ELSEVIER

PII:

S0266-

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 14 (1996) 619--644

1997 Elsevier Science Limited
All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain
0266-1144/96 $15.00
1 144(97)00002-2

Results of Direct Shear Tests on Geotextile Reinforced

Cohesive Soil

George A. Athanasopoulos
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Patras, GR-26500,
Patras, Greece

ABSTRACT
The results of direct shear tests on near-saturated silty clay samples reinforced
with woven and nonwoven geotextiles are presented and analyzed in terms of
the strength increase, shear and volumetric deformation of reinforced soil, and
soil/reinforcement interface bond development. The analyses--which are
based on total stresses--indicate that the inclusion of nonwoven geotextiles
resulted in a significant strength increase of the wet cohesive soil. The inclusion of woven geotextiles, however, did not offer any strength increase. This
differentiation of behaviour was attributed to the nil water transmissivity of
the woven geotextile. By further analyzing the test results it was found that the
magnitude of the interface bond increased with the transmissivity of the
geotextile and varied with the normal interfacial stress. By utilizing a simple
soil-reinforcement interaction model, values of interface friction angles were
computed for different assumed values of adhesion efficiency between cohesive
soil and geotextile. 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

NOMENCLATURE
A t

As
C
Cot

e
Gs

Ko

Sheared area o f soil in the shear box

Contact area between soil and reinforcement
Cohesion intercept o f cohesive soil
Adhesion between cohesive soil and reinforcement
Void ratio of soil
Specific gravity of soil particles
Coefficient o f earth pressure at rest
619

620

LL
PL
W
Wopt
z

7t
~'dmax

6
At
(7
(7v
T

G. A. Athanasopoulos

Liquid limit of soil

Plastic limit of soil
Water content of soil
Optimum water content of soil from compaction test
Thickness of shear zone in direct shear test
Moist unit weight of soil
Maximum dry unit weight of soil from compaction test
Interface friction angle
Shear strength increase of reinforced specimen
Normal stress
Normal stress in direct shear test
Shear stress
Angle of internal friction of soil

INTRODUCTION
In geosynthetic-reinforced soil applications, such as retaining walls, slopes
and embankments, the mobilisation of interface bond between backfill
material and reinforcement is of paramount importance. During the early
development of soil-reinforcement techniques the proposed backfill materials were granular, especially in the case of metallic reinforcements. In the
case of geosynthetics, however, several successfull applications have demonstrated the great potential of using cohesive soils as backfill materials
(Delmas et al., 1988, 1992; Wayne and Wilcosky, 1995; Tatsuoka et al., 1996;
Kojima et al., 1996). As a result of the growing interest in utilizing on-site
cohesive soils in reinforced soil structures (associated with significant cost
reduction) the research on the subject of the mechanical behaviour of
geosynthetic-reinforced cohesive soils as well as on the subject of the
geosynthetic/cohesive soil interface behaviour has intensified during the last
decade (Ling and Tatsuoka, 1994; Bergado et al., 1993; Porbaha and Goodings, 1996; Zornberg and Mitchell, 1994; Mitchell and Zornberg, 1995). This
interface behaviour is described by a friction angle 6 and an adhesion c~
which are usually expressed as fractions of the corresponding shear strength
parameters of the soil material, q5 and c. The corresponding ratios are usually
termed efficiencies, i.e. the friction efficiency = ~/4~ (or tan 6/tan q~) and the
adhesion efficiency = c~/c (Ingold, 1994; Koerner, 1994).
In this paper the results are presented of a preliminary experimental
investigation of the mechanical behaviour of geosynthetic-reinforced cohesive soil and of the corresponding interface behaviour. The tests were carried
out using a laboratory direct shear apparatus and following the unit-cell
approach (Ling and Tatsuoka, 1994). The effects of several parameters such

Geotextile reinforced cohesive soil

621

as the type of geotextile, its water transmissivity and the normal interfacial
stress are discussed and conclusions are drawn regarding the practical applications of reinforced cohesive-soil structures.

REVIEW OF PREVIOUS W O R K
The behaviour of clays reinforced with geotextiles was investigated at the
beginning of the 1980s by triaxial tests, direct shear tests, pull-out tests and
physical models (Ingold, 1981, 1983; Ingold and Miller, 1983). Values of
adhesion efficiency were very low in the pull-out mode (0-18) and relatively
high (0-89) in the direct shear mode. The triaxial tests indicated that under
undrained conditions the use of geotextiles with no capability of in-plane
flow actually reduced the shear strength of cohesive soils especially when the
degree of saturation was greater than 70%. Under drained conditions,
however, the shear strength of reinforced clay was found to increase significantly.
Subsequent investigations by direct shear and pull-out testing showed that
the adhesion efficiency may range from 0-52 to 1-65 for nonwoven and 0.37
to 1.08 for woven geotextiles (Fourie and Fabian, 1987). Bouazza and
Djafer-Khodja (1994) reported values of efficiencies equal to 1.23 for friction
and 0-68 for adhesion between a peat with water content equal to 250% and
a nonwoven geotextile. They also reported that the values of efficiencies were
reduced with increasing values of normal interfacial stress. Values of adhesion efficiencies greater than 0.50 were also reported by Nataraj et al. (1995)
for clay/geotextile interfaces. The significant effect of the moisture content of
fiber reinforced cohesive soils on their shear strength was reported by
Alwahab and Al-ourna (1995) who found that for water contents higher by
5% or more than the optimum water content of the cohesive soil, there was
no increase in shear strength.
The interaction between geogrids and cohesive soils has also been investigated by direct shear and pull-out tests. Fourie and Fabian (1987) have
reported values of adhesion efficiencies ranging from 0.46 to 1.02, whereas
Bergado et al. (1993) conclude that the apertures of a geogrid help in developing shear resistance equal to or greater than the cohesive soil resistance.
Farrag and Griffin (1993) have also found that an increase of water content
above the optimum value derived from compaction tests, results in a
decrease in the pull-out resistance.
The above-mentioned experimental evidence for the dependence of friction
and adhesion efficiencies on the interfacial normal stress implies that the
shearing resistance along the soil-geosynthetic interface cannot be described
adequately by the linear relationship

