Therefore,
Therefore, geogrids
geogrids tend to exhibit
tend higher
to exhibit pullout
higher resistance
pullout thanthan
resistance geotextiles
geotex-
oftiles
similar tensile strength.
of similar tensile strength.
The
Thesudden
suddendropsdropsinin
the pullout
the pulloutforce shown
force shownin Figure 7a are
in Figure duedue
7a are to sequential rupture
to sequential rup-
ofture
theofwelded junctions of the transversal bars. As can be seen in Figure 8,
the welded junctions of the transversal bars. As can be seen in Figure 8, at the at the endend
of
the pullout
of the tests
pullout thethe
tests transversal
transversalbars
barshave
havebecome
become separated
separatedfrom
fromthe
thelongitudinal
longitudinalbars.
bars.
ItItshould be noted, however, that this occurs because the geogrid has been
should be noted, however, that this occurs because the geogrid has been led to pullout led to pullout
failure.
failure.TheThejunctions
junctionsarearenot
notexpected
expectedtotobreak
breakunder
underworking
workingconditions.
conditions.
Figure8.8.Detail
Figure Detailofofthe
thetransversal
transversalelement
elementrupture
ruptureofofthe
thegeogrid
geogrid(at
(atthe
theend
endofofpullout
pullouttest).
test).
The
Thesequential
sequentialfailure
failureofofthethewelded
weldedjunctions
junctionsofofthe thetransversal
transversalbars, bars,asaswell
wellasasthethe
heterogeneity
heterogeneityofofthe thefilling
fillingmaterial,
material, areare
thethe
main reasons
main for the
reasons for higher
the higher variability of results
variability of re-
found in Figure
sults found 7a.
in Figure 7a.
As
As mentioned in Section2.2,
mentioned in Section 2.2,the
thedisplacements
displacementsthroughout
throughoutthe thelength
lengthofofthe
thegeogrid
geogrid
during
duringpullout
pulloutwere werenot notrecorded
recordedsincesincethethefixing
fixingsystem
systemofofthe theinextensible
inextensiblewireswiresinduced
induced
the
thepremature
prematurerupturerupture ofofthethe
junctions
junctions and affected
and affectedthethe
testtest
results. Therefore,
results. it should
Therefore, be
it should
noted that that
be noted the sudden
the sudden breaks evidenced
breaks evidencedin theingraphs
the graphsof Figure 7a were
of Figure not caused
7a were not causedby theby
linear potentiometers,
the linear potentiometers, but reflect the pullout
but reflect behaviour
the pullout behaviourof thisofgeogrid.
this geogrid.
The
Thepullout
pulloutbehaviours
behaviours ofof
both
both geosynthetics
geosynthetics areare
alsoalso
compared
compared in Figure 9 for9vertical
in Figure for ver-
confining pressure at the interface level of 25 kPa (tests T2 and
tical confining pressure at the interface level of 25 kPa (tests T2 and T12) and 50 kPa T12) and 50 kPa (tests(tests
T3
and T13). For simplicity, only one representative curve for each
T3 and T13). For simplicity, only one representative curve for each test was plotted. test was plotted.
Regardless
Regardlessofofthe thevertical
verticalconfining
confiningpressure,
pressure,the thepullout
pulloutresistance
resistanceofofthe thegeogrid
geogrid
was
washigher
higherthanthanthat
thatofofthethegeotextile
geotextileand andwas wasachieved
achievedatatlower lowerfrontal
frontaldisplacements,
displacements,
meaning
meaningthat thatthethetensile
tensilestiffness
stiffnessofofthethegeogrid
geogridisismuch
muchhigher
higherthan thanthat
thatofofthe
thegeotextile.
geotextile.
The confined tensile stiffness of the geogrid tended to increase
The confined tensile stiffness of the geogrid tended to increase with the confining with the confining pressure.
pres-
sure.While the geogrid exhibited a brittle-type pullout failure for 25 kPa and 50 kPa due
to insufficient
While the tensile
geogridstrength under
exhibited confinement,
a brittle-type the geotextile
pullout failure for showed
25 kPaaandductile failure
50 kPa due
regardless of the confining pressure. The internal displacements recorded
to insufficient tensile strength under confinement, the geotextile showed a ductile failure throughout the
geotextile’s length during pullout tests T12 and T13 are shown in Figure 10. The location of
regardless of the confining pressure. The internal displacements recorded throughout the
points A1–A4 is represented in Figure 5a.
geotextile’s length during pullout tests T12 and T13 are shown in Figure 10. The location
Figure 10 shows the progressive mobilisation of the geotextile’s length during pullout
of points A1–A4 is represented in Figure 5a.
tests. For example, up to a pullout displacement (or frontal displacement) of around 50 mm,
the recorded displacements at location A4 are almost null, meaning that only the initial
0.15 m length of the geotextile (see Figure 5a) is being mobilised. Comparing the graphs
presented in Figure 10, it can be concluded that for the same pullout displacement the
increase in the vertical confining pressure reduced the internal displacements along the
geotextile’s length, this reduction being more evident in the locations further away from
the pulled area (points A1 and A2).
Sustainability
Sustainability2022,
2022,14,
14,x1207
xFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 11
11of
of21
21
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11 of 21
75 75
75
75
60 60
60
60
(kN/m)
(kN/m)
force(kN/m)
force(kN/m)
45 45
45
45
Pullout force
Pullout force
30
Pullout
30
Pullout
30 30
15 GGR 15
15 GGR
GGR
15 GGR
GCR GCR
GCR
GCR
00 00
00 50 100 150 200 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200
50 100 150 200
Frontal Frontal
Frontaldisplacement
displacement (mm)
Frontaldisplacement
displacement (mm)
(mm) (mm)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 9.
9. Comparison
Comparison of of the
thepullout
pullout behaviour
behaviour of
of the
the geosynthetics:
geosynthetics: (a)
(a) σσ
σ ==
= 25
25 kPa
kPa (Tests
(Tests T2
T2 and
and
Figure 9. Comparison of the pullout behaviour of the geosynthetics: (a) 25 kPa (Tests T2 and
T12);
T12);(b)
(b)σσ ==50
50kPa
kPa(Tests
(Tests T3
T3 and
andT13).
T13).
T12); (b) σ = 50 kPa (Tests T3 and T13).
200
200 200
200
A1 A1
(mm)
(mm)
A1 A1
displacement (mm)
displacement (mm)
A2
A2 A2
A2
A3 A3
internal displacement
internal displacement
A3 A3
150
150 150
150
A4
A4 A4
A4
100
100 100
100
Geosyntheticinternal
Geosyntheticinternal
Geosynthetic
Geosynthetic
50
50 50
50
00 00
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200
Frontal
Frontaldisplacement
displacement (mm)
(mm) Frontal
Frontaldisplacement
displacement (mm)
(mm)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure10.
10.Internal
Internaldisplacements
displacementsrecorded
recordedalong
alongthe
thegeotextile’s
geotextile’slength
length(a)
(a)σσ==25
25kPa—Test
kPa—TestT12;
T12;
Figure 10. Internal displacements recorded along the geotextile’s length (a) σ = 25 kPa—Test T12;
(b)
(b)σσ==50
50kPa—Test
kPa—TestT13.
T13.
(b) σ = 50 kPa—Test T13.
Figure
Figure6 10 10 shows
shows the the progressive mobilisation of the
