Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Experimental and numerical analysis of large scale pull out tests

conducted on clays reinforced with geogrids encapsulated with
coarse material
M.R. Abdi*, A.R. Zandieh
Faculty of Civil Engineering, KNT University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The pullout test is one of the methods commonly used to study pullout behavior of reinforcements. In
Received 29 April 2014 the current research, large pullout tests (i.e. 100
60
60 cm) have been conducted to investigate the
Received in revised form possibility of pullout resistance enhancement of clays reinforced with HDPE geogrid embedded in thin
12 July 2014
layers of sand. Pullout tests on clayegeogrid, sandegeogrid and clayesandegeogrid samples have been
Accepted 23 July 2014
conducted at normal pressures of 25, 50 and 100 kPa. Numerical modeling using nite element method
Available online 20 August 2014
has also been used to assess the adequacy of the box and geogrid sizes to minimize boundary and scale
effects. Experimental results show that provision of thin sand layers around the reinforcement sub-
Keywords:
Geosynthetics
stantially enhances pullout resistance of clay soil under monotonic loading conditions and the effec-
Pullout test tiveness increases with increase in normal pressures. The improvement is more pronounced at higher
Numerical modeling normal pressures and an optimum sand layer thickness of 8 cm has been determined for maximum
Geogrid enhancement. Results of numerical analysis showed the adequacy of the box and geogrid length adopted
Clay and sand as well as a relatively good agreement with experimental results.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The rapid acceptance of soil reinforcement can be attributed to
factors, including low cost, aesthetics, reliability, simple construc-
tion techniques, and the ability to adapt to different site conditions.
Geosynthetics have been used in geotechnical engineering for the
past three decades. Their use is well established for the purpose of
material separation and lters (Liu and Chu, 2006; Wu et al., 2006)
and as reinforcement for improving the stability of embankments
(Bathurst et al., 2005; Skinner and Rowe, 2005; Chen et al., 2007;
Bergado and Teerawattanasuk, 2008; Li and Rowe, 2008;
Palmeira, 2009; Demir et al., 2013).
To reduce negative environmental impacts caused by aggregate
extraction and to save costs, there is a tendency to use low quality
local cohesive soils as construction materials. Good-quality granular
materials have been the preferred backll material due to their high
strength and ability to dissipate excess pore water pressures rapidly
(Elias and Christopher, 1996). Potential for pore water pressure build
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 98 21 88770006; fax: 98 21 88779476.
E-mail addresses: abdi@kntu.ac.ir (M.R. Abdi), Ali.zandieh_2007@yhoo.com
(A.R. Zandieh).
up which reduces shear strength and bond between the soil and the
reinforcement, lower frictional strength and post-construction
creep potential are the main concerns expressed about the use of
cohesive soils in soil reinforcement. Poor draining soils are also more
difcult to compact when moisture contents are high.
Pullout tests have been deployed by many researchers to study
various factors affecting pullout response of reinforcements such as
box and sample size, sleeve length, front as well as side wall con-
ditions, test speed, soil-geogrid interaction, etc. (Bergado et al.,
1987; Palmeira and Milligan, 1989; Nernheim, 2005; Palmeira,
2009; Chen et al., 2011; Sert and Akpnar, 2012; Chen et al.,
2014). Sand and displacement-controlled monotonic loading has
been adopted in most of these studies (Farrag et al., 1993; Sobhi and
Wu, 1996; Sugimoto et al., 2001; Palmeira, 2004; Moraci and
Recalcati, 2006; Teixeira et al., 2007; Suksiripattanapong et al.,
2012). Only a limited number of investigations have been carried
out to evaluate interactions between cohesive soils and geo-
synthetics (Bergado et al., 1991; Keller, 1995; Almohd et al., 2006;
Abdi et al., 2009; Rowe and Taechakumthorn, 2011). Bergado
et al. (2003), Khedkar and Mandal (2009), Tran et al. (2013) and
Weerasekara and Wijewickreme (2010) have also simulated pullout
test by nite element method of analysis using Plaxis software.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.07.008
0266-1144/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504
Lack of frictional ll or costs of these materials in some parts of
the world has led to the use of inferior cohesive soils in reinforced
soil structures. When poor quality backll is used, it may be ad-
vantageous to place a thin layer of high-strength granular soil
around the reinforcement, to promote soil e reinforcement in-
teractions, greater stability, provide lateral drainage and prevent
excess pore water pressure in case of saturation. This paper in-
vestigates the possible enhancing effects of this method on pullout
resistance of clay soils using large size pullout tests to reduce
boundary and scale effects experimentally and numerically. It is
hoped results will extend the use of clays in soil structures, lead to
saving costs, prevent over use of granular resources and reduce
negative environmental impacts.
2. Experiments
2.1. Apparatus
Pullout apparatus with a large box having a length of 100 cm,
and width and height of 60 cm was designed and fabricated. The
apparatus basically consists of a pullout box, a 60 kN pneumatic
jack with 10 cm stroke for applying pullout force and a closed-loop
computer controlled servo system used to operate the pneumatic
Fig. 1. A detailed sketch and a picture of the pullout apparatus.
495
jack, through getting feedback from either load-cell or displace-
ment transducer to apply the user-dened load or displacement
paths. Normal pressure was applied via an airbag designed to
sustain a maximum pressure of 100 kPa with a regulator to main-
tain a constant pressure during testing. A detailed sketch and pic-
ture of the apparatus are shown in Fig. 1.
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Reinforcement
Fig. 2 shows the extruded HDPE geogrid that has been used as
reinforcement. The geometrical and strength characteristics of the
geogrid provided by the suppliers are also presented in Table 1.
2.2.2. Sand and clay soils
Two types of soil have been used in the study for preparation of
samples. A ne grained soil marketed as kaolinite and used in
pottery industry, has been used as the clay soil and natural sand
was selected as the granular material. Their physical characteristics
determined according to appropriate ASTM standards together
with the parameters used for numerical analysis are summarized in
Table 2. Particle size distribution and compaction curves of clay and
sand are respectively shown in Figs. 3 and 4. According to Unied
496 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504

