Jewell,R. A. (1990). GCotechnique 40, No.

3,51%518

TECHNICAL NOTE

Reinforcement bond capacity

R. A. JEWELL*

KEYWORDS: bearing capacity; geotextile; reinforced research confirms this analysis of bond capacity
soil; sands; soil-structure interaction; stress analysis. to be a powerful and practical tool. The research
also indicates two improvements to the theory
which are described below. Palmeira & Milligan
INTRODUCTION (1989) proposed a more significant modification
In their recent paper, Palmeira & Milligan (1989) to the theory based on a new empirical corre-
presented a set of high quality test data on lation. Unfortunately their proposal appears not
pullout tests which show clearly how inapprop- to be fundamental and, as shown below, to lead
riate boundary conditions in pullout tests can to errors in certain cases.
lead directly to unrealistically high values of
pullout resistance (bond capacity) for reinforce-
ment. Their data also cast valuable new light on EXISTING THEORY FOR REINFORCEMENT
the influence of bearing member shape and soil BOND
particle size. The analysis derived by Jewel1 et al. (1984) can
While it is possible to achieve satisfactory be summarized briefly as follows. It is assumed
boundary conditions for pullout testing in a that there are two independent sources of bond
research laboratory-including a stress- capacity
controlled upper boundary, a smooth lubricated
front boundary, adequate sample size and depth (1) skin friction, tan 6, mobilized between the
of burial in the soil-it is unlikely that such con- soil and the plan area of plane reinforcement
ditions will be achieved in more routine labor- surfaces
atory testing, or in field testing. (2) bearing stress o</cr”’ mobilized by soil bearing
Two separate sources, or mechanisms, for on reinforcement bearing surfaces.
reinforcement bond capacity in soil can be identi- It is further assumed that
fied as skin friction and bearing stress. Perhaps it
is fortunate that pullout testing can be avoided (a) the two mechanisms above are independent
for reinforcement materials that depend only on and additive
skin friction for bond capacity, such as the major- (b) an upper limit, or cut-off to the bond capacity
ity of geotextiles, and plane strips. For these for an area of reinforcement is that for a fully
materials simpler modified direct shear tests are rough sheet, tan 6 = tan 4, covering the same
adequate to measure the shearing resistance at plan area.
the soil to reinforcement surface contact. Unfor- A general expression for bond capacity may be
tunately, however, the simpler test does not apply derived in terms of the reinforcement dimensions
where bearing stress is the important bond defined in Fig. 1. The expression for pullout
mechanism, such as for grids, ribbed strips and resistance is
anchored earth reinforcements.
Jewel1 et al. (1984) derived an analysis to P, = 2L, Wran’ fb tan f$ (1)
describe the interaction mechanisms between
wheref, is the bond coefficient, 0,’ is the effective
reinforcement and soil so that the bond capacity
stress in the soil normal to the reinforcement
could be calculated, as an adjunct to pullout
surface, and L, and W, are the length and width
testing, from the fundamental properties of the
of the reinforcement providing bond (i.e. being
reinforcement geometry and the soil angle of fric-
pulled out). The maximum possible pullout resist-
tion. The support and additional insight into the
ance is wheref, = 1.00, the bond coefficient being
interaction mechanisms provided by the new
restricted to the range l@O >fb > 0. The com-
ponent of the pullout resistance due solely to skin
Discussion on this Technical Note closes 4 January friction is
1991; for further details see p. ii.
* University of Oxford. (P,),, = 2a, L, W, 0”’ tan S (2)
513

Géotechnique 1990.40:513-518.
 514 JEWELL

Bearing stress
The bearing stress which can be mobilized
against a reinforcement bearing surface is much
more difficult to define. Jewel1 et al. (1984) sug-
gested the following safe or lower estimate for
bearing stress

d=tan(i+t)exp[(t+4)tan$] (6)
0”‘

A, = W,L, Grid surface area

which depends only on the angle of friction for
(1, Fraction of grid surface area that IS solid
the soil. It is worth emphasizing that the evalu-
ation of the bearing stress is a separate, albeit
% Fraction of grid width available for bearmg
essential, part to the analysis described by equa-
Fig. 1. Definition of reinforcement dimensions, after tions (1) to (4). If improvements are made to the
Jewel1 et al. (1984) theory they would be either in the assumptions
leading to equations (1) to (4), or in the evalu-
ation of bearing stress, equation (6).
The new data reported by Palmeira & Milligan
where a, is the fraction of the reinforcement plan
(1989) support the earlier work and confirm that
area, A, = L, W,, which is solid (i.e. the plane
equation (6) is a realistic but safe basis on which
reinforcement surface area).
to determine the reinforcement bearing stress. All
The component of the pullout resistance due
the data are shown collected in Fig. 2. The new
solely to bearing stress is
data also provide insight into the bearing stress
mechanisms and demonstrate that at least some
(PJbs =
02 W,ctbBUb’