the geotextile’s length during
Table summarises the progressive
results of themobilisation
pullout tests of (mean geotextile’s
values) carried length
out on during
both
pullout
pullout tests.
tests. For
For example,
example, up
up to
to aa pullout
pullout displacement
displacement (or
(or frontal
frontal displacement)
displacement) of
of
geosynthetics when the recycled C&D material was compacted to 80% of the maximum dry
around 50
around (MDD) mm,
50 mm,atthe the recorded displacements at location A4 are almost null, meaning that
density therecorded
optimumdisplacements
moisture content at location
(tests T1–T3A4 are
andalmost null,As
T11–T13). meaning
previously that
only
onlythetheinitial
initial 0.15 m mlength of
ofthe geotextile (see Figure
Figure5a) 5a)Pisis being mobilised. Compar-
mentioned, the 0.15
geogrid length
revealed the geotextile
higher (seeresistance,
pullout R , being
achieved mobilised.
for much Compar-
lower
ing
ing the
frontalthegraphs
graphs presented
displacement,presented dPRin Figure
.inThe
Figure 10,
10,ititin
increase can
can be
the concluded
bevertical
concluded that
thatfor
confining for the
thesame
same
pressure, σpullout
pulloutdis- dis-
v , led to the
placement
placement the
the increase
increase in
in the
the vertical
vertical confining
confining pressure
pressure
increase in the pullout resistance, with the most significant increase occurring when σvreduced
reduced the
the internal
internal displace-
displace-
ments
mentsfrom
grew along
along10thethe
to 25 geotextile’s
geotextile’s
kPa. For higherlength,
length, this
this reduction
confining reduction
pressures, being
being more
more
larger evident
evident
frontal in
in the
the locations
displacements locations
were
further away
further away
required from
from the
to achieve the pulled
the pulled area
pulloutarea (points A1 and
(points particularly
resistance, A2).
A1 and A2).for the geotextile.
Table
Table66summarises
summarisesthe theresults
resultsof ofthe
thepullout
pulloutteststests(mean
(meanvalues)
values)carried
carriedout outon onboth
both
geosynthetics
geosynthetics
Table 6. Comparisonwhen
whenofthe the recycled
recycled
pullout C&D
C&Dfor
test results material
material was compacted
was compacted
both geosynthetics (80% of to 80%
toMDD of
80% and the
of the maximum
OMC).maximum
dry
drydensity
density(MDD) (MDD)at atthe
theoptimum
optimummoisturemoisturecontent
content(tests
(testsT1–T3
T1–T3and andT11–T13).
T11–T13).As Aspre-pre-
viously
viouslymentioned,
mentioned,the thegeogrid revealedGGR
geogridrevealed higher
higherpullout
pulloutresistance, GCR
resistance,PPRR,,achieved
achieved for
formuch
much
lower
lower frontal
frontal
Confining displacement,
(kPa) ddPR
displacement,
Pressure P.R
PR .The
The increase
(kN/m)increasein in the
dPRthe vertical
verticalconfining
(mm) PR (kN/m)pressure,
confining pressure, dPRσσ(mm)
vv,,led
ledtoto
the increase
the increase 10 in the pullout resistance,
in the pullout resistance, with the
36.4 with the most most significant
53.4 significant 31.8 increase occurring
increase occurring when
123.9 when
σσvv grew
grew fromfrom 2510
10 toto 2525 kPa.
kPa. ForFor higher
53.0 confining
higher confining60.6pressures,
pressures, larger
larger 43.4frontal
frontal displacements
displacements
154.7
were
wererequired
required 50totoachieve
achievethe thepullout
pullout61.4resistance,
resistance,particularly
58.7
particularly for
forthe 50.7geotextile.
the geotextile. 171.0
Table 6. Comparison of pullout test results for both geosynthetics (80% of MDD and OMC).
GGR
GGR GCR
GCR
Confining Pressure
Confining Pressure (kPa)
(kPa) PPRR (kN/m)
(kN/m) ddPR (mm)
PR (mm) PPRR (kN/m)
(kN/m) ddPR (mm)
PR (mm)
10
10 36.4
36.4 53.4
53.4 31.8
31.8 123.9
123.9
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 25
25 53.0
53.0 60.6
60.6 43.4
43.4 154.7 12 of 21
154.7
50
50 61.4
61.4 58.7
58.7 50.7
50.7 171.0
171.0
3.3. Influence
3.3.
3.3. Influence of
Influence of Moisture
of Moisture Content
Moisture Content of
Content of the
of the Recycled
the Recycled C&D
Recycled C&D Material
C&D Material
Material
Figures
Figures
Figures 11 11 and
11 and
and 1212 present
12 present
present thethe influence
the influence of
influence of the
of the moisture
the moisture content of
moisture content
content of the
of the recycled
the recycled C&D
recycled C&D
C&D
material on
material
material on the
on the geogrid
the geogrid and
geogrid and geotextile
and geotextile pullout
geotextile pullout behaviour,
pullout behaviour, respectively.
behaviour, respectively. This
respectively. This effect
This effect was
effect was
was
evaluated
evaluated for
for recycled
recycled C&D
C&D material
material compacted
compacted to
to 80%
80% of
of the
the
evaluated for recycled C&D material compacted to 80% of the maximum dry density maximum
maximum dry
dry density
density (see
(see
Table
Table 3).
3). The
The mean
mean values
values of
of the
the pullout
pullout resistance,
resistance, P
P R,, and
and corresponding
corresponding
(see Table 3). The mean values of the pullout resistance, PR , and corresponding frontal
R frontal
frontal dis-
dis-
placement,
placement,
displacement, d
dPRd
PR , for
, for different test conditions are summarized in Tables
different test conditions are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. 7 and 8.
PR , for different test conditions are summarized in Tables 7 and 8.
60
60 60
60
OMC
OMC OMC
OMC
OMC-3%
OMC-3% OMC-3%
OMC-3%
45 OMC+3%
OMC+3% 45 OMC+3%
OMC+3%
45 45
(kN/m)
(kN/m)
force (kN/m)
force (kN/m)
Pullout force
Pullout force
30
30 30
30
Pullout
Pullout
15
15 15
15
00 00
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200
Frontaldisplacement
(mm) Frontaldisplacement
(mm)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 11.
Figure
Figure 11. Influence
11. Influence of
Influence of the
of the moisture
the moisture content
moisture content on
content on geogrid
on geogrid (GGR)
geogrid (GGR) pullout
(GGR) pullout behaviour:
pullout behaviour: (a)
behaviour: (a) σ
(a) σσvvv ==
= 10
10 kPa;
10 kPa;
kPa;
(b) σσvv == 25
(b) 25 kPa.
kPa.
(b) σv = 25 kPa.
60
60 60
60
OMC
OMC
OMC-3%
OMC-3%
45 OMC+3%
OMC+3% 45
45 45
(kN/m)
(kN/m)
force (kN/m)
force (kN/m)
Pullout force
Pullout force
30
30 30
30
Pullout
Pullout
15
15 15
15
OMC
OMC
OMC-3%
OMC-3%
OMC+3%
OMC+3%
00 00
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200
Frontaldisplacement
(mm) Frontaldisplacement
(mm)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 12. Influence
Figure Influence of the
the moisture content
content on
on geotextile
geotextile (GCR)
(GCR) pullout
pullout behaviour:
behaviour: (a)
(a) σσvv == 10
10 kPa;
kPa;
Figure 12. 12. Influence of
of the moisture
moisture content on geotextile (GCR) pullout behaviour: (a) σ v = 10 kPa;
(b) σσvv == 25
(b) 25 kPa.
kPa.
(b) σv = 25 kPa.
Table 7. Summary of the results of pullout tests carried out on GGR at different moisture contents.
GGR OMC−3% OMC OMC+3%

