INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT

ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF

TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADE
MEHRAD KAMALZARE and REZA ZIAIE-MOAYED

about the authors Keywords

corresponding author shear strength, geosynthetic, large scale direct shear test,
Mehrad Kamalzare soft clay, subgrade
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
2421, 21st street, apt5, Troy, NY, 12180, USA
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
1 INTRODUCTION
Reza Ziaie-Moayed
Imam Khomeini International University In places which, because of the economic, military or
Block 10, Sina Complex, Iranzamin Street, Shahrake gharb,
geological conditions, building a structure on such soils is
1465896358 Tehran, Iran
essential, geosynthetics will be used to reinforce the soil
E-mail: [email protected]
and improve the bearing capacity. Different investigations
have been performed to study the interaction of soils/
geosynthetics in recent years. Abu-Farsakh et al. (2007)
Abstract
studied the behavior of a large modeled foundation,
Due to the low bearing capacity of soft clayey soils in places placed on reinforced soil. Feng et al. (2008) calculated
that because of economic, military or geological conditions the ultimate strength of red clay, reinforced by geogrid,
we are oblige to build a structure on, geosynthetics will be using a pull-out test. Williams and Okine (2007) used a
used to reinforce the soil and improve its bearing capacity. CBR test to study the effects of some kinds of geogrids
Particularly, A good example is roadways, where geosynthe- on granular base soil. However, an understanding of the
tics are placed between the interface of the granular materials soil/geosynthetic interface’s shear strength is essential
and the soft-soil sub-grade to improve the bearing capacity to the design and stability analysis of geosynthetically
of the composite layers. In previous research the behavior of reinforced soil structures. For example, an interface
one-layer soils that were reinforced with different kinds of with a stronger shearing resistance in a geosynthetically
geosynthetics were studied by experimental and analytical lined slope can reduce the tensile forces mobilized in the
methods and some numerical models have been developed. In geosynthetics, as well as increase the slope inclination
this paper the behavior of two-layer soils (granular base and (Liu and Gilbert, 2003; Palmeira and Viana, 2003). The
clayey sub-grade) that were reinforced with some geosynthe- shear strength of the soil/geosynthetic interface is also
tics are investigated. Large-scale direct shear tests were perfor- essential for a numerical simulation of the behavior
med on unreinforced and reinforced samples with different of the sub-grade and base layers of roads. Though the
geosynthetics. The results show that depending on the charac- shear strength of the soil/geosynthetic interface has been
teristics of the geosynthetics, the inclusion of these materials investigated by conducting other tests, such as tilt-table
may increase or decrease the shear strength parameters of the tests (Wu et al., 2008), the direct shear test is still the
interface of two-layered soils. It implies that the geosynthetic- most common testing method. For example, direct shear
-reinforced soils in the sub-base layer of roads are so sensitive tests involving the interfaces between soil and a geotextile
to the characteristics of geosynthetics and will perform better have been performed by Richards and Scott (1985), Lee
than non-reinforced soils and consequently the load-carrying and Manjunath (2000), Mahmood et al. (2000), and
capacity of the basement will improve only if the appropriate Bergado et al. (2006). Studies involving the interfaces
geosynthetics are used. However, geogrid shows more reinfor- between soil and geogrid include Jarret and Bathurst
cement efficiency under higher vertical stresses. Increasing the (1985), Cancelli et al. (1992), Bauer and Zhao (1993),
relative density of the clayey sub-grade would also cause the Cazzuffi et al. (1993), Bakeer et al. (1998), Abu-Farsakh
geogrid reinforcement to be more effective. and Coronel (2006) and Mostafa A. El Sawwaf (2006).

ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1 39.