Table 2
Soil characteristics used for sample preparation.

Soil Description/property Value

Clay Liquid limit 51%

Plastic limit 31%
Plasticity index 20%
Specic gravity 2.63
Optimum moisture content (OMC) 20%
Maximum dry density (MDD) 15.7 (kN/m3)
Cohesion (c) 23 (kN/m2)
Angle of friction (4) 21
Sand D10 0.3 mm
D30 0.9 mm
D60 2 mm
Uniformity coefcient (Cu) 6.6
Coefcient of curvature (Cc) 1.35
Optimum moisture content (OMC) 6%
Fig. 2. HDPE geogrid [Tenax TT 090]. Maximum dry density (MDD) 17 (kN/m3)
Cohesion (c) 0.01 (kN/m2)
Angle of friction (4) 38
Soil Classication System (USCS), clay has been classied as CL (clay
with low plasticity) and sand as SW (well-graded sand). Shear
strength parameters of sand and clay soils have been respectively
determined by conducting direct shear and triaxial tests on To prepare C-G and S-G samples, initially required amounts of
representative samples prepared at optimum moisture content soils were thoroughly mixed with necessary moistures (i.e. OMC).
(OMC) and maximum dry density (MDD) obtained from standard Then, moist soils were placed in the lower part of the box in three
Proctor compaction tests. approximately equal layers and compacted with a tamper. Subse-
quently, geogrids were laid and clamped at the required level
2.2.3. Geo-foam before the upper part of the box was lled with the remaining
In accordance to Khedkar and Mandal (2009), and in order to moist soil and compacted. In case of C-S-G samples, initially the
reduce rigidity effects of the frontal face of the box to some extent, a lower part of the box was lled with clay less half the thickness of
1.0 cm thick geo-foam sheet was placed on the inner face of the the sand layer. Then, half the amount of sand was poured and
front wall. Sugimoto et al. (2001) have reported that the failure pull compacted before geogrid was placed and clamped. Subsequently
out force by considering rigid or exible front face is not signi- the upper part of the box was lled and compacted with the
cantly different, but in the exible case the mobilized bond stress remaining sand and clay soils.
spreads more towards the free end of the geogrid compared to the An airbag was placed on the soil surface and the top lid closed
rigid case. Therefore, a geo-foam with density of 0.181 kN/m3, and secured by fasteners before being pressurized (i.e. 25, 50 and
Poisson's ratio of 0.098 (Horvath, 2001) and modulus of elasticity of 100 kPa). Pullout force was applied in a displacement-controlled
1960 kN/m2 based on ASTM D: 1621 was used. manner by a closed-loop control system. Tests were terminated
when pullout failure occurred, geogrid was damaged, or a frontal
2.3. Sample preparation displacement of 9 cm was reached. A constant horizontal
displacement rate of 1 mm/min recommended by ASTM D: 6706-
Prior to sample preparations, care was exercised to minimize 01 and to be in accord with other researchers was used
connement and boundary effects between soil and inner faces of throughout the tests. Front displacement of reinforcement was
longitudinal walls of the box. For this purpose non-adhesive grease measured by Linear Variable Differential Transformers (LVDT), and
was applied directly on the inner faces which were then covered an automated data acquisition system was deployed to record
with polyethylene sheets to reduce friction. Samples investigated pullout forces and horizontal displacements. To ensure uniform
included reinforced clay (C-G), reinforced sand (S-G) and clay with sample preparations, density and moisture content determinations
geogrids encapsulated in thin layers of sand (C-S-G). To identify and
abbreviate name of samples, C, has been used for clay, S, for sand, G,
for geogrid, and the number used before S, indicates the thickness
of sand layer encapsulating the geogrid in centimeters. For
example, C-8S-G means clay reinforced with geogrid encapsulated
with 8 cm of sand.