C. Pressure (kPa) PR (kN/m) dPR (mm) PR (kN/m) dPR (mm) PR (kN/m) dPR (mm)
10 33.8 57.7 36.4 53.4 23.6 68.5
25 50.4 59.5 53.0 60.6 31.0 67
50 - - 61.4 58.7 42.3 61.6
Table 8. Summary of the results of pullout tests carried out on GCR at different moisture contents.
GCR OMC−3% OMC OMC+3%

C. Pressure (kPa) PR (kN/m) dPR (mm) PR (kN/m) dPR (mm) PR (kN/m) dPR (mm)
10 34.1 121.5 31.8 123.9 24.3 77.8
25 54.5 168.3 43.4 154.7 36.8 118.9
50 - - 50.7 171.0 42.3 130.9
From the analysis of Figure 11, the first emerging conclusion is that compacting the
recycled material above the OMC has a very significant influence on geogrid pullout resis-
tance, not only regarding PR , but also in terms of the behaviour of the geogrid throughout
the test. Regardless of the vertical confining pressure, no ruptures of the welded junctions
of the transversal bars occurred when the recycled material was compacted above OMC.
The decrease in the compaction moisture content from the optimum (OMC) to OMC−3%
led to a small decrease in the geogrid pullout resistance: 7% and 5% on average for σv of 10
kPa and 25 kPa, respectively. One can conclude that this decrease in the moisture content
did not significantly affect the pullout capacity of the geogrid.
As observed for the geogrid, compaction of the recycled C&D material above the
OMC reduced the geotextile pullout resistance (Figure 12). However, the differences in the
pullout behaviour are not so pronounced.
Unlike what was found for the geogrid, the compaction of the recycled C&D material
below OMC (OMC−3%) led to an increase in geotextile pullout resistance. This increase
was only 7% (on average) for σv = 10 kPa, but was about 22% for σv = 25 kPa (Table 8).
For the geotextile, it can be concluded that as the moisture content of the recycled C&D
material increased, the geotextile pullout resistance decreased. This conclusion is aligned
with the findings of Ferreira et al. [28] for pullout tests performed on a granite residual soil,
as these authors concluded that when the soil was compacted at the optimum moisture
content, the peak pullout resistance of the geotextiles decreased in comparison with that
obtained for the dry soil.
The reduction of the shear strength of soil–geosynthetic interfaces with increasing soil
moisture content has also been observed by other authors in direct shear tests [48,50,51].
This behaviour has been associated with the occurrence of positive pore-water pressures
and the loss of soil matric suction [48,50,51].
The effect of decreasing the moisture content below the OMC (dry side of the com-
paction curve) was different for the geogrid and the geotextile: it caused a decrease in
geogrid pullout resistance and an increase in the pullout capacity of the geotextile. The
increase in the geosynthetic interface’s direct shear strength when the backfill material is
compacted below the OMC has been reported by other authors [48,52]; a similar trend
would therefore be expected for the pullout resistance. While for the geotextile this trend
was observed, the pullout resistance of the geogrid slightly decreased for compaction at
OMC−3%. Since the shear strength of the recycled C&D material is higher when it is
compacted on the dry side of OMC (see Table 5), the decrease in the pullout resistance of
the geogrid may have been caused by a less efficient compaction of the layer immediately
above the geogrid, as it is a very hard material.
3.4. Influence of Compaction Degree of the Recycled C&D Material

