Comparison between the Interface Interaction of Sand and Clayey Sand with PET Geogrid in Pullout Test Based on Active Length

Document Type : Research Article


1 Civil Engineering Department, Imam Khomeini International University

2 Department of civil engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Technical and Engineering, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran


Large pullout test is used to investigate the geogrid pullout behavior in the anchorage zone. When the pullout load is applied to the geogrid, this force is gradually transmitted along with the sample until it reaches the end of the geogrid. In order to more accurately investigate the soil-geogrid interaction mechanism, the pullout behavior of geogrid should be evaluated based on the active length. In this study, by performing a series of large-scale pullout tests, the distribution of shear stress and pullout interaction coefficient of a PET geogrid embedded in clean sand and 20% clayey sand were investigated based on active length. The results showed that the value of the pullout force to start the movement of the last geogrid transverse member increased with increasing vertical effective stress in both geogrid embedded in two soil. In all pullout tests, minimum active interaction coefficient was obtained at the conversion of transfer force stage to pullout stage.


Main Subjects

[1] E.M. Palmeira, Soil–geosynthetic interaction: Modelling and analysis, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(5) (2009) 368-390.
[2] C.S. Vieira, F.B. Ferreira, P.M. Pereira, M. de Lurdes Lopes, Pullout behaviour of geosynthetics in a recycled construction and demolition material-Effects of cyclic loading, Transportation Geotechnics,  (2020) 100346.
[3] A. Nayeri, K. Fakharian, Study on pullout behavior of uniaxial HDPE geogrids under monotonic and cyclic loads, International Journal of Civil Engineering, 7(4) (2009) 211-223.
[4] J. Zhou, J.-F. Chen, J.-F. Xue, J.-Q. Wang, Micro-mechanism of the interaction between sand and geogrid transverse ribs, Geosynthetics International, 19(6) (2012) 426-437.
[5] N. Moraci, G. Cardile, D. Gioffrè, M.C. Mandaglio, L.S. Calvarano, L. Carbone, Soil geosynthetic interaction: design parameters from experimental and theoretical analysis, Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology, 1(2) (2014) 165-227.
[6] L. Calvarano, D. Gioffrè, G. Cardile, N. Moraci, A stress transfer model to predict the pullout resistance of extruded geogrids embedded in compacted granular soils, in:  Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Geosynthetics, ICG, 2014, pp. 8.
[7] S.M. Rahmaninezhad, J. Han, J.I. Kakrasul, M. Weldu, Stress distributions and pullout responses of extensible and inextensible reinforcement in soil using different normal loading methods, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 42(6) (2019) 1606-1623.
[8] F. Ferreira, C. Vieira, M. Lopes, P. Ferreira, HDPE geogrid-residual soil interaction under monotonic and cyclic pullout loading, Geosynthetics International, 27(1) (2020) 79-96.
[9] N. Moraci, D. Gioffrè, A simple method to evaluate the pullout resistance of extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24(2) (2006) 116-128.
[10] Palmeira, E.M.: Soil–geosynthetic interaction: modelling and analysis. Geotext. Geomembr. 27, 368–390 (2009).
[11] G. Cardile, D. Gioffrè, N. Moraci, L. Calvarano, Modelling interference between the geogrid bearing members under pullout loading conditions, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 45(3) (2017) 169-177.
[12] F.M. Ezzein, R.J. Bathurst, A new approach to evaluate soil-geosynthetic interaction using a novel pullout test apparatus and transparent granular soil, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 42(3) (2014) 246-255.
[13] F. Ferreira, C. Vieira, M. Lopes, D. Carlos, Experimental investigation on the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics embedded in a granite residual soil, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 20(9) (2016) 1147-1180.
[14] G. Cardile, N. Moraci, L. Calvarano, Geogrid pullout behaviour according to the experimental evaluation of the active length, Geosynthetics International, 23(3) (2016) 194-205.
[15] N. Moraci, P. Recalcati, Factors affecting the pullout behaviour of extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24(4) (2006) 220-242.
[16] M. Abdi, H. Mirzaeifar, Experimental and PIV evaluation of grain size and distribution on soil–geogrid interactions in pullout test, Soils and foundations, 57(6) (2017) 1045-1058.
[17] S. Razzazan, A. Keshavarz, M. Mosallanezhad, Pullout behavior of polymeric strip in compacted dry granular soil under cyclic tensile load conditions, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 10(5) (2018) 968-976.
[18] G. Cardile, M. Pisano, N. Moraci, The influence of a cyclic loading history on soil-geogrid interaction under pullout condition, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 47(4) (2019) 552-565.
[19] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, seventeenth ed.. AmericanAssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, USA, (2002).
[20] D. Esmaili, K. Hatami, G.A. Miller, Influence of matric suction on geotextile reinforcement-marginal soil interface strength, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 42(2) (2014) 139-153.
[21] C.N. Khoury, G.A. Miller, K. Hatami, Unsaturated soil–geotextile interface behavior, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29(1) (2011) 17-28.
[22] NCMA, Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, second ed. National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA, USA, (2002).
[23] V. Elias, B.R. Christopher, R.R. Berg, Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes-design and Construction Guidelines. FHWA-NHI-00-043,Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA, (2001).
[24] ASTM D6913 / D6913M-17, Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[25] ASTM D422-63(2007)e2, Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Withdrawn 2016), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.
[26] ASTM D698-12e2, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
[27] ASTM D3080 / D3080M-11, Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011.
[28] ASTMD6706-01, Standard Test Method for Measuring Geosynthetic Pullout Resistance in Soil, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,  (2013).
[29] A. Mahigir, A. Ardakani, M. Hassanlourad, Comparison Between Monotonic, Cyclic and Post-Cyclic Pullout Behavior of a PET Geogrid Embedded in Clean Sand and Clayey Sand, International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 7(1) (2021) 1-15.
[30] C.-W. Hsieh, G.-H. Chen, J.-H. Wu, The shear behavior obtained from the direct shear and pullout tests for different poor graded soil-geosynthetic systems, Journal of GeoEngineering, 6(1) (2011) 15-26.
[31] X. Tang, G.R. Chehab, A. Palomino, Evaluation of geogrids for stabilising weak pavement subgrade, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 9(6) (2008) 413-429.