where CC,,is the fraction of each bearing surface

of the scatter in the measured bearing stress
plotted in Fig. 2 is due to (a) the bearing member
shape and (b) soil particle size effects. The data
area, SW,, available for bearing (loss of area indicate that a rectangular bearing member (or
being due to connections), and LJS is the number surface) of depth B can generate approximately
of bearing surfaces (discussed later). If there is 20% (a factor 1.2) more bearing stress (or load)
only one bearing surface, such as in anchored than a circular member of the same diameter B.
earth or loop anchors, the term LJS would be set The influence of the mean soil particle size D,, ,
equal to unity. for two different sands, is shown in Fig. 3 where
The general expression for the bond coefficient the increase in bearing stress has been normalized
is, from equations (l), (2) and (3) with respect to the asymptotic value for high
BID,, . There is a significant influence once the
h=as(~)+(yy$&--$ (4)
ratio of mean particle size to bearing member size
is less than 10, i.e. B/D,, < 10. The simple allow-
ance for particle size effects shown in Fig. 3 is
suggested. Defining the bearing stress where par-
ticle size is unimportant as (Ob’/u,‘), , assuming a
EVALUATION OF BOND PARAMETERS
continuum as in the derivation of equation (6),
Skin friction
then if B/D,, > 10
Skin friction is a well-known phenomenon
measured by shearing soil, at an appropriate
density and normal stress, across the surface of
reinforcement material in a modified direct shear (74
apparatus. Skin friction is often expressed as a
proportion of the shearing resistance of the soil,
tan G/tan 4. The bond coellicient for reinforce- and if B/D,, < 10
ment materials which rely only on skin friction
(LX,= 1, a,, = 0) can therefore be determined from
the modified direct shear test since, from equation (W
(4)
tan 6 This allows a maximum doubling of the bearing
x = - (5)
tan 4 stress due to particle size.

Géotechnique 1990.40:513-518.
 REINFORCEMENT BOND CAPACITY 515

Jewel1 et al. (1984)

D Ovesen & Stroman (1972)

* Ovesen 8 Stroman (1972)

Huekel & Kwasniewskl (1961)

Chang et a/. (1977)
Jewel1 (1980)

Palmelra & Mulligan (1989)

0 *A Present work
V Akinmusuru (1978)
+o Audibert & Nvman (19771
x Dickln & L&g (19i3) ’
0 Dyer (1985)
. Peterson (1980)
0,/o, = e(n’z+@) Ian 0 tan ((n/4) + (9/2)) A Trautmann 8 O’Rourke (1985)
+ Wang & Wu (1980)

1 I 1
20 40 60
9: degrees

Fig. 2. Comparison of measured and predicted bcaring stress, from Fig. 15 of Jewel1 ef ul.
(19ll4) and Fig. 18 of Palmeirn & Milligan (1989)

2.5 . Lelghton Buzzard sand 14/25 If only the bearing stress term in equation (4) is
. q Leighton Buzzard sand 14125 used to define a bond coeffkient due to bearing,
(square section)
then
2 4 A Leighton Buzzard sand 25/52

- Equation (7)

The required grid geometry, (S/u, B), to achieve a

fully rough bond,fbea,ing = 1, is then

This leads to the following simple expression for

Fig. 3. Inlhence of particle size BIDS0 on measured
the bond due to bearing stress
bearing stress, replottcd from Fig. 17, Palmeira &
Milligao (1989) (10)

subject to the limitf,C.,inn < 1XlO. This limit indi-

INTERFERENCE cates that if the spacing of the reinforcement
The existing theory assumes that there is a bearing members is less than (S/a,@, indicated
simple upper limit or cut-off to reinforcement by equation (9), then each bearing member would
bond capacity equivalent to a fully rough sheet simply mobilize a proportionately smaller bearing
(6 = 4). A limiting case where the reinforcement stress. The bond coefficient and pullout force
derives bond capacity from bearing stress only cannot increase above (Qmax = 1X)0, as shown in
can be examined. This is a convenient concept for Fig. 4.
grid reinforcement as it shows clearly the Palmeira & Milligan (1989) suggest that this
geometry (S/cc,B)# is required to achieve the lim- concept of interference, the ratio of mobilized
iting, fully rough bond,& = 1Gl. (By ignoring the bearing stress to the maximum possible value,
component of bond due to surface shear, this case should be introduced explicitly into the analysis
would be a safe one for selecting bond coefficients for bond. The existing theory already contains an
for grid reinforcement materials,) expression for the degree of interference, DI,