The effect of the compaction degree of the recycled backfill on the pullout behaviour
of both geosynthetics is presented in Figures 13 and 14 for the geogrid and the geotextile,
respectively. The results plotted in these figures refer to compaction at OMC (Tests T1, T2,
T9 and T10—GGR; Tests T11, T12, T19 and T20—GCR).
3.4.
3.4.Influence
InfluenceofofCompaction
CompactionDegree
Degreeofofthe
theRecycled
RecycledC&D
C&DMaterial
Material
The
Theeffect
effectof
ofthe
thecompaction
compactiondegree
degreeof ofthe
therecycled
recycledbackfill
backfillon
onthe
thepullout
pulloutbehaviour
behaviour
of
ofboth
bothgeosynthetics
geosyntheticsisispresented
presentedin inFigures
Figures13 13and
and1414for
forthe
thegeogrid
geogridand
andthe
thegeotextile,
geotextile,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 respectively.
respectively.The
Theresults
resultsplotted
plottedin
inthese
thesefigures
figuresrefer
referto
tocompaction
compactionat atOMC
OMC(Tests
(TestsT1,
T1, T2,
T2,
14 of 21
T9 and T10—GGR; Tests T11, T12, T19 and
T9 and T10—GGR; Tests T11, T12, T19 and T20—GCR).T20—GCR).
60
60 60
60
80%MDD
80%MDD 80%MDD
80%MDD
90%MDD
90%MDD 90%MDD
90%MDD
45
45 45
45
(kN/m)
force (kN/m)
(kN/m)
force (kN/m)
Pullout force
Pullout force
30
30 30
30
Pullout
Pullout
15
15 15
15
00 00
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200
Frontal
Frontaldisplacement
displacement (mm)
(mm) Frontal
Frontaldisplacement
displacement (mm)
(mm)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure13.
Figure 13.Influence
13. Influenceof
Influence ofthe
of thecompaction
the compactiondegree
compaction degreeon
degree ongeogrid
on geogrid(GGR)
geogrid (GGR)pullout
(GGR) pulloutbehaviour:
pullout behaviour: (a)σσσ===10
behaviour:(a)
(a) 10kPa;
10 kPa;
kPa;
(b)
(b)σσ==25
25kPa.
kPa.
(b) σ = 25 kPa.
60
60 60
60
80%MDD
80%MDD 80%MDD
80%MDD
90%MDD
90%MDD 90%MDD
90%MDD
45
45 45
45
(kN/m)
force (kN/m)
(kN/m)
force (kN/m)
Pullout force
Pullout force
30
30 30
30
Pullout
Pullout
15
15 15
15
00 00
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250 00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200
200 250
250
Frontal
Frontaldisplacement
displacement (mm)
(mm) Frontal
Frontaldisplacement
displacement (mm)
(mm)
(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure14.
14.Influence
Influenceof
ofthe
thecompaction
compactiondegree
degreeon
ongeotextile
geotextile(GCR)
(GCR)pullout
pulloutbehaviour:
behaviour:(a)
(a)σσ==10
10kPa;
kPa;
Figure 14. Influence of the compaction degree on geotextile (GCR) pullout behaviour: (a) σ = 10 kPa;
(b) σ = 25 kPa.
(b) σ = 25 kPa.
(b) σ = 25 kPa.
Figure
Figure13
Figure 13shows
13 showsthat
shows thatthe
that thecompaction
the compactiondegree
compaction degreeof
degree ofthe
of therecycled
the recycledC&D
recycled C&Dmaterial
C&D materialhas
material hasaaaslight
has slight
slight
influence
influence on
on the
the pullout
pullout resistance
resistance of
of the
the geogrid.
geogrid. While
While
influence on the pullout resistance of the geogrid. While for the confining pressurefor
for the
the confining
confining pressure
pressure of
of25
25
of
kPa
kPa (Figure
(Figure 13b),
13b), increasing
increasing the
the degree
degree of
of compaction
compaction lead
lead to
to
25 kPa (Figure 13b), increasing the degree of compaction lead to a slight increase in the aa slight
slight increase
increase in
in the
the ge-
ge-
ogrid
ogrid pullout
geogrid pullout
pullout resistance,
resistance,
resistance, for
for
forσσ σ===10
1010kPa
kPa(Figure
kPa (Figure13a)
(Figure 13a)aaaslight
13a) slight decrease
slight decrease of
decrease of the
of the pullout
the pullout
pullout
strength
strengthwas
strength was recorded.
wasrecorded.
recorded.ThisThis unexpected
Thisunexpected behaviour
unexpectedbehaviour
behaviourcan can only
canonly be explained
onlybebeexplained
explained by
bybythethe
the variabil-
variabil-
variability
ity
of of
ofthe
itythe thebackfill
backfill
backfill material
material
material or
or by bybythe
orthe thedifficulty
difficulty
difficulty in
inachieving
in achievingachieving aahigh
a high high
degreedegree
degree of
ofcompaction
compaction
of compaction in
in thein
the
thelayer
layer layer immediately
immediately
immediately aboveabove
above the
thegeogrid,
the geogrid, as it as
geogrid, asaitithard
is isisaahard
hard material
material
material (Figure(Figure
3a). It3a).
(Figure 3a).ItItmight
might have have
might have
been
been
been
the the
case case
thethat that
casethe
that the
thematerial
material material was
was finer finer
finer(lower
was(lower grain grain
(lower grainin
size) size)
thein
size) inthe tests
testscarried
thecarried
tests out forout
carried out
90% for
for 90%
MDD90%
MDD
MDD and
and that
that this
this resulted
resulted in
in aalower
lower pullout
pullout resistance.
resistance. No
No other
and that this resulted in a lower pullout resistance. No other explanations could be found.other explanations
explanations could
could be
be
found.
found. Figure 14 clearly shows that the maximum dry density of the backfill material affects
the pullout behaviour of the geotextile. The increase in the compaction degree resulted in
an increment of the geotextile pullout resistance of about 23% and 17% (on average) for
confining pressures of 10 kPa and 25 kPa, respectively. It is also worth pointing out that
the increase in MDD led to higher frontal displacements being required to reach the peak
pullout resistance.
Increasing the compaction degree, in particular for a confining stress of 25 kPa
(Figure 14b), resulted in tensile failure of the geotextile. Indeed, for this condition, as
Figure 14 clearly shows that the maximum dry density of the backfill material affects
the pullout behaviour of the geotextile. The increase in the compaction degree resulted in
an increment of the geotextile pullout resistance of about 23% and 17% (on average) for
confining pressures of 10 kPa and 25 kPa, respectively. It is also worth pointing out that
the increase in MDD led to higher frontal displacements being required to reach the peak
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 pullout resistance. 15 of 21
Increasing the compaction degree, in particular for a confining stress of 25 kPa (Fig-
ure 14b), resulted in tensile failure of the geotextile. Indeed, for this condition, as con-
firmed in Figure
confirmed 15b,15b,
in Figure the the
geotextile failed
geotextile duedue
failed to insufficient tensile
to insufficient strength.
tensile It can
strength. It be
canseen
be
fromfrom
seen the analysis of this
the analysis of graph that that
this graph the internal displacements
the internal recorded
displacements at points
recorded A4 and
at points A4
A1 (refer
and to Figure
A1 (refer 5a) remain
to Figure constant
5a) remain from from
constant a front displacement
a front of about
displacement 175 mm,
of about 175mean-
mm,
ing that the
meaning thatgeotextile failedfailed
the geotextile between the front
between and location
the front A4. A4.
and location
250 250
Geosynthetic internal displacement (mm)