Table 1
Geometrical and physical characteristics of HDPE geogrid [Tenax TT 090].

Geometrical/physical characteristics Value

Aperture size, (longitudinal length), AL 200 (mm)

Aperture size, (transverse length), AT 15 (mm)
Bt 5.5 (mm)
Rt 1.7 (mm)
Bw 15 (mm)
Yield point elongation 13 (%)
Tensile strength at 2% strain 26 (kN/m)
Tensile strength at 5% strain 50 (kN/m)
Maximum tensile strength (Tult) 90 (kN/m)

HDPE high-density polyethylene. Fig. 3. Particle size distribution curves of sand and clay.
 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504
Fig. 4. Compaction curves for clay and sand.
using a ring sampler were randomly carried out. A maximum
variation of 7% was observed, which was considered acceptable.
3. Finite element analysis
To assess the adequacy of pullout box dimensions and ensure no
interference between successive bearing members of geogrid, nu-
merical modeling using Plaxis V8 was carried out (Brinkgreve,
2002). Pullout simulation has been considered as a plane strain
problem where displacements and strains in the direction parallel
to the length of the retaining wall or the width of box are assumed
equal to zero (Khedkar and Mandal, 2009). Plane strain problems
result in a two dimensional nite element model with only two
translational degrees of freedom per node.
3.1. Geometrical modeling
To simulate pullout test, geometry of the box was modeled
similar to that of actual test box as shown in Fig. 5. Bottom boundary
was modeled by total xity, whereas normal boundary was xed
horizontally, so that soil could not move horizontally beyond the
boundary, yet settlement of soil was permitted. Normal pressure
was modeled by uniformly distributed load on top surface of soil and
Fig. 5. Geometrical model using Plaxis V8 for geogrid with 80 cm length.
497
Table 3
Numerical properties of sand and clay soils.
Clay
Dilation angle (j) 0
Poisson's ratio (n) 0.38
Elasticity modulus (E) 9000 (kN/m2)
Interaction coefcient for transverse member (Rinter) 0.11
Sand
Dilation angle (j) 8
Poisson's ratio (n) 0.31
Elasticity modulus (E) 38,000 (kN/m2)
Interaction coefcient for transverse member (Rinter) 0.17
pullout load simulated as horizontal nodal force. Longitudinal
members of reinforcement were modeled by geogrid element and
transverse members by plate elements as stiffness is the important
parameter for these members (Khedkar and Mandal, 2009).
3.2. Material modeling
Plaxis V8 uses Young's modulus as basic stiffness modulus in
elastic and MohreCoulomb models. The initial slope of stresse-
strain curve of sand is usually indicated as E and the secant modulus
at 50% strength is denoted as E50. For highly over-consolidated clays
and some rocks, it is realistic to use E , however, for sands it is more
appropriate to use E50 (Vermeer and Brinkgreve, 1995).
Numerical properties of sand and clay soils considered are
presented in Table 3. Volumetric changes which occur during
shearing of soils can be conveniently characterized by dilatancy
angle (j). Vermeer (1990) has empirically suggested that j for
sands can be determined as the difference between the friction
angle and an angle of 30 . In the present study, by conducting direct
shear tests on sand samples, the average angle of friction was
determined as 38 . Thus, on the basis of Vermeer's work, j has been
taken as 8 . Axial stiffness which is inuenced by maximum load
per meter width and elongation at maximum load for geogrid
together with properties of geo-foam are presented in Table 4.
3.3. Interface strength
Interface is modeled by virtual thickness interface element
which is calculated as virtual thickness factor times the average
element size. According to Vermeer and Brinkgreve (1995), for
Plaxis program, the interaction coefcient, R (Rinter, in case of Plaxis
498 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504