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

However, the scale effect of the shear box has always and new applications of these methods were addressed;
been an important parameter in these investigations. and the need for improvements in the experimental
Ingold (1982) conducts laboratory direct-shear tests and theoretical techniques for a better understanding of
of the soil/geotextile interface by using different sizes soil–geosynthetic interactions was highlighted.
of shear boxes. He concluded that the friction angle
obtained from a 60 mm × 60 mm shear area was 2–3° In this paper, due to the importance of the shear-
higher than that obtained from a 300 mm × 300 mm strength characteristics of reinforced soils, the effects of
shear area. Liu et al. (2008) investigated the effect of a reinforcing a two-layer soil with geosynthetics on the
special kind of geogrid on some kinds of soils by using shear-strength parameters of the interface of two soils
a large-scale direct-shear test. Abu-Farsakh et al. (2007) were investigated by conducting a series of large-scale
used a large-scale direct-shear test to study the effect of direct-shear tests.
moisture and dry density on the interaction between the
soil and the geosynthetics. Cindric et al. (2006) inves-
tigated the effects of a geogrid on the elastic and shear 2 TEST APPARATUS
moduli of soils. O’Kelly and Naughton (2007) performed
some large-scale direct-shear tests to investigate the The size of the shearing device can influence the direct-
behavior of a new kind of geogrid, which has the capa- shear test results. Generally, the boundary effect and
bility of drainage and presented some graphs. Liu et al. device friction are more significant for a smaller shear
(2008) studied the behavior of soil/PET-yarn geogrid box. Ingold (1982) conducted laboratory direct-shear
interfaces by using large-scale direct-shear tests. Jesmani tests of the soil/geotextile interface by using different
et al. (2010) conducted some undrained direct-shear sizes of shear boxes. He concluded that the friction angle
tests to study the effect of plasticity index and normal obtained from a 60 mm × 60 mm shear area was 2–3°
stress on the shear behavior and the shear modulus of higher than that obtained from a 300 mm × 300 mm
remolded clays. shear area. The dimension of the shear box, as regulated
by ASTM D5321 (ASTM 2002), with minimum dimen-
Almost all previous investigations have studied the sions of five times the maximum opening size (in plan)
behavior of geosynthetics in a one-layered soil. Although of the geosynthetic being tested , should be used in the
several investigations were performed in order to find direct shear test of the geosynthetic/soil interface. It also
the best depth for embedding the geosynthetics, there mentioned that the depth of each container that contains
have been very limited investigations on the interac- the soil must be a minimum of 50 mm or six times the
tions of two-layered soils and geosynthetics. Zhou and maximum particle size of the coarser soil being tested,
Wen (2006) studied a model of sand soil, placed on soft whichever is greater. In this study a large-scale direct-
clay that was reinforced by a geogrid, using a compres- shear device was used, which has length, width, and
sion test. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska (2007) studied thickness of 150mm × 150mm × 100mm. The move-
the effect of reinforcement on the load-settlement ment of the upper shear box in the horizontal direction
characteristics of a two-layer subgrade. Sireesh et al. is controlled by a set of gears that are mobilized by an
(2008) investigated the bearing capacity of circular electric motor. The vertical loading applied by a hydrau-
footing on a geocell–sand mattress overlying a clay bed. lic jack is transferred through the rigid reaction frame
Anubhav and Basudhar (2010) conducted experiments and adds on a rigid load plate that is placed on top of the
in a direct-shear test apparatus to study the shear force- soils in the upper shear box. The normal load is constant
displacement behavior at the soil-geotextile interface during the test, satisfying the requirement regulated by
using two differently textured woven geotextiles. A non- ASTM D5321 (ASTM 2002).
linear constitutive model was presented for predicting
both the pre-peak and the post-peak interface behavior. A rigid plate is conventionally used as the loading plate
The predictions made with the developed model were in direct-shear tests (for example, Bakeer et al., 1998; Lee
found to be in good agreement with the experimental and Manjunath, 2000). The system is capable of applying
data obtained from direct shear tests. Palmeira (2009) a vertical force and a shear force of up to 50 kN. Fig. 1
discussed some experimental, theoretical and numerical shows a frontal view of the large-scale direct-shear
methods for the study and evaluation of the interaction device used in this study. The vertical force applied on
between soils and geosynthetics, with particular refer- the rigid plate and its vertical displacement are measured
ence to the applications of these materials in soil rein- during the tests. The horizontal movement of the upper
forcement. The main advantages and limitations of some shear box and the shear force exerted during the shear-
traditional experimental and theoretical methods for the ing testing are also recorded. These data are collected by
study of soil–geosynthetic interactions were presented using two load cells and two linear variable displacement

40. ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

transformers (LVDT). The capacity for both load cells

is 50kN. The capacities for the vertical and horizontal
LVDT are 50 mm and 100 mm, respectively.