Geosynthetic internal displacement (mm)
80%MDD 80%MDD
200 200
90%MDD 90%MDD
A4
150 150
A4
100 100
A1
50 50
A1
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
Frontal displacement (mm) Frontal displacement (mm)
(a) (b)
Figure15.
Figure 15.Influence
Influence
of of
thethe compaction
compaction degree
degree oninternal
on the the internal geotextile
geotextile displacements
displacements during
during pullout
pullout (points A4 and A1 refer to Figure 5): (a) σ = 10 kPa; (b) σ = 25 kPa.
(points A4 and A1 refer to Figure 5): (a) σ = 10 kPa; (b) σ = 25 kPa.
The development
The development of of internal
internal displacements
displacements throughout
throughout the the length
length of ofthe
thegeotextile
geotextile
showsthat,
shows that,for
forthethe remaining
remaining compaction
compaction conditions,
conditions, the geotextile
the geotextile pulloutpullout
failurefailure
occurred oc-
curred
(not for (not for insufficient
insufficient tensile strength),
tensile strength), evidencedevidenced
by the by the continuous
continuous evolution
evolution of in-
of internal
ternal displacements
displacements during during
the testthe test (Figure
(Figure 15). 15).
Figure 15 also shows that increasing
Figure 15 also shows that increasing the degree the degree ofof compaction
compaction of of the backfill
backfill material,
material,
regardlessof
regardless ofthe
theconfining
confiningpressure,
pressure,provokes
provokesthe thedecrease
decrease inin the
the internal
internal displacements,
displacements,
particularly at the
particularly the geotextile
geotextilebackbackedge
edge (point
(pointA1), which
A1), whichmeans
meansthatthat
the geotextile is more
the geotextile is
tied to
more thetobackfill
tied material.
the backfill Higher
material. frontalfrontal
Higher displacements are required
displacements to mobilize
are required mean-
to mobilize
ingful internal
meaningful displacements
internal displacements at locations A4 toA4
at locations A1.to A1.
3.5.
3.5. Summary
Summary of of Results
Results and
andPullout
PulloutInteraction
InteractionCoefficients
Coefficients
Tables
Tables99and and1010summarize
summarize thethe
results of the
results testtest
of the programme
programme carried out on
carried outthe
ongeogrid
the ge-
and on the geotextile, respectively. The pullout resistance, P , the corresponding
ogrid and on the geotextile, respectively. The pullout resistance, PR, the corresponding
R frontal
displacement, dPR , the dmaximum
frontal displacement, shear stress
PR, the maximum shear mobilized at the interface
stress mobilized during the
at the interface pullout
during the
test, τ
pullout , the direct shear strength of the backfill material,
p test, τp, the direct shear strength of the backfill material, τ ds , and the pullout interaction
τds, and the pullout inter-
coefficient, fb , for all
action coefficient, fb, the tests
for all theare presented
tests in the in
are presented above-mentioned
the above-mentioned tables.tables.
Since Since
for each
for
test condition three pullout tests were performed, the average
each test condition three pullout tests were performed, the average value value of f is also presented.
b of fb is also pre-
It is worth remarking that the pullout interaction coefficients were calculated by
sented.
Equation (1), and that the direct shear strength of the backfill material, τds , was estimated
by the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion considering the shear strength parameters presented
in Table 5.
The average value of the pullout interaction coefficient, fb , ranged from 0.61 to 1.09
for the geogrid (Table 9) and from 0.67 to 1.25 for the geotextile (Table 10). Regardless of
the geosynthetic type, the minimum value of fb was observed for the same test conditions
(80% MDD with OMC+3% and σ = 50 kPa)—Tests T8 and T18. The maximum value of fb
was achieved for different conditions in both geosynthetics: 90% MDD with OMC for the
geotextile and 80% MDD with OMC for the geogrid.
The variation in the water content of the recycled C&D material around the OMC
tended to decrease the value of fb (higher values obtained for OMC) for the geogrid. This
tendency was also observed in the geotextile but with an exception (test T15-80%MDD
with OMC−3%).
Table 9. Pullout interaction coefficients and summary of results for the geogrid (GGR).
Test Number C. Pressure (kPa) PR (kN/m) dPR (mm) τp (kPa) τds (kPa) fb fb (Average)
40.2 52.2 28.8 1.20
T1 10 32.9 47.8 23.4 24.0 0.98 1.09
35.9 60.3 26.0 1.08
53.4 65.0 39.0 1.10
T2 25 54.8 64.9 40.0 35.6 1.13 1.08
50.8 51.8 36.4 1.02
64.4 60.8 46.7 0.85
T3 50 57.1 62.0 41.5 54.8 0.76 0.81
62.6 53.2 44.9 0.82
34.2 51.1 24.5 0.83
T4 10 35.4 64.5 25.8 29.6 0.87 0.82
32.0 57.3 23.1 0.78
49.3 52.1 35.3 0.83
T5 25 49.9 62.1 36.3 42.5 0.85 0.86
52.1 64.1 38.0 0.89
24.4 68.1 17.9 0.89
T6 10 24.4 64.3 17.8 20.1 0.89 0.86
21.9 73.1 16.2 0.80
33.3 79.7 24.8 0.79
T7 25 27.7 56.9 20.0 31.6 0.63 0.72
32.1 64.4 23.4 0.74
44.6 60.6 32.3 0.64
T8 50 41.1 65.5 30.0 50.8 0.59 0.61
41.2 58.5 29.8 0.59
34.7 62.6 25.3 0.95
T9 10 31.6 72.0 23.3 26.5 0.88 0.88
30.3 45.7 21.5 0.81
56.0 84.0 42.0 1.07
T10 25 50.5 62.3 36.7 39.2 0.94 1.04
56.9 91.1 43.2 1.10
As mentioned in Section 3.5, the compaction degree of the recycled C&D material
had a slight influence on the pullout resistance of the geogrid. While for the geotextile the
increase in the compaction degree led to an increase in the value of fb , this was not the case
for the geogrid.
The value of fb tended to decrease with increasing vertical confining pressure, with
some exceptions particularly when the recycled C&D material was compacted at lower
moisture (OMC−3%). This evidence, also reported by other authors [31,33,53,54], is due to
the trend toward geosynthetic tensile failure when the confining stress increases.
Usually, under similar conditions of compaction and for geosynthetics with similar ten-
sile strength, the geogrids tend to exhibit higher pullout interaction coefficients [28,32,53,55].
However, in the present study this occurred only when the recycled C&D material was
compacted at its optimum moisture content and for 80% of the maximum dry density.
For the remaining compaction conditions of the filling material, higher values of fb were
obtained for the geotextile.
The behaviour of this particular geogrid may be due to the premature rupture of the
welded junctions of the transversal bars reported earlier (Figure 8) or due to the difficulty in
