IJG  Vol.3 No.5 , November 2012
Interaction Properties of Geosynthetic with Different Backfill Soils
ABSTRACT
Characterization of a geosynthetic is necessary for its effective use in various field application of reinforced soil structure. In this paper, a new type of geosynthetic has been evaluated for its interaction properties for different backfill soils using direct shear device. The test results are compared based on the type of soils, inclusions, and interface mechanical properties. Three backfills soils (sandy, clayey, and pure sand) in combination with four different geosynthetics (one geotextile and three geogrids) were tested at various loading conditions in direct shear. Test results reveal that the stress-deformation behaviour of the geotextile and geogrid interfaces with sandy and clayey backfills can be defined as hyperbolic. For the pure sand-geogrid interfaces, the relationship is followed by displacement hardening and softening behaviour. The dilatancy behaviour of a particular soil-geosynthetic interface is found similar at all normal stresses. Both contractive and dilative nature is observed for the interfaces with pure sand. On the contrary, only negative dilatancy or contractive behaviour is observed for sandy and clayey backfills with the same geosynthetics. The test results reveal that the relationship of the interface shear strength with the normal stress is not linear in most cases. Based on the test results, a simplified nonlinear equation is proposed for the soil-geosynthetic interface shear strength envelops which was in good agreement with the experimental data.

Cite this paper
M. Hossain, M. Hossain and T. Sakai, "Interaction Properties of Geosynthetic with Different Backfill Soils," International Journal of Geosciences, Vol. 3 No. 5, 2012, pp. 1033-1039. doi: 10.4236/ijg.2012.35104.
References
[1]   R. A. Jewell, G. W. E. Milligan, R. W. Sarsby and D. Dubois, “Interaction between Soil and Geogrids,” Polymer Grid Reinforcement, Thomas Telfold Limited, London, 1984.

[2]   T. S. Ingold, “Laboratory Pull-Out Testing of Grid Reinforcements in Sand,” Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1983, pp. 101-111. doi:10.1520/GTJ10838J

[3]   E. M. Palmeria and G. W. E. Milligan, “Scale and Other Factors Affecting the Results of Pull-Out Tests of Grids Buried in Sand,” Géotechnique, Vol. 39 No. 3, 1989, pp. 511-524. doi:10.1680/geot.1989.39.3.511

[4]   D. T. Bergado, J. C. Chai, H. O. Abiera, M. C. Alfaro, and A. S. Balasubramaniam, “Interaction between Cohesive-Frictional Soil and Various Grid Reinforcements,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1993, pp. 327-349. doi:10.1016/0266-1144(93)90008-C

[5]   D. T. Bergado, R. Shivashankar, M. C. Alfaro, J. C. Chai, and A. S. Balasubramaniam, “Interaction Behaviour of Steel Grid Reinforcements in a Clayey Sand,” Géotechnique, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1993, pp. 589-603. doi:10.1680/geot.1993.43.4.589

[6]   A. Cancelli, P. Rimoldi and S. Togni, “Frictional Characteristics of Geogrids by Means of Direct Shear and Pullout Tests,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, 12-14 November 1992, pp. 51-56.

[7]   D. Cazzuffi, L. Picarelli, A. Ricciuti and P. Rimoldi, “Laboratory Investigations on the Shear Strength of Geogrid Reinforced Soils,” ASTM Special Technical Publication, Vol. 1190, 1993, pp. 119-137.

[8]   R. M. Bakeer, M. Sayed, P. Cates and R. Subramanian, “Pullout and Shear Test on Geogrid Reinforced Lightweight Aggregate,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1998, pp. 119-133. doi:10.1016/S0266-1144(97)10025-5

[9]   M. B. Hossain, M. Z. Hossain and T. Sakai, “Interface Behaviour of Basalt Geosynthetic with Sand Using Direct Shear Device,” Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Geotechnique, Construction Materials and Environment, Mie, 21-23 November 2011, pp. 191-196.

[10]   J. P. Giroud, J. Darrasse and R. C. Bachus, “Hyperbolic Expression for Soil-Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic-Geosynthetic Interface Shear Strength,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1993, pp. 275 -286. doi:10.1016/0266-1144(93)90030-R

 
 
Top