3 TEST MATERIAL
The tests herein use two soils, including a clay soil and a
granular soil that has been grained in a manner that satis-
fies the suggestion of AASHTTO M147 for the sub-base
soil of roads. In order to obtain comparable results with
practical projects, the clay soil was chosen from Varamin
region, Iran, where a railroad project was under construc-
tion. Table 1 lists the physical characteristics of each soil,
while Fig. 2 shows their grain-size distribution curves. It
should be noted that in this figure the upper and lower
limit means the maximum and minimum grain size that
the AASHTO M147 suggested. The granular soil is clas-
sified as SW according to the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS). The dry unit weight for the granular soil
Figure 1. Large-scale direct-shear device (Imam Khomeini sample was 21.33 kN/m3. The clay soil is classified as CL
International University). according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)

Table 1. Soil Characteristics.

Property D10 (mm) D30 (mm) D60 (mm) Coefficient of Coefficient Liquid limit Plastic limit USCS symbol
uniformity of curvature
Sand 0.12 1.20 5.15 42.92 2.33 - - SW
Clay - - - - - 32 19 CL

Figure 2. Grain-size distribution curves of soils.

ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1 41.

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

Table 2. Geosynthetic characteristics.

Geosynthetic Material Aperture size (mm) Weight Tensile strength-MD Tensile strength-CD
(g/m2) (kN/m) (kN/m)
Polyethylene
GG 10 × 10 700 7.6 7.6
(HDPE)
GT-NW Polyester 0.062 300 8 11.1
GT-W Yarns polyester - 2286 100 10

and its dry unit weight was 19.20 kN/m3. Both soils were weight within the shear box. Each soil is compacted
prepared in a relative density (R) of 90% of the maximum in three layers. The compaction of the sand and clay
density with the optimum water content (16.0% for clay is conducted by using a manual plastic hammer to hit
and 9.0% for sand), which has been calculated according the steel plate, which was placed on top of the soil until
to B-method of AASHTO T180. The maximum sand reaching the target unit weight. The geosynthetic is posi-
sizes were smaller than 9.5 mm. This satisfies the general tioned on top of the lower shear box and at the interface
requirement that the ratio of the minimum size of the of the sand and clay soils. These tests are conducted
shear box to the maximum size of the soil particle is using normal stresses of 44, 96, and 192 kPa, which
greater than 6. Research on the interface of geosynthetic represent the normal stresses that different vehicles may
and cohesive materials is becoming popular (for example, apply to a sub-grade layer of roads. The normal loading
Fourie and Fabian, 1987; Abu-Farsakh and Coronel, is applied on the specimen and the vertical deformation
2006). The rationale behind the application of a cohesive of the test specimen is then monitored. Shear loading
material is that of an economic concern. is not applied until the vertical deformation reaches its
equilibrium. According to ASTM D5321, a shear rate of
This study uses two geotextile and one geogrid, and 1 mm/min is used in this test program in order to satisfy
they are denoted as GT-NW (Non-Woven Geotextiles), the undrained failure condition. However, it should be
GT-W (Woven Geotextiles) and GG (Geogrids), respec- noted that undrained conditions cannot be guaranteed
tively (Fig. 3). The woven geotextile has a tensile strength in direct shear tests. But for the purpose of this research,
in one direction, but the non-woven one has in it two the suggestion of the ASTM standard would be precise
directions. Table 2 lists the physical characteristics of enough.
these geosynthetics.
The test stops when the shear displacement reaches
about 30 mm, i.e., about 20% of the shear strain. The
4 TEST PROCEDURES maximum shear strength during the shear process is
recorded as the peak shear strength. The direct-shear
The soil used for the large-scale direct-shear testing tests for the soil-soil interfaces and the soil-geosynthetic
program is dried in an oven and after wetting to the were conducted under the same normal loading and
optimum water content, compacted to the target unit same testing procedures for the sake of the comparison.