the compaction of the recycled C&D material of the layer immediately above the geogrid.
Table 10. Pullout interaction coefficients and summary of results for the geotextile (GCR).
Test Number C. Pressure (kPa) PR (kN/m) dPR (mm) τp (kPa) τds (kPa) fb fb (Average)
30.4 105.0 23.6 0.98
T11 10 31.1 123.7 24.8 24.0 1.03 1.06
33.8 143.0 27.8 1.16
48.4 148.2 40.2 1.13
T12 25 42.8 158.0 36.1 35.6 1.02 1.05
43.1 142.6 35.4 1.00
52.4 169.5 45.1 0.82
T13 50 52.8 172.5 45.7 54.8 0.83 0.80
46.9 171.0 40.5 0.74
32.2 102.5 24.8 0.84
T14 10 35.9 135.0 29.2 29.6 0.98 0.92
34.3 127.0 27.5 0.93
53.7 175.0 46.7 1.10
T15 25 54.6 163.4 46.5 42.5 1.10 1.10
55.0 166.5 47.2 1.11
28.8 89.1 21.8 1.09
T16 10 20.6 60.3 15.0 20.1 0.75 0.90
23.5 84.1 17.7 0.88
39.1 124.2 31.3 0.99
T17 25 36.1 110.7 28.2 31.6 0.89 0.92
35.2 121.9 28.0 0.89
46.9 128.8 37.7 0.74
T18 50 36.8 120.8 29.2 50.8 0.58 0.67
43.2 143.1 35.6 0.70
39.4 177.3 34.4 1.30
T19 10 40.5 155.6 34.1 26.5 1.29 1.25
37.8 139.4 31.0 1.17
50.5 177.3 44.1 1.12
T20 25 47.1 153.2 39.5 39.2 1.01 1.12
55.1 171.7 47.6 1.21
For all geogrid samples, and for different compaction conditions and vertical confining
pressures, the value of fb ranged from 0.59 to 1.20. For the geotextile samples, fb varied
within the range 0.58 to 1.30. These values are in the usual range for soil–geosynthetic
interfaces, as well as for geosynthetic interfaces concerning alternative backfilling materials.
Values of fb ranging from 0.25 to 1.4 and from 0.30 to 1.7 are reported by Goodhue
et al. [54] for different geosynthetics (geogrid, geomembrane and geotextile) when em-
bedded in a uniformly-graded quartz sand and in foundry sands, respectively. Values of
pullout interaction coefficients in the range 0.18–0.65 are presented by Hsieh et al. [55] for a
high-strength polypropylene geotextile tested in a quartz sand and in a riverbed gravel,
while for a uniaxial polyester geogrid fb ranged from 0.51 to 1.25.
Soleimanbeigi et al. [31] concluded that the interaction coefficients for a high-density
polyethylene (HDPE) uniaxial geogrid and a woven geotextile embedded in a recycled
concrete aggregate decrease with increasing confining pressure and are lower than 0.5.
Values of fb ranging from 0.79 to 1.35 for pullout tests carried out on a polyester geogrid
installed in a fine-grain recycled C&D material are reported by Vieira et al. [32].
4. Conclusions
An extensive laboratory study to characterize the pullout behaviour of two different
geosynthetics (a polyester geogrid and a high-strength composite geotextile) embedded
in a recycled C&D material, as well as the physical and mechanical characterization of
the filling material, were presented in this paper. The influence of the geosynthetic type,
moisture content and compaction degree of the recycled C&D material on the pullout
behaviour was evaluated and discussed.
The main conclusions of this study are summarized as follows:
• In spite of the high fine content of the recycled C&D material, its particle size distri-
bution fulfils the requirements of NCMA for segmental retaining walls and those of
FHWA for reinforced soil slopes. However, this recycled material does not meet the
gradation limits for backfill materials of mechanically stabilized earth walls.
• Increasing the moisture content of the recycled C&D material from OMC−3% to
OMC+3% led to a decrease in the internal shear strength. As expected, the increase in
the compaction dry density (from 80% to 90% of the maximum dry density) induced
an increase in the backfill shear strength.
• Although the two geosynthetics have similar tensile strengths, the pullout resistance
of the geogrid was higher than that of the geotextile and was achieved at lower frontal
displacements, as a result of the different characteristics of the geogrid, namely its
apertures and the consequent passive thrust on the transversal bars and its higher
tensile stiffness.
• The compaction of the recycled material above the OMC had a very significant influ-
ence on the behaviour of the geogrid throughout the pullout test. When increasing the
material moisture content from the OMC to OMC+3%, the geogrid pullout resistance
decreased from 31% to 41% depending on the vertical confining stress. The influence
of the increase in the moisture content on the geotextile pullout behaviour was less
pronounced; even so, increases in the pullout resistance between 17% and 24% were
observed.
• The reduction in the compaction moisture content from the OMC to OMC−3% induced a
slight decrease in the geogrid pullout resistance (ranging from 5% to 7%). Conversely, the
pullout capacity of the geotextile increased 7% and 22% (for σv = 10 kPa and σv = 25 kPa,
respectively) when the recycled C&D material was compacted at OMC−3%.
• The expected trend concerning the effect of the degree of compaction on the geogrid
pullout resistance was not observed. While for the confining pressure of 25 kPa the
increase of the compaction degree induced a slight increase in the geogrid pullout
resistance (around 3% on average), unexpectedly a decrease of around 10% was
recorded for the geogrid pullout resistance at the lower confining pressure (10 kPa).
• The influence of the compaction degree of the recycled C&D material on the geotextile
pullout resistance was the one anticipated: a higher compaction degree resulted in an
increase in the geotextile pullout resistance. Regardless of the value of the confining
pressure, the geotextile pullout resistance increased around 20%.
• The values of the pullout interaction coefficient, fb , tended to decrease with increasing
vertical confining pressure and were within the usual range of this parameter for
soil–geosynthetic interfaces.
• The variation of the compaction moisture content of the recycled C&D material around
the OMC induced a decrease in the value of fb (higher values obtained for OMC) in
the geogrid interface. This tendency was also observed, in general, for the geotextile.
The study reported herein is part of a broader research project regarding the in-
vestigation of the long-term behaviour of recycled C&D wastes as backfill material for
geosynthetic-reinforced structures. The results obtained to date show that these recycled
materials can be seen as an environmentally friendly alternative to the natural resources
commonly used.
Author Contributions: C.S.V.: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; methodology; project admin-