Géotechnique 1990.40:513-518.
 516 JEWELL

-- - Possible rounding off Starting from Palmeira & Milligan’s equation (l),
- Theory, equation (10) the existing theory is found to give the following
expression for the degree of interference

DI=l-2

= 1_ P: + (n - l)p,(S/% B)/(S/% B),

( nPO >
(13)
which may be simplified to
I I I ,
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 DI=(I-$(1-H) (14)
(Skl~)~ (S/rr,S)
(SklbB) (SW% Note that this tends to the simplified form given
in equation (11) when the number of bearing
Fig. 4. Relation between bond coeffkient due to bearing
members n is large.
/ and reinforcement geometry S/a, B, after Fig. 18,
J%$! et al. (1984) The comparison between the existing theory
and the new data from tests on Leighton Buzzard
sand 14125 is shown in Fig. 5. The important
parameter is the value of (S/a, B),. This was
introduced by Palmeira & Milligan.
selected from the measured asymptotic value
(a,l/a,‘)/tan C#J= 38 given in Palmeira & Milli-
(11) gan’s Fig. 17. Particle size effects for the different
reinforcement bar diameters have been allowed
for using equation (7) and D,, = 0.8 mm for the
subject to the limit DI 2 0. sand. The range for the different tests was
A concept of interference would be useful in (S/a,B)# = 2634, and the mean value
describing the departure from the existing theory (S/a, B), = 30 was used to plot Fig. 5.
which might be expected at the intersection of the The existing theory for bond is thus found to
simplified linear relations, indicated by the dotted reproduce well the measurements from the 16 dif-
line in Fig. 4. Such a ‘rounding off would be ferent tests. This check on the theory is severe
expected because sharp discontinuities seldom because the tests are on dense sand at low stress
occur in practice. levels, so there is a relatively high peak angle of

Interference tests with few bearing members n Data Theory

Palmeira & Milligan used pullout tests on 2 . equation (14)
grids with only a few bearing members to investi-
gate interference. They presented the data on a 3 0 equation (14)
plot of DI against bearing member spacing
Large 0 equation (11)
S/cr,B. (It is important to note here that ab = 1
for the weldmesh grids used in the tests, but the (S i u&J),=30
term ab is included for completeness in the 8
E 0.5 \
derived expressions.) In tests with limited 0
numbers of bearing members it is necessary to
account for the first bearing member which acts
:
undisturbed on the sand, and subsequent bearing
0
members for which interference can occur. ti .

If PO is the pullout force mobilized on the first

bearing member with no interference, the pullout
.
force on the subsequent bearing members for I\_- \
I ‘y . ,
occurs is P&/a, B)/(S/a, B)4.
I I
which interference OO 10 20 30 40 50
The pullout resistance for a grid with n bearing S/C&3
members is then
Fig. 5. Measured and predicted relation betweea DI and
reinforcement geometry S/a, B for tests oo Leighton
(S/%B) Buzzard sand 14/25: data from Fig. 21, Palmeira &
p, = PO+ (n - 1)Po (s,ub B)4 (12)
MiUigan (1989)