a) b) c)
Figure 3. Geosynthetic specimens a) Geogrid, b) Non-Woven Geotextile, c) Woven Geotextile.

42. ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

Figure 4. Choosing different water contents of the clay soil.

Tests with various clay relative densities (75%, 85% and research studies focus on the appropriate setup of direct-
90%) and different clay moisture contents (12%, 16% shear testing device for the soil/geogrid interface. For
and 20%) were also performed to investigate the effects example, the difference in the measured shear strength
of the sub-grade relative density and water content. To when using different sizes of a lower shear box has not
make the test results comparable, the moisture contents been discussed. Liu et al. (2009) tested three different
were chosen based on the compaction curve of the clay set-ups of a lower shearing box. The effects of different
soil to obtain the same density in both 12% and 20% set-ups on the test results were evaluated by comparing
water contents (Fig. 4). the direct-shear test results using different set-ups of the
lower shear box. The set-ups included: a box with the
Richards and Scott (1985) concluded that the test using same size that was filled with soil, a box with a larger
a large solid block as the lower shear box is the best size filled with soil, and a larger lower shear box filled
at replicating the testing results of the soil/geotextile with a solid block (Liu et al., 2009). It was observed
interface. Jewell (1996) stated that the geotextile and that among these set-ups, a box with the same size that
geomembrane can be tested with a solid block or soil in was filled with soil produces the greatest interface shear
the lower part of the shear box, while the geogrid must strength. For conducting the direct shear test against the
be tested by a device in which both parts of the shear geosynthetic interface in the soil, the sizes of the upper
test device have to be filled with soil. The set-up of the and lower shear boxes should be same and they must
direct shearing device is not strictly regulated by testing be filled with the necessary soil. Therefore, in this study,
standards. For example, only the minimum size of the all of the tests were performed in manner such that the
shearing box is stated explicitly in ASTM D5321 for the sizes of the upper and lower shear boxes were the same
direct shear test of the soil-geosynthetic interface. Few and they were filled with the necessary soils (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Set-up of upper and lower shear box.

ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1 43.

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The results of the large direct-shear tests are presented in
this section in terms of the shear behavior for different
soil/geosynthetic interfaces.

5.1 SHEAR BEHAVIOR OF THE SOIL/

GEOSYNTHETIC INTERFACE AT
OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT AND
R=90% a)
To discuss the stress–strain behavior of the soil/geosyn-
thetic interface, the results of the direct-shear tests for
samples with a relative density of 90% and optimum
water content are presented in Fig. 6. The results of the
vertical deformation versus the shear displacement for
these samples are shown in Fig. 7.

The results show that there is no well-defined peak

shear strength observed for the soil/geosynthetic
interface in higher normal stresses. In general, a yield
shear stress is reached at a small shear displacement
(usually less than 15 mm). The shear stress of the soil/
geosynthetic interface became constant after a displace- b)
ment of about 15 mm. It is clear that the geogrid causes
the soils to show more shear strength than the two
other geotextiles. However, these differences become
smaller when increasing the normal stress. Calculating
the values of the cohesion (c) and the internal friction
angle (φ) for the geogrid-reinforced soil reveals that c
would decrease by 22% and φ would increase by 13%
relative to the non-reinforced two-layer soil. Similar
calculations for woven and non-woven geotextiles
show 31% and 81% decreases for the cohesion and a
5% decrease and a 3% increase for the internal friction
angle, respectively.