istration; supervision; data curation; formal analysis; writing—review & editing. P.M.P.: Methodology;
data curation; writing—original draft preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
monly used.
Author Contributions: C.S.V.: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; methodology; project ad-

ministration; supervision; data curation; formal analysis; writing—review & editing. P.M.P.: Meth-
odology; data curation; writing—original draft preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207 published version of the manuscript. 19 of 21
Funding: This work was financially supported by: Project PTDC/ECI-EGC/30452/2017-POCI-01-

0145-FEDER-030452—funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional
Funding: This work
Competitividade e was financially supported
Internacionalização by: Project
(POCI) and byPTDC/ECI-EGC/30452/2017-POCI-01-0145-
national funds (PIDDAC) through
FEDER-030452—funded
FCT/MCTES; by FEDER funds through
Base Funding—UIDB/04708/2020 of COMPETE2020—Programa
the CONSTRUCT—Instituto Operacional
de I&D emCompeti-
Estru-
tividade
turas e Internacionalizaçãoby
e Construções—funded (POCI) andfunds
national by national funds
through the (PIDDAC)
FCT/MCTES through FCT/MCTES;
(PIDDAC). Base
The second
Funding—UIDB/04708/2020
author would also like to thankofFundação
the CONSTRUCT—Instituto de I&D em
para a Ciência e Tecnologia Estruturas
(FCT) e Construções—
for his research grant:
funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). The second author would also like to
SFRH/BD/147838/2019.
thank Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) for his research grant: SFRH/BD/147838/2019.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the company RCD
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of the company RCD
for the supply of the recycled C&D materials and TenCate Iberia and Naue for providing geosyn-
for the supply of the recycled C&D materials and TenCate Iberia and Naue for providing geosyn-
thetic samples.
thetic samples.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The supplier companies had no role
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The supplier companies had no role
in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of
in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of
the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
References
References
1. Wahlström, M.; Bergmans, J.; Teittinen, T.; Bachér, J.; Smeets, A.; Paduart, A. Construction and Demolition Waste: Challenges and
1. Wahlström, M.; Bergmans, J.; Teittinen, T.; Bachér, J.; Smeets, A.; Paduart, A. Construction and Demolition Waste: Challenges and
Opportunities in a Circular Economy; Eionet Report—ETC/WMGE 2020/1; European Topic Centre Waste and Materials in a Green
Opportunities in a Circular Economy; Eionet Report—ETC/WMGE 2020/1; European Topic Centre Waste and Materials in a Green
Economy: Boeretang, Belgium 2020.
Economy: Boeretang, Belgium, 2020.
2. European Commission. Competitiveness of the Construction Industry. A Report Drawn up by the Working Group for Sustainable
2. European Commission. Competitiveness of the Construction Industry. A Report Drawn up by the Working Group for Sustainable Construction
Construction with Participants from the European Commission, Member States and Industry; European Commission: Brussels,
with Participants from the European Commission, Member States and Industry; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2001.
Belgium, 2001.
3. Behera, M.; Bhattacharyya, S.K.; Minocha, A.K.; Deoliya, R.; Maiti, S. Recycled Aggregate from C&D waste & Its Use in
3. Behera, M.; Bhattacharyya, S.K.; Minocha, A.K.; Deoliya, R.; Maiti, S. Recycled Aggregate from C&D waste & Its Use in
Concrete—A Breakthrough towards Sustainability in Construction Sector: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 501–516.
Concrete—A Breakthrough towards Sustainability in Construction Sector: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 68, 501–516.
[CrossRef]
4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.003.
Poon, C.S. Reducing construction waste. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1715–1716. [CrossRef]
4. Poon, C.S. Reducing construction waste. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1715–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.013.
5. Rao, A.; Jha, K.N.; Misra, S. Use of aggregates from recycled construction and demolition waste in concrete. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2007, 50, 71–81. [CrossRef]
6. Silva, R.V.; de Brito, J.; Dhir, R.K. Properties and composition of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste
suitable for concrete production. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 65, 201–217. [CrossRef]
7. Santana Rangel, C.; Amario, M.; Pepe, M.; Martinelli, E.; Toledo Filho, R.D. Durability of Structural Recycled Aggregate Concrete
Subjected to Freeze-Thaw Cycles. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6475. [CrossRef]
8. Xiao, J.; Zou, S.; Ding, T.; Duan, Z.; Liu, Q. Fiber-reinforced mortar with 100% recycled fine aggregates: A cleaner perspective on
3D printing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 319. [CrossRef]
9. Henzinger, C.; Heyer, D. Soil improvement using recycled aggregates from demolition waste. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.—Ground Improv.
2018, 171, 74–81. [CrossRef]
10. Cristelo, N.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Vieira, C.; Miranda, T.; Palomo, Á. Stabilisation of construction and demolition waste with a
high fines content using alkali activated fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 170, 26–39. [CrossRef]
11. Kianimehr, M.; Shourijeh, P.T.; Binesh, S.M.; Mohammadinia, A.; Arulrajah, A. Utilization of recycled concrete aggregates for
light-stabilization of clay soils. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 227, 116792. [CrossRef]
12. Frías, M.; Martínez-Ramírez, S.; de la Villa, R.V.; Fernández-Carrasco, L.; García, R. Reactivity in cement pastes bearing fine
fraction concrete and glass from construction and demolition waste: Microstructural analysis of viability. Cem. Concr. Res. 2021,
148. [CrossRef]
13. Morón, A.; Ferrández, D.; Saiz, P.; Morón, C. Experimental study with cement mortars made with recycled concrete aggregate
and reinforced with aramid fibers. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7791. [CrossRef]
14. Poon, C.S.; Chan, D. Feasible use of recycled concrete aggregates and crushed clay brick as unbound road sub-base. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2006, 20, 578–585. [CrossRef]
15. Jiménez, J.R.; Ayuso, J.; Galvín, A.P.; López, M.; Agrela, F. Use of mixed recycled aggregates with a low embodied energy from
non-selected CDW in unpaved rural roads. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34, 34–43. [CrossRef]
16. Arulrajah, A.; Disfani, M.M.; Horpibulsuk, S.; Suksiripattanapong, C.; Prongmanee, N. Physical properties and shear strength
responses of recycled construction and demolition materials in unbound pavement base/subbase applications. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2014, 58, 245–257. [CrossRef]
17. Teijón-López-Zuazo, E.; Vega-Zamanillo, Á.; Calzada-Pérez, M.Á.; Robles-Miguel, Á. Use of Recycled Aggregates Made from
Construction and Demolition Waste in Sustainable Road Base Layers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6663. [CrossRef]
18. Rahman, M.A.; Imteaz, M.; Arulrajah, A.; Disfani, M.M. Suitability of recycled construction and demolition aggregates as
alternative pipe backfilling materials. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 75–84. [CrossRef]
19. Vieira, C.S.; Cristelo, N.; Lopes, M.L. Geotechnical and geoenvironmental characterization of recycled Construction and Demoli-
tion Wastes for use as backfilling of trenches. In The International Conference Wastes: Solutions, Treatments and Opportunities, 4th ed.;
CRC Press Taylor & Francis Group: Porto, Portugal, 2017; pp. 175–181.
20. Santos, E.C.G.; Palmeira, E.M.; Bathurst, R.J. Behaviour of a geogrid reinforced wall built with recycled construction and
demolition waste backfill on a collapsible foundation. Geotext. Geomembr. 2013, 39, 9–19. [CrossRef]