622

G. A. Athanasopoulos

z = c, + a t a n 6

(1)

where a=normal interracial stress. Some investigators, based on this

experimental evidence, have proposed hyperbolic relationships, of the type
illustrated in Fig. 1, to describe the shearing strength along the interface
(Giroud et al., 1993). These relationships contain a number of constants
which--at present--do not have physical meaning and are evaluated
through curve fitting to experimental data. Koerner (1994) has recently
summarised the state of affairs regarding geosynthetic/soil interface behaviour by stating that: "The data are so sensitive to the variables.., that
site--specific and material--specific tests should always be performed".
Several researchers have recently investigated the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced cohesive near-saturated soils (under drained or undrained
conditions) in terms of global deformation and of development of tensile
stresses in the reinforcement (e.g. Ling and Tatsuoka, 1994). Other investigators have explored the possibility of using geosynthetics for increasing the
bearing capacity of clay soils (Shin et al., 1993; Das et al., 1996; Bartolomey
et al., 1996) or for enhancing the stability of soft clay embankments (Kamon
et al., 1996). Pradhan et al. (1996) have investigated the performance of the
newly developed geosynthetic horizontal drains (GHD) (geocomposite strips
possessing both high strength and high transmissivity) whereas Palmeira et
al. (1996) have investigated the tensile behaviour of geotextiles embedded in
fine soils.
The results of the above-mentioned investigations suggest that near-satu-

"d

~
-

hyperbolic relationship

normal interfacial stress,

Fig. 1. Description of interface strength by hyperbolic curve (Giroud et al., 1993).

Geotextile reinforced cohesive soil

623

rated cohesive soils can be effectively reinforced by geosynthetics, especially

when they possess the capability of in-plane flow of water. It seems, however,
that much remains to be learned regarding the mechanical behaviour of the
composite material, the interaction between cohesive soil and geosynthetics
and the transfer of the results of research into the engineering practice.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
As was mentioned in a previous section, the unit-cell testing approach was
used in this study, i.e. it was assumed that a unit-cell represented an element
of the geosynthetic-reinforced soil. In our case, the unit-cell coincided with
the reinforced soil specimen in the direct shear box. Fakher and Jones (1996)
have recently summarised the advantages and disadvantages of unit-cell tests
and have concluded that they represent a quick, inexpensive and accurate
way of modelling the reinforced soil mechanisms.
The direct shear tests described in this investigation were conducted in
a square shear box measuring 6 3 m m x 6 3 m m . The geotextile was placed
perpendicular to the plane of shear as shown in Fig. 2. A perpendicular
direction of the reinforcement sheet was chosen in order to facilitate its
installation in the shear box, although it is known that it does not
represent the optimum orientation for obtaining the maximum reinforcing effect [a most recent publication on this subject is the one by
Fakher and Jones (1996)]. The findings of the present investigation are
not affected, however, by this deviation from the optimum orientation of
reinforcements since they have mainly a relative character, i.e. they
compare the behaviour of different types of geotextiles. This type of
unit-cell testing has been used in the past by the author for testing
tY

6.3 c m

Fig. 2. D i r e c t s h e a r t e s t o n g e o t e x t i l e - r e i n f o r c e d c o h e s i v e soil.

624

G. A. Athanasopoulos

granular soils (Athanasopoulos and Bousias, 1988; Athanasopoulos et

al., 1990; Athanasopoulos, 1993; Atmatzidis and Athanasopoulos, 1994).
Bauer and Zhao (1993) also consider this type of testing as most appropriate to represent the field conditions. There are situations, however,
where the actual field conditions dictate different test configurations
(Murthy et al., 1993). With regard to the small size of the direct shear
box used in this study it is recognised that it imposes some limitations
pertaining primarily to scale effects, boundary conditions and limited
anchorage length of geosynthetic reinforcement. It is believed that the
fine grained cohesive soil used in this investigation minimises the undesirable scale effects. Also the results of some previous investigations,
have indicated that the anchorage length that can be accommodated in
this small size shear box permits the development of failure by either
slippage or stretching of geosynthetic reinforcement (Athanasopoulos,
1993). Finally, it is believed (with some support from large size direct
shear test results) that the maximum shear displacement of 6 m m
achieved in the direct shear tests of this study, allows in many cases
(especially for low values of normal stresses) the full development of the
peak shear stress of the composite material