Géotechnique 1990.40:513-518.
 REINFORCEMENT BOND CAPACITY 517

friction 4 which is sensitive to small changes in
density or stress level. The mobilized bearing
stress cri,‘/un’depends critically on 4.
Empirical correlation for interference
The results in Fig. 5 show that the existing
theory predicts interference well, and suggest that
any error in predicted bond capacity due to
rounding off (Fig. 4) is small in comparison with
other factors, such as the accuracy with which the
angle of friction for the soil may be measured.
The existing theory captures the main features of
reinforcement bond capacity in a conceptually
simple and satisfying manner.
When viewed in this light, the modification to
the theory with the new empirical correlation for
DI proposed by Palmeira & Milligan (1989)
appears to be seeking only a marginal improve-
ment at the expense of the simplicity of the exist-
ing analytical solution. What is equally significant
is that the proposed empiricism is expressed in
terms of a parameter whose value depends on the
number of reinforcement bearing members rr. The
parameter is
For any single value of this parameter, the
existing theory indicates that DI depends on both
the number of bearing members n (equation (14))
and the angle of friction of the soil C$(equations
(6) and (9)). This is illustrated in Fig. 6 which
compares the value of DI given by the existing
theory with Palmeira & Milligan’s empirical
correlation. The typical range for sands
(S/a,B& = 10-25 has been bracketed, and the
number of bearing members n, and the high-
lighted ranges for DI, correspond approximately
with Palmeira & Milligan’s test data (Fig. 5).
The comparison in Fig. 6 suggests that the pro-
posed empiricism is simply a fit to the data for
the grid geometries used in laboratory testing.
Numerical investigations then show that the
empiricism can become erroneous for practical
grids with larger numbers of bearing members n,
and for more widely spaced bearing members
where there is little interference. This is illustrated
as follows : Palmeira & Milligan’s (1989) modified
theory, their equation (3), gives
fbezwing
= (1 - “V(y)(3) & (15)
which, following equation (10) can be expressed
as
(SlabB)+
fbearing = (1 - w (SIa,B) (16)
The comparison shown in Fig. 7 can now be
made. The results are for a typical sand
(S/a,B)+ = 20, and the number of grid bearing
members varies from 2 to 50. The DI is taken
directly from the empirical correlation (Fig. 6).
Several features of the modified theory are
apparent from Fig. 7. The effect of interference
suggested by the modified theory is to reduce sig-
nificantly the pullout resistance of grid reinforce-
ment below that given by the current theory over
most of the practical range (i.e. the modified
theory is more conservative than the existing
theory in this range). However, the modified
theory also gives pullout resistances for grids sub-
stantially higher than those for a fully rough sheet

1.2-

Theocy equation (14)

Upper curves (SXI&~ = 25
0.8 - Lower curves (S/a&)c = 10
2. 3. 7 refer to n members 0.9 - Existing theory,

06 -

Palmeira & Mllllgan (1989) equation (16)

0.2 -
-- Empmcal relation
- Data ranges
I
v
OO 0.25
I 0.50
1 0.75 1.00 0.75
h 0.50
I 0.25 01
0
0.1 1.0 10.0
(S&~)
(kQVSZ
(SlaDB)@

Fig. 6. Comparison of DI for sand in existing theory aod Fig. 7. Comparison between the existing and the modi-
in empirical relation proposed by Milligan & Palmeira fied tbeory for typical sand where (S/a, Z#),= 20 and for
WW grids with diierent numbers of bearing members

Géotechnique 1990.40:513-518.
 518 JEWELL

(fbcaring > 1.0) once the grid geometry (S/a,B) The bearing stress mobilized on rectangular
falls below a certain value which denends on the bearing members, or surfaces, is approx-
number of bearing members n. The bond coefll- imately 1.2 times greater than that for circular
cient then rises rapidly as the grid geometry is bearing members. A factor 1.2 may be applied
reduced further so that fbearing $ 1. There is little, to equation (6) for calculations on reinforce-
if any, data to support such values. ment with rectangular bearing surfaces or
members. This assumes equation (6) to be
applicable to circular members.
CONCLUSIONS
The existing theory for reinforcement bond, The concept of degree of interference, DI dis-
summarized in this Technical Note has been sup- cussed explicitly by Milligan and Palmeira (1989)
ported by Palmeira & Milligan’s (1989) new test is already contained in the existing theory, equa-
data. There are two separate elements to the tion (14). The proposal to modify the existing
theory: theory with an empirical correlation for DI has
been found not to improve the prediction of bond
(a) the prediction of bearing stress, which is sup- capacity, and is therefore not recommended.
ported by the data in Fig. 2 As further data is assembled, it may be possible
(b) the concept of a limit to bond capacity (fb < to show that the rounding off indicated in Fig. 4
1.00) illustrated in Fig. 4 and supported by should be incorporated into a modified analysis.
the data in Fig. 5 For practical purposes, however, such an effect is
Two improvements to the existing theory for likely already to have been allowed for in the
the prediction of bearing stress have been sug- selection of c#/, and in the conservative relation
gested in this Technical Note based on the new for (a;&,) used to determine (S/a, B), .
data. They are as follows.
(a) Particle size can increase significantly the load
transmitted to bearing members in coarse-
REFERENCES
grained soils, B/OS0 < 10. In this range, a pro- Jewel], R. A., Milligan, G. W. E., Sarsby, R. W., and
portional increase in transmitted load by a DuBois, D. (1984). Interaction between soil and
factor grids. Polymer Grid Reinforcement, pp. 18-30,
London: Thomas Telford.
Palmeira, E. M. & Milligan, G. W. E. (1989). Scale and
other factors affecting the results of pull-out tests of
grids buried in sand. Gbotechnique 39, No. 3, 511-
has been suggested (equation (7) and Fig. 3). 524.

Géotechnique 1990.40:513-518.