21. Arulrajah, A.; Rahman, M.; Piratheepan, J.; Bo, M.; Imteaz, M. Interface Shear Strength Testing of Geogrid-Reinforced Construction
and Demolition Materials. ASTM Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 2013, 2, 189–200. [CrossRef]
22. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M. Interface shear properties of geosynthetics and construction and demolition waste from large-scale
direct shear tests. Geosynth. Int. 2016, 23, 62–70. [CrossRef]
23. Srivastava, A.; Jaiswal, S.; Chauhan, V.B. Potential Use of Construction and Demolition Recycled Wastes in Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Structures. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 199–206.
24. Vieira, C.S.; Lopes, M.L.; Caldeira, L.M. Sand-geotextile interface characterisation through monotonic and cyclic direct shear tests.
Geosynth. Int. 2013, 20, 26–38. [CrossRef]
25. Alfaro, M.C.; Miura, N.; Bergado, D.T. Soil-geogrid reinforcement interaction by pullout and direct shear tests. Geotech. Test. J.
1995, 18, 157–167.
26. Lopes, M.L.; Ladeira, M. Role of specimen geometry, soil height and sleeve length on the pull-out behaviour of geogrids. Geosynth.
Int. 1996, 3, 701–719. [CrossRef]
27. Lopes, M.L.; Ladeira, M. Influence of the confinement, soil density and displacement rate on soil-geogrid interaction. Geotext.
Geomembr. 1996, 14, 543–554. [CrossRef]
28. Ferreira, F.B.; Vieira, C.S.; Lopes, M.L. Pullout Behavior of Different Geosynthetics-Influence of Soil Density and Moisture Content.
Front. Built Environ. 2020, 6. [CrossRef]
29. Ferreira, F.B.; Vieira, C.S.; Lopes, M.L.; Ferreira, P.G. HDPE geogrid-residual soil interaction under monotonic and cyclic pullout
loading. Geosynth. Int. 2020, 27, 79–96. [CrossRef]
30. Moraci, N.; Cardile, G. Influence of cyclic tensile loading on pullout resistance of geogrids embedded in a compacted granular
soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 2009, 26, 475–487. [CrossRef]
31. Soleimanbeigi, A.; Tanyu, B.F.; Aydilek, A.H.; Florio, P.; Abbaspour, A.; Dayioglu, A.Y.; Likos, W.J. Evaluation of recycled concrete
aggregate backfill for geosynthetic-reinforced MSE walls. Geosynth. Int. 2019, 26, 396–412. [CrossRef]
32. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.M.; Lopes, M.L. Recycled Construction and Demolition Wastes as filling material for geosynthetic reinforced
structures. Interface properties. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 124, 299–311. [CrossRef]
33. Vieira, C.S.; Pereira, P.; Ferreira, F.B.; Lopes, M.L. Pullout Behaviour of Geogrids Embedded in a Recycled Construction and
Demolition Material. Effects of Specimen Size and Displacement Rate. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3825. [CrossRef]
34. Vieira, C.S.; Ferreira, F.B.; Pereira, P.M.; Lopes, M.L. Pullout behaviour of geosynthetics in a recycled construction and demolition
material—Effects of cyclic loading. Transp. Geotech. 2020, 23, 100346. [CrossRef]
35. Gao, Y.; Hang, L.; He, J.; Zhang, F.; Van Paassen, L. Pullout behavior of geosynthetic reinforcement in biocemented soils. Geotext.
36. Pierozan, R.C.; Araujo, G.L.S.; Palmeira, E.M.; Romanel, C.; Zornberg, J.G. Interface pullout resistance of polymeric strips
embedded in marginal tropical soils. Geotext. Geomembr. 2022, 50, 20–39. [CrossRef]
37. Karnamprabhakara, B.K.; Balunaini, U. Modified axial pullout resistance factors of geogrids embedded in pond ash. Geotext.
38. Chang, J.C.; Hannon, J.B.; Forsyth, R.A. Pullout resistance and interaction of earthwork reinforcement and soil. Transp. Res. Rec.
1977, 640, 1–7.
39. Palmeira, E.M.; Milligan, G.W.E. Scale and other factores affecting the results of pull out tests of grid buried in sand. Géotechnique
1989, 39, 511–524. [CrossRef]
40. Ochiai, H.; Hayashi, S.; Otani, J.; Hirai, T. Evaluation of pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforced soils. Proc. Int. Symp. Earth Reinf.
Pract. 1992, 146, 141–146.
41. Fannin, R.J.; Raju, D.M. Large-scale pull out test results on geosynthetics. In Proceedings of Geosynthetics 93 Conference,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 30 March–1 April 1993; pp. 633–643.
42. Moraci, N.; Recalcati, P. Factors affecting the pullout behaviour of extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 24, 220–242. [CrossRef]
43. Ezzein, F.M.; Bathurst, R.J. A new approach to evaluate soil-geosynthetic interaction using a novel pullout test apparatus and
transparent granular soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 2014, 42, 246–255. [CrossRef]
44. Moraci, N.; Cardile, G.; Domenio, G.; Mandaglio, M.C.; Calvarano, L.S.; Carbone, L. Soil Geosynthetic Interaction: Design
Parameters from Experimental and Theoretical Analysis. Transp. Infrastruct. Geotechnol. 2014, 1, 165–227. [CrossRef]
45. EN 13738. Geotextiles and Geotextile-Related Products—Determination of Pullout Resistance in Soil; European Committee for Standard-
ization: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
46. NCMA. Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, 3rd ed.; National Concrete Masonry Association: Herndon, VA, USA, 2010; 206p.
47. FHWA. Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes; Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R.,
Samtani, N.C., Eds.; FHWA-NHI-10-024: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
48. Ferreira, F.B.; Vieira, C.S.; Lopes, M.L. Direct shear behaviour of residual soil–geosynthetic interfaces—influence of soil moisture
content, soil density and geosynthetic type. Geosynth. Int. 2015, 22, 257–272. [CrossRef]
49. EN ISO 12957-1. Geosynthetics—Determination of the Friction Characteristics—Part 1: Direct Shear Test; CEN—TC 189; CEN: Brussels,
Belgium, 2018.
50. Khoury, C.N.; Miller, G.A.; Hatami, K. Unsaturated soil–geotextile interface behavior. Geotext. Geomembr. 2011, 29, 17–28.
[CrossRef]
51. Esmaili, D.; Hatami, K.; Miller, G.A. Influence of matric suction on geotextile reinforcement-marginal soil interface strength.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2014, 42, 139–153. [CrossRef]
52. Abu-Farsakh, M.; Coronel, J.; Tao, M. Effect of soil moisture content and dry density on cohesive soil–geosynthetic interactions
using large direct shear tests. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007, 19, 540–549. [CrossRef]
53. Mohiuddin, A. Analysis of Laboratory and Field Pull-Out Tests of Geosynthetics in Clayey Soils. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of the
Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 2003.
54. Goodhue, M.J.; Edil, T.B.; Benson, C.H. Interaction of foundry sands with geosynthetics. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2001, 127,
353–362. [CrossRef]
55. Hsieh, C.; Chen, G.H.; Wu, J.-H. The shear behavior obtained from the direct shear and pullout tests for different poor grades
soil-geosynthetic systems. J. GeoEng. 2011, 6, 15–26.

Sustainability 14 01207 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sustainability 14 01207 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 1207. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031207 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 1. Summary of some relevant laboratory studies on pullout behaviour of geosynthetics.

Recent studies regarding the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics embedded in bio-

2. Materials and Methods

2.2. Pullout Tests

2.2. Pullout Tests

0.3 m Structural fill

Table 3. Pullout test programme.

Geosynthetic Moisture Content % Maximum Dry Confining Number of

2.3. Pullout Interaction Coefficient

3. Results and Discussion

According to FHWA for RSS structures

Table In spite physical

Table 5. Internal shear strength parameters80% MDD

Pullout force (kN/m)

GGR OMC−3% OMC OMC+3%

GCR OMC−3% OMC OMC+3%

3.4. Influence of Compaction Degree of the Recycled C&D Material

Geosynthetic internal displacement (mm)

Author Contributions: C.S.V.: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; methodology; project admin-

Author Contributions: C.S.V.: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; methodology; project ad-

Funding: This work was financially supported by: Project PTDC/ECI-EGC/30452/2017-POCI-01-

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

You might also like