Table 4 V8) is dened as the ratio of the shear strength at soilestructure

Geogrid and geo-foam properties used in nite element modeling. interface to the corresponding soil shear strength (Eq. (1)).
Geogrid
Transverse member thickness (deq) 15 (mm)
Tand R
tanf (1)
Axial stiffness (EA) 1020 (kN/m)
Geo-foam where, d is the skin friction angle (interaction friction angle) be-
Unit weight (g) 0.181 (kN/m3) tween soil and reinforcement; R is the interaction coefcient and 4
Elasticity modulus (E) 1960 (kN/m2) is the angle of soil friction. In this paper instead of using just the
Material cohesion (c) 50 (kN/m2)
Internal friction angle (4) 0.01
skin friction between soil and reinforcement, a complete interac-
Dilation angle (j) 0 tion has been used. The interaction coefcient, Rinter, was varied
Poisson's ratio (n) 0.098 until the modeled output coincided with the laboratory result. This
method is analogous to the determination of Rinter by Bergado et al.
(2003) and Khedkar and Mandal (2009). Using this technique, nite
element method is able to simulate complete interaction between
soil and reinforcement including the three-dimensional conne-
ment effects of grid reinforcements. Vermeer and Brinkgreve
(1995) and Khedkar and Mandal (2009) have proposed the
following equation for equivalent depth (deq).
r
EI
deq 12 (2)
EA

where, EI is exural rigidity of member and EA is the axial stiffness. To

simulate the stiffness of transverse members, equivalent depth
(equivalent thickness) of these members (deq) was specied as 1.5 cm.
Interference between transverse members is an important fac-
tor affecting grid behavior and is a function of length, thickness and
spacing of these elements (Palmeira, 1987; Palmeira and Milligan,
1989). According to Palmeira (1987), if the ratio of the distance
between transverse members to that of transverse member thick-
ness of a grid are greater than 40, no interference between trans-
verse members takes place.

4. Results

4.1. Experimental results and discussions

4.1.1. Clay-geogrid &clay-sand-geogrid

Fig. 6(a)e(c) show respectively the variations of pullout force
versus pullout displacement for clay-geogrid (C-G) and clay-sand-
geogrid (C-S-G) samples with sand layer thicknesses of 2, 4 and
8 cm subjected to normal pressures of 25, 50 and 100 kN/m2. It is
clearly seen that pullout forces signicantly increase with the in-
crease in normal pressures. Higher normal pressures cause a