As is clear from Fig. 7, during the initial stage, when

the shear displacement is small, the geosynthetics-
c)
reinforced soil undergoes a vertical contraction.
Following the contraction, the vertical deformation
behavior then depends on the geosynthetic type. The
contraction would become constant for soils reinforced Figure 6. Stress–strain behavior of the soil/geosynthetic inter-
by non-woven geotextile and would decrease for other face under different normal loading (R=90%, ω=16%),
reinforced soils, especially for geogrid-reinforced soils. a) σ=44 kPa, b) σ=96 kPa, c) σ=192 kPa.

5.2 PEAK SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOILS

AND SOIL/GEOSYNTHETIC INTER- cohesion in these peak shear strengths. Possible explana-
FACES AT THE OPTIMUM WATER tions are in the non-linear relationship of the shear stress
CONTENT AND R=90% and in the machine friction under this stress level. The
interface shear strength of the soil against the geotextile
Fig. 8 shows the peak shear strength for soils and the is significantly lower than the internal shear strength of
soil/geosynthetic interface. The results show an apparent the corresponding soils.

44. ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

It is observed that under different normal stresses, the

shear strength of the soil-geogrid interface is always
higher than that of soil–geotextile interface. Alfaro et al.
(1995) and Tatlisoz et al. (1998) stated that the direct-
shear resistance of the soil/geogrid interface is composed
of the soil-to-geosynthetic shear resistance and the soil-
to-soil shear resistance within the geogrid openings. As
presented in Fig. 8, the internal geogrid reinforced soil
shear strength is higher than the interface shear strength
of the soil against the geotextile, and therefore this
a) increase in the shear strength is mainly attributed to the
interlocking of soil particles that penetrate through the
geogrid apertures. This conclusion is in agreement with
the presented results of Liu et al. (2009).

5.3 EFFECT OF DENSITY ON THE SHEAR

STRENGTH OF SOIL/GEOSYNTHETIC
INTERFACES
To investigate the effect of sub-grade soil density, samples
with different clay densities (75%, 85% and 90%) were
prepared. However, in order to avoid clay settlement and
b) consequently changing the shear plane due to placing a
sand layer in upper box, in samples with a clay relative
density other that 90%, clay soil was placed in upper box
of the shear apparatus and sand with a relative density
equal to 90% placed in the lower box. Fig. 9(a) shows
the failure envelopes of non-reinforced and reinforced
samples with R=75% for the clay layer, as an example.
It is clear that the geogrid is the only geosynthetic that
increases the shear strength of the samples. Similar
envelopes in R=90% are presented in Fig. 9(b). Compar-
ing these two figures reveals that the reinforcing effect of
the geogrid is more significant in a lower relative density
c) of the sub-grade soil. However, specimens with a higher
relative density of clay soil show a higher shear strength.
Figure 7. Vertical deformation versus horizontal displacement
under different normal loading (R=90%, ω=16%),
a) σ=44 kPa, b) σ=96 kPa, c) σ=192 kPa.
5.4 EFFECT OF WATER CONTENT ON
SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL/
GEOSYNTHETIC INTERFACES
Samples with different water contents (12% and 20%) for
the clay layer, in addition to the optimum water content
(16%), were prepared and tested in order to study the
effect of the moisture content of the sub-grade soil on
the shear strength of reinforced roads at the interface
of the sub-grade and base layers. Values of the water
content chosen in a manner to let us investigate just the
effect of the water content with all the other parameters,
including the dry density (γ), kept constant (Fig. 4).
The behavior of the non-reinforced and the reinforced
samples at different water contents and a relative density
Figure 8. Peak shear strength versus normal stress for the soil/
geosynthetic interface (R=90%). of R=90% are shown in Fig. 10.

ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1 45.

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

a) a)

b) b)

Figure 9. Failure envelopes of non-reinforced and reinforced Figure 10. Failure envelopes of non-reinforced and reinforced
soil samples with the optimum water content, a) R=75%, soil samples with different water contents and R=90%,
b) R=90%. a) ω=12%, b) ω=20%.