Fig. 6. Variations of pullout force versus pullout displacements. Fig. 7. Monotonic pullout force of geogrid in S-G and C-8S-G samples.
 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504
Fig. 8. Monotonic pullout force of geogrid in C-8S-G and C-10S-G samples.
compression of the soil close to the reinforcement. As a result,
greater passive resistance is mobilized ahead of the grid transverse
members for it to be displaced. During pullout test, vertical
movement of soil particles take place particularly in front of
transverse members of the geogrid which is limited by the
Fig. 9. (a) Mean stress distribution and (b) displacement contours in sand (Box size: L 90 cm, H 60 cm).
499
connement pressure and the surrounding soil. This leads to rising
stresses in front of transverse members and thus the passive soil
resistance. Friction resistance along the surface of the geogrid and
passive soil resistance in front of the transverse members increase
with increasing normal pressure. Passive resistance builds up in
front of transverse members with increasing movements until a
state of failure develops in the vicinity of these members. A state of
failure develops in the surrounding soil and the geogrid is pulled
out of the soil when the passive resistance reaches a local
maximum (Meyer et al., 2004; Abdi et al., 2009). By increasing
pullout loads, strains develop in the geogrid and transverse mem-
bers closer to the clamp experience larger movements than those
closer to the rear of the box. Thus, passive soil resistance close to
the front wall develops earlier with larger loads to be transferred
from the specimen to the soil.
The rate of increase in pullout force is substantial at the early
stages (i.e. <3 cm) which indicates fast resistance mobilization in C-
G and C-S-G samples which continues by further pullout displace-
ment along the embedded reinforcement length but at reduced or
constant rate also reported by Bergado et al. (1993), Goodhue et al.
(2001), Meyer et al. (2004), Abdi and Arjomand (2011). Consid-
ering Fig. 6(a), the most important observation is that C-G and C-2S-
G samples display exactly the same trend and magnitude of pullout
forces which is a clear indication that embedding the reinforcement
in a very thin granular layer does not enhance soil-reinforcement
500 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504
interaction and therefore resistance to pulling out. When normal
pressures are imposed, granular particles penetrate the clay soil or
the clay soil moves in between the sand particles. This reduces the
inter-granular sand particle interactions to that of clay soil and thus
shows poor clay/sand/geogrid interactions.
Increasing the thickness of granular layer encompassing the
reinforcement to 4 and 8 cm has resulted in signicantly increasing
pullout forces as shown in Fig. 6(b) and (c). It can be seen that at
early stages of the pulling out, the inuence of the normal pressures
is minimal and approximately all curves coincide. But, by further
pulling out, gradually the samples that have been subjected to
higher normal pressures display greater resistance. These changes
have been caused as a result of greater connement and therefore
more signicant inter-granular and soil/reinforcement interactions.
Resistance to pulling out has been the result of enhanced friction at
soil/soil contacts, increased soil passive resistance in front of
transverse members of the geogrid as well as the soil/reinforce-
ment interface.
The enhancement of pullout resistance is mainly due to the
passive soil resistance building up in front of transverse members
until a state of failure is reached in the soil close to the reinforce-
ment. The proportion of passive soil resistance in front of trans-
verse members is considerably larger than the friction resistance
Fig. 10. (a) Mean stress distribution and (b) displacement contours in sand (Box size: L 100 cm, H 60 cm).
along the geogrid and the overall restraint provided is determined
by particle size and grading of the soil also reported by Palmeira
(2009) and Touahamia et al. (2002).
4.1.2. Sand-geogrid (S-G) &clay-sand-geogrid (C-S-G)
Fig. 7 shows variations of pullout force versus horizontal pullout
displacements for the S-G, and C-8S-G samples subjected to normal
pressures of 25, 50 and 100 kPa. Results of C-8S-G samples have
been presented because they showed the highest increase in pull-
out forces. The trend of changes observed show a gradual pullout
resistance mobilization at soil/geogrid interface for both S-G and C-
8S-G samples, the magnitude of which increases with increase in
normal pressures. Resistance mobilization continues by further
pullout displacement along the embedded reinforcement length
also reported by Alagiawanna et al. (2001) and Khedkar and Mandal
(2009).
The maximum pullout forces obtained for S-G samples were
approximately 26.0, 37.4 and 47.2 kN at normal pressures of 25, 50
and 100 kPa respectively whereas for C-8S-G samples subjected to
the same normal pressures were respectively 24.3, 35.6 and
45.1 kN. It can be seen that the maximum pullout forces displayed
by both group of samples are approximately the same. This is a
clear indication that the provision of thin sand layers around
 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504
reinforcements in clayey soils is very effective in improving pull-
out resistance even to the level as if the whole sample had
comprised of granular materials. Using this method would make it
possible to use inferior low quality materials as backll in soil
structures.
To assess the effect of thicker sand layers on pullout forces, a set
of samples of clay with geogrid encapsulated with 10 cm of sand
(i.e. C-10S-G) were prepared and tested. The results are presented in
Fig. 8. For comparative purposes results of C-8S-G samples have also
been shown. It can be seen that both sets of samples have produced
the same trend and magnitude of pullout forces. This means that for
the soils and the geogrid tested, sand layer thickness of 8 cm is the
optimum thickness resulting in the highest improvement. It could
be speculated that there is such an optimum thickness which has to
be determined for any specic project if this method is to be
adopted also reported by Abdi and Arjomand (2011).
4.2. Finite element results and discussions
Finite element has been used for modeling pullout test and
possible inuence of test box boundaries on the results for S-G
samples.
Fig. 11. (a) Mean stress distribution and (b) displacement contours in sand (Box size: L 120 cm, H 60 cm).
501
4.2.1. Inuence of test box boundaries
In order to study the adequacy of the pullout box dimensions
and the possibility of boundary effects, analytical investigation
employing a nite element program has been conducted to simu-
late pullout test in sand. In this regard smaller and larger box
lengths than the actual test box were also investigated keeping all
other factors constant. Analysis was carried out using a maximum
normal pressure of 100 kPa, pullout force of 50 kN and maximum
geogrid length of 80 cm. Results of analysis are presented in
Figs. 9e11 for box lengths of 90, 100 and 120 cm respectively. It can
vividly be seen from the gures that mean stress distribution (i.e.
9(a), 10(a) and 11(a)) and displacement contours (i.e. 9(b), 10 (b)
and 11(b)) do not extend beyond 100 cm. Based on these obser-
vations, pullout box length of 100 cm was considered adequate.
Looking at Figs. 10 and 11, it can be observed that the stress dis-
tributions do not go further than 20 cm from the end of the rein-
forcement, which indicates that geogrid length of 80 cm is
adequate. As ASTM D: 6706-01 (2001) states that the geogrid
sample used for pull out test should include at least four transverse
members, therefore a geogrid with a length of 80 cm has been
used for both the analysis and the experimental tests. Results of
analysis show that mean stress distribution between successive
502 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504

transverse members decrease to an extent that they behave as a

series of isolated members with no interference between these
members taking place (Fig. 12).

4.3. Comparison of numerical and experimental results

For comparative purposes, results of numerical analysis and

experimental tests of clay-sand-geogrid samples (i.e. C-2S-G, C-4S-
G, C-8S-G and C-10S-G) as pullout force versus normal pressure are
shown in Fig. 13. Despite assuming plane strain conditions for nu-
merical analysis, both the numerical and the experimental results
show the same trend of changes and a relatively good agreement. It
can clearly be seen that by increasing normal pressures, pullout
forces substantially increase. The rate of increase in pullout forces
by increasing normal pressure from 25 kPa to 50 kPa due to the
interlocking effect of aggregate materials is greater than from
50 kPa to 100 kPa. At high normal pressures, the inuence of
reinforcement and that of sand layer is relatively less due to smaller
relative movements between the soil and the reinforcement also Fig. 13. Comparison of numerical analysis and experimental results.
conrmed by Unnikrishnan et al. (2002). Goodhue et al. (2001)
stated that at low normal pressures, pullout force becomes con-
stant because the entire geosynthetic is displaced, thus shear geogrid is encompassed with 8 cm of sand. This is an improvement
strength is mobilized completely along the entire length of the of 84 and 66 percent respectively.
geosynthetic. At higher normal pressures, pullout forces continu-
ally increase because of progressive failure caused by non-uniform 5. Conclusions
displacement along the geosynthetic.
At low normal pressures of 25 and 50 kPa, the difference be- A large pullout box apparatus having length, width and height of
tween the analytical and the experimental results are not signi- 100
60
60 cm respectively was designed and developed for
cant, but become intensied by increasing the normal pressure to evaluating the interaction of clays reinforced with geogrids
100 kPa. The analytical pullout forces are systematically higher than encapsulated in thin layers of sand for promoting the use of inferior
the experimental results which are probably due to losses that are soils in soil structures. These tests have also been simulated using
intrinsically built in the test set up. These losses become intensied nite element method. Based on the numerical and the experi-
at higher normal pressures and their variations are expressed as mental results, the following conclusions have been drawn:
percentage in Table 5. The differences vary between a minimum of
8.9 and a maximum of 12.1%. - Numerical analysis showed that when using a pullout box with
Fig. 14 shows the variations of pullout forces versus sand layer aforementioned length and a geogrid 80 cm in length, boundary
thickness encapsulating the geogrid obtained from the numerical effects would be signicantly reduced.
analysis and the experiments. The trend of changes show relatively - The low pullout forces obtained for C-G and C-2S-G samples
good agreement and the differences between the results of the two indicate poor clay/geogrid interface interactions compared to
methods seem less signicant. For C-G samples subjected to normal samples with thicker sand layers (i.e. C-4S-G and C-8S-G).
pressures of 25 and 100 kPa, the pullout forces are approximately - Encapsulation of geogrids with thin sand layers improves the
13 and 27 kN/m which increases to 24 and 45 kN/m when the pullout forces displayed by reinforced clays, as a result of

Fig. 12. Horizontal displacements (L 120 cm).

 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504 503

(i) [(g  h)/g]
100 (%)

Maximum pullout force for 100 kPa normal pressure

Variation

12.5

13.8
10.3
12
FEM (kN/m) (h)

31.5
42.0
51.0
52.2
Lab. (kN/m) (g)

12.1(%)
28.0
37.5
45.1
47.3

Fig. 14. Comparison of pullout forces versus sand layer thickness from numerical and
experimental studies.
(f) [(d  e)/d]
100 (%)

promoting more effective interaction at soil e reinforcement

Maximum pullout force for 50 kPa normal pressure

interface.
- Pullout forces substantially increase with increasing normal
Variation

pressures, which is attributed to greater particle connement

10.7

and therefore better interaction between soil particles and the

8.7

8.9
9.5

reinforcement.
- For the soil, geogrid and the normal pressures used in the cur-
FEM (kN/m) (e)

rent research, an optimum sand layer thickness of 8 cm was

determined which resulted in most improvement in pullout
forces. The provision of thicker sand layers did not lead to
25.0
31.0
39.1
40.1

further improvement in the behavior of the composite system.

Depending on the type of soil and geogrid used, the optimum
Lab. (kN/m) (d)

thickness will vary which has to be separately determined for

any specic project. As constructing thin layers in practice is
very difcult, the optimum thickness can be taken as the min-
9.4(%)
23.0
28.0
35.9
36.6

imum thickness required.

- Numerical and experimental results show relatively good
(c) [(a  b)/a]
100 (%)

agreement regarding the effects of geogrid encapsulation on

pullout loadedisplacement behavior of reinforced clays.
Variations of maximum pullout forces between the results of the two methods.