It is clear that the samples with ω=20% for the clay layer Calculating the efficiency of the reinforcement (η) for
show a higher shear strength at the interface of two all the geosynthetics in various water contents and
layers; and the samples reinforced by the geogrid reveal different relative densities shows that in samples with a
a higher shear strength in comparison to the geotextiles, relative density equal to 90%, with respect to the amount
which could be up to a 9% increase in the internal fric- of water content, by increasing the normal stress, the
tion angle relative to the non-reinforced two-layer soil. efficiency of the reinforcement would increase (Fig. 11).
However, the reinforcing effect of the geosynthetics is However, at R=75%, increasing the normal stress would
negligible and has almost the same procedure in both cause a decrease in the efficiency of the reinforcement.
water contents.
It is clear that the geogrid has the higher efficiency in all
Figs. 9 and 10 reveal that the geogrid is the best geosyn- conditions.
thetic that can be used to improve the shear-strength
parameters of the two-layer soils. Both geotextiles
decrease the shear-strength characteristics of the inter- 5.6 COEFFICIENT OF INTERACTION
face plane of two soils, which probably is because of the
The frictional resistance obtained from the direct-shear
lack of apertures in the geotextile and consequently the
test on soil-geogrid specimens is a combination of the
lack of interlocking between the two soils.
soil-to-reinforcement interface friction and the soil-
to-soil shear resistance at the geogrid openings (Abu-
5.5 EFFICIENCY OF REINFORCEMENT Farsakh et al., 2007). Bergado et al. (1993) suggested the
following equation to calculate the frictional resistance
The efficiency of all the geosynthetics for reinforcing the force at the soil-geogrid interface:
two-layer soils was evaluated using equation (1).
Ps = A[αds ca + (1- αds) c] + Aσn[αds tan δ + (1- αds) tan φ]
η = τreinforced / τunreinforced (1) (2)

46. ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

a) b)

c) d)

Figure 11. Efficiency of geosynthetic reinforcement in various water contents and different relative densities,
a) R=90%, ω=16%, b) R=75%, ω=16%, c) R=90%, ω=12%, d) R=90%, ω=20%.

Where Where
Ps = direct shear resistance; As-s = area of the soil-to-soil friction at the geogrid
A = total shear area of the samples; openings.
αds = ratio of the reinforcement shear area to the total
shear area; Eqs. (2)-(4) yield the following equation:
ca = soil-geogrid adhesion;
c = soil-soil cohesion; τs-g = (Ps – A(1- αds)(c + σn tan φ)) / (A αds) =
σn = normal stress at the shear plane; = ca + σn tan δ 5)
δ = soil-geosynthetic interface friction angle;
φ = frictional angle of soil-to-soil from direct shear test. where

Eq. (2) can be divided into two parts: the soil-to-geogrid τs-g = shear stress along the soil-geosynthetic interface.
frictional shear force, and the soil-to-soil direct fric-
tional shear force. The soil-to-geogrid direct shear force By plotting τs-g versus σn , ca and δ were calculated
can be formulated using the Mohr–Coulomb criterion as (ca=0.44 kg/cm2 and δ=43º).

Fs-g = (ca + σn tan δ) As-g (3) Many researchers have discussed the importance
of using the “interface efficiency” or “Coefficient of
Where interaction,” ci (Abu-Farsakh et al., 2007). As a primary
As-g = area between the soil and the geogrid. Similarly, design parameter in the geosynthetically reinforced soil
the soil-to-soil direct shear force is given as structures (Cowell and Sprague, 1993; Koutsourais et
al., 1998; Tatlisoz et al., 1998), the interface efficiency
Fs-s = (c + σn tan φ) As-s (4) is used to calculate the effective length of the reinforce-

ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1 47.