Maximum pullout force for 25 kPa normal pressure

Acknowledgment
Variation

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Khaje Nasir

and Emam Ali Universities for their technical and nancial support.
10.5
11.1
6.6

7.7
FEM (kN/m) (b)

References

ASTM D: 6706e01, 2001. Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic Pullout
Resistance in Soil. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
14.5
21.0
27.0
27.9

ASTM D: 1621e04a, 2004. Standard Test Method for Compressive Properties of

Rigid Cellular Plastics. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Abdi, M.R., Sadrnejad, A., Arjomand, M.A., 2009. Strength enhancement of clay by
Lab. (kN/m) (a)

encapsulating geogrids in thin layers of sand. Geotext. Geomembr. 27 (6),

447e455.
Abdi, M.R., Arjomand, M., 2011. Pullout tests conducted on clay reinforced with
8.9(%)

geogrid encapsulated in thin layers of sand. Geotext. Geomembr. 29 (6),

13.6
19.0
24.3
25.9

588e595.
Alagiawanna, A.M.N., Sugimoto, M., Sato, S., Toyota, H., 2001. Inuence of longitu-
dinal and transverse members on geogrid pullout behavior during deformation.
Sand layer 10 cm
Sand layer 2 cm
Sand layer 4 cm
Sand layer 8 cm

Geotext. Geomembr. 19, 483e507.

Average variation

Almohd, I., Abu-Farsakh, M., Khalid, F., 2006. Geosynthetic reinforcement-cohesive

soil interface during pullout. In: Proceedings of the 13th Great Lakes
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA,
Geogrid

pp. 40e49.
Table 5

Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M., Walters, D.L., 2005. Reinforcement loads in geosynthetic
wall and the case for a new working stress design method. Geotext. Geomembr.
23 (4), 287e322.
504 M.R. Abdi, A.R. Zandieh / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 42 (2014) 494e504

Bergado, D.T., Chai, J.C., Abiera, H.O., Alfaro, M.C., Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1993. Sert, T., Akpnar, M., 2012. Investigation of geogrid aperture size effects on sub-base
Interaction between cohesive-frictional soil and various grid reinforcements. and subgrade stabilization of asphalt pavements. Baltic J. Road. Bridge Eng. 7
Geotext. Geomembr. 12 (4), 327e349. (2), 160e168.
Bergado, D.T., Sampaco, C.L., Shivashankar, R., Alfaro, M.C., Anderson, L.R., Skinner, C.D., Rowe, R.K., 2005. Design and behavior of a geosynthetic reinforced
Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1991. Performance of a welded wire wall with poor retaining wall and bridge abutment on a yielding foundation. Geotext. Geo-
quality backlls on soft clay. In: ASCE Geotechnical, pp. 908e922. Special membr. 23 (3), 235e260.
Publication No.27. Sobhi, S., Wu, J.T.H., 1996. An interface pullout formula for extensible sheet rein-
Bergado, D.T., Bukkanasuta, A., Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1987. Laboratory pull-out forcement. Geosynth. Int. 3 (5), 565e582.
tests using bamboo and polymer geogrids including a case study. Geotext. Sugimoto, M., Alagiyawanna, A.M.N., Kadoguchi, K., 2001. Inuence of rigid and
Geomembr. 5 (3), 153e189. exible face on geogrid pullout tests. Geotext. Geomembr. 19 (5), 257e277.
Bergado, D.T., Youwai, S., Teerawattanasuk, C., Visudmedanukul, P., 2003. The inter- Suksiripattanapong, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Chinkulkijniwat, A., Chai, J.C., 2012. Pullout
action mechanism and behavior of hexagonal wire mesh reinforced embankment resistance of bearing reinforcement embedded in coarse grained soils. Geotext.
with silty sand backll on soft clay. Comput. Geotech. 30, 517e534. Geomembr. 36, 44e54.
Bergado, D.T., Teerawattanasuk, C., 2008. 2D and 3D numerical simulations of Teixeira, S.H.C., Bueno, B.S., Zornberg, J.G., 2007. Pullout force of individual longi-
reinforced embankments on soft ground. Geotext. Geomembr. 26 (1), 39e55. tudinal and transverse geogrid ribs. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (1), 37e50.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., 2002. PLAXIS (Version 8) User's Manual. Delft University of Tenax Corporation, Geosynthetics Division, 4800 Pulaski Highway, Baltimore, MD
Technology and PLAXIS BV, Netherlands. 21224, USA, Web site: www.tenax.net.
Chen, H.T., Hung, W.Y., Chang, C.C., Chen, Y.J., Lee, C.J., 2007. Centrifuge modeling Tran, V.D.H., Menguid, M.A., Chouinard, L.E., 2013. A nite-discrete elemnt frame-
test of a geotextile-reinforced wall with a very wet clayey backll. Geotext. work for the 3D modeling of geogrid-soil interaction under pullout loading
Geomembr. 25 (6), 346e359. conditions. Geotext. Geomembr. 37 (1), 1e9.
Chen, R., Luan, M., Hao, D., 2011. Improved simulation method for soil-geogrid inter- Touahamia, M., Sivakumar, V., Mckelevey, D., 2002. Shear strength of reinforced-
action of reinforced earth structure in FEM. Trans. Tianjin Univ. 17 (3), 220e228. recyded material. Constr. Build. Mater. 16, 331e339.
Chen, C., McDowell, G., Thom, N., 2014. Investigating geogrid-reinforced ballast: Unnikrishnan, N., Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., 2002. Behavior of reinforced
experimental pull-out tests and discrete element modeling. Soils Found. 54 (1), clay under monotonic and cyclic loading. Geotext. Geomembr. 20 (2), 117e133.
1e11. Vermeer, P.A., Brinkgreve, R.B.J., 1995. Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Anal-
Demir, A., Laman, M., Yildiz, A., Ornek, M., 2013. Large scale eld tests on geogrid- ysis. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam (Netherlands).
reinforced granular ll underlain by clay soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 38 (1), 1e15. Vermeer, P.A., 1990. The orientation of shear bands in biaxial tests. Geotechnique 40
Elias, V., Christopher, B.B., 1996. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced (2), 223e236.
Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines. Federal Highway Administra- Weerasekara, L., Wijewickreme, D., 2010. An analytical method to predict the
tion. FHWA-Sa-96-071. pullout response of geotextiles. Geosynth. Int. 17 (4), 193e206.
Farrag, K., Acar, Y.B., Juran, I., 1993. Pull-out force of geogrid reinforcements. Geo- Wu, C.S., Hong, Y.S., Yan, Y.W., Chang, B.S., 2006. Soil non-woven geotextile ltration
text. Geomembr. 12 (2), 133e159. behavior under contact with drainage materials. Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (1),
Goodhue, M.J., Edil, T.B., Benson, C.H., 2001. Interaction of foundry sands with 1e10.
geosynthetics. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. ASCE 124 (4), 353e362.
Horvath, J.S., 2001. Concepts for Cellular Geosynthetics Standards with an Example
for EPS-block Geo-foam as Lightweight Fill for Roads. Research Report No. CGT-
Glossary
2001-4. Manhattan College Center for Geotechnology, New York, U.S.A.,
pp. 1e73 AL: longitudinal length
Keller, G.R., 1995. Experiences with Mechanically Stabilized Structures and Native AT: transverse length
Soil Backll. Transportation Research No. 1474. In: Mechanically Stabilized c: material cohesion
Backll and Properties of Geosynthetics and Geomembranes, pp. 30e38. Cc: coefcient of curvature
Khedkar, M.S., Mandal, J.N., 2009. Pullout behavior of cellular reinforcements. Cu: uniformity coefcient
Geotext. Geomembr. 3 (1), 262e271. CL: clay with low plasticity
Li, A.L., Rowe, R.K., 2008. Effects of viscous behavior of geosynthetic reinforcement C-G: clay-geogrid
and foundation soils on embankment performance. Geotext. Geomembr. 26 (4), C-S-G: clay-sand-geogrid
317e334. deq: transverse member thickness
Liu, L.F., Chu, C.Y., 2006. Modeling the slurry ltration performance of nonwoven E: elasticity modulus
geotextiles. Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (5), 325e330. EI: exural rigidity
Meyer, N., Nernheim, A., Emersleben, A., 2004. Inuence of conning pressure, soil EA: axial stiffness
density and type of geogrids on soil-geogrid interaction coefcient. In: Inter. e- FEM: nite element method
Conferences on Modern Trends in Foundation Engineering, India. HDPE: high-density polyethylene
Moraci, N., Recalcati, P.G., 2006. Factors affecting the pullout behavior of extruded LVDT: linear variable differential transformers
geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (22), Lab: laboratory
220e242. MDD: maximum dry density
Nernheim, A., 2005. Design and test methods for geosynthetic reinforced struc- OMC: optimum moisture content
tures. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 6, 598e612. Rinter: interaction coefcient for transverse member
Palmeira, E.M., 1987. The Study of Soil-reinforcement Interaction by Means of Large S-G: sand-geogrid
Scale Laboratory Test. Ph.D thesis. Magalen College, University of Oxford, SW: well-graded sand
England. Tult: maximum tensile strength
Palmeira, E.M., Milligan, G.W.E., 1989. Scale and other factors affecting the results of USCS: unied soil classication system
pull-out tests of grid buried in sand. Geotechnique 11 (3), 511e524. g: unit weight
Palmeira, E.M., 2004. Bearing force mobilization in pull-out tests on geogrids. d: skin friction angle
Geotext. Geomembr. 22 (6), 481e509. n: Poisson's ratio
Palmeira, E.M., 2009. Soil-geosynthetic interaction. Geotext. Geomembr. 27 (5), 4: internal friction angle
368e390. j: dilation angle
Rowe, R.K., Taechakumthorn, C., 2011. The interaction between reinforcement and
vertical drains and effect on the performance of embankments on soft ground.
Soils Rocks 34 (4), 261e279.