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

ment required beyond the critical failure plane for MSE 5. Increasing the relative density of the clayey sub-grade
walls and reinforced slopes (Abu-Farsakh et al., 2007). would cause the geogrid reinforcement to be more
The interface efficiency for cohesive soils is defined as effective. Also, the improvement of the shear strength
the ratio of the shear strength at the soil-reinforcement by increasing the normal stress would be more at a
interface to the shear strength of the soil at the same denser sub-grade.
overburden condition (Cowell and Sprague, 1993). 6. The internal friction angle (φ) and cohesion (c) of
two-layer reinforced soil at a relative density of 90%
ci = (ca + σn tan δa) / (c + σn tan φ) (6) could be up to 34% and 40% higher than samples at a
relative density of 75%, respectively.
Calculating ci for a two-layer soil reveals that the average 7. Increasing the water content of the clay soil in the
Coefficient of interaction is equal to ci =1.19, which shows geogrid-reinforced specimens increases the shear
a considerable adhesion between the soil and the geogrid. strength of the two-layer soil. This could be because
However, the interface efficiency depends on the normal of the increment of cohesion, while the internal fric-
(confining) stress (i.e., the depth of the reinforcement tion would be produced by the geogrid.
layer) in addition to the material characteristics (Abu- 8. Increasing the water content of the clay-geogrid-
Farsakh et al., 2007). Based on the value of ci, the most -reinforced specimens from 12% to 20% could incre-
appropriate geosynthetic could be chosen in a specific ase the internal friction angle and the cohesion by up
project with a specific soil and specific circumstances. to 5% and 200%, respectively.

6 CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES
In this study we conducted a series of large-scale direct- Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., Coronel, J., 2006. Characterization of
shear tests on a two-layer soil that was reinforced by Cohesive Soil–Geosynthetic Interaction from Large
three kinds of geosynthetics. The geosynthetics were Direct Shear Test. 85th Transportation Research
placed at the interface of the two soils, which was located Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.
between the upper and lower boxes of the direct shear Abu-Farsakh, M., Coronel, J., and Tao,.M., 2007. Effect
device. The following specific conclusions can be drawn of Soil Moisture Content and Dry Density on
from the study: Cohesive Soil–Geosynthetic Interactions Using
Large Direct Shear Tests. Journal of Materials in
1. The interface shear strength of the soil/geotextile is Civil Engineering, 19 (7), 540-549.
lower than the soil shear strength. It indicates that Alfaro, M.C., Miura, N., Bergado, D.T., 1995. Soil
the geotextile placed within the soil usually acts as a geogrid reinforcement interaction by pullout and
weak interface in terms of direct sliding. direct shear tests. Geotechnical Testing Journal 18
2. The direct-shear resistance of the soil/geogrid inter- (2), 157–167.
face is higher than the soil/ geotextile; and it usually Anubhav and P.K. Basudhar, 2010. Modeling of soil–
increases the value of the shear resistance of the woven geotextile interface behavior from direct
two-layer soil. This increment is due to the creation shear test results. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
of the shear resistance between the soil and surface 28 (4), 403-408.
and the opening of the geogrid, and the bearing resi- ASTM D5321, 2002. Standard test method for deter-
stance provided by transverse ribs. These resistances mining the coefficient of soil and geosynthetic
would be created when a relative movement occurs or geosynthetic and geosynthetic friction by the
in the soil and geogrid interface. direct shear method. ASTM Designation: D5321-
3. It is clear that the geogrid increases both the internal 02. ASTM, USA.
friction and the cohesion of the soil (it increases the Bakeer, R.M., Sayed, M., Cates, P., Subramanian, R.,
cohesion by about 23% and the internal friction by 1998. Pullout and shear test on geogrid reinforced
about 3 degrees), but geotextiles just increase the lightweight aggregate. Geotextiles and Geomem-
cohesion of the two-layer soil (about 9%) and the branes 16 (2), 119–133.
internal friction would decreases by about 1 to 3 Bauer, G.E., Zhao, Y., 1993. Evaluation of shear strength
degrees. and dilatancy behavior of reinforced soil from
4. The improvements of the shear strength for the geogrid- direct shear tests. ASTM Special Technical Publica-
-reinforced specimens are more in the higher normal tion 1190, 138–157.
stresses. In other words, the geogrid shows more rein- Bergado, D.T., Chai, J.C., Abiera, H.O., Alfaro, M.C.,
forcement efficiency at higher vertical stresses. Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1993. Interaction between

48. ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1

M. KAMALZARE & R. ZIAIE-MOAYED: INFLUENCE OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT ON THE SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO-LAYER SUB-GRADEN

cohesive-frictional soil and various grid reinforce- waste disposal areas. Geotextiles and Geomem-
ments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12 (4), branes 21 (5), 317–337.
327–349. Palmeira, E. M., 2009. Soil–geosynthetic interaction:
Bergado, D.T., Ramana, G.V., Sia, H.I., Varun, 2006. Modelling and analysis. Geotextiles and Geomem-
Evaluation of interface shear strength of composite branes 27 (5) 368-390.
liner system and stability analysis for a landfill Richards, E.A., Scott, J.D., 1985. Soil Geotextile Fric-
lining system in Thailand. Geotextiles and tional Properties. Second Canadian Symposium on
Geomembranes 24, 371–393. Geotextiles and Geomenbranes, Edmonton. 13–24.
Cancelli, A., Rimoldi, P., Togni, S., 1992. Frictional char- Tatlisoz, N., Edil, T.B., Benson, C.H., 1998. Interaction
acteristics of geogrids by means of direct shear and between reinforcing geosynthetics and soil–tire
pull-out tests. In: Proceedings of the International chip mixtures. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoen-
Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, vironmental Engineering 124 (11), 1109–1119.
Kyushu, vol. 1, pp. 29–34. Wu, W., Wick, H., Ferstl, F., Aschauer, F., 2008. A tilt
Cazzuffi, D., Picarelli, L., Ricciuti, A., Rimoldi, P., 1993. table device for testing geosynthetic interfaces in
Laboratory investigations on the shear strength of centrifuge. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (1),
geogrid reinforced soils. ASTM Special Technical 31–38.
Publication 1190, 119–137.
Cowell, M. J., and Sprague, C. J., 1993. Comparison of
pull-out performance of geogrids and geotextiles.
Geosynthetics, 93, 579–592.
El Sawwaf, M., 2006. Behavior of strip footing on
geogrid-reinforced sand over a soft clay slope.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25, 50–60.
Fourie, A.B., Fabian, K.J., 1987. Laboratory determina-
tion of clay-geotextile interaction. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 6 (4), 275–294.
Ingold, T.S., 1982. Some observations on the laboratory
measurement of soil–geotextile bond. Geotechni-
cal Testing Journal 5 (3), 57–67.
Jarret, P.M., Bathurst, R.J., 1985. Frictional Development
at a Gravel Geosynthetic Peat Interface. Proceed-
ings of the Second Canadian Symposium of
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Edmonton. 1–6.
Jesmani, M., Kashani, H. F., Kamalzare, M., 2010. Effect
of Plasticity and Normal Stress on Undrained
Shear Modulus of Clayey Soils. Acta geotechnica
slovenica, (1), 47-59.
Jewell, R.A., 1996. Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles.
Thomas Telford, London.
Koutsourais, M., Sandri, D., and Swan, R., 1998. Soil
interaction characteristics of geotextiles and
geogrids. Geosynthetics, 98, 739–744.
Liu, C.N., Ho, Y.H., Huang, J.W., 2008. Large scale direct
shear tests of soil/PET-yarn geogrid interfaces.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (1), 19–30.
Liu, C.N., Gilbert, R.B., 2003. Simplified method for
estimating geosynthetic loads in landfill liner side
slopes during filling. Geosynthetics International
10 (1), 24–33.
Mahmood, A., Zakaria, N., Ahmad, F., 2000. Studies on
geotextile/soil interface shear behavior. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 5.
Palmeira, E.M., Viana, H.N.L., 2003. Effectiveness of
geogrids as inclusions in cover soils of slopes of

ACTA GEOTECHNICA SLOVENICA, 2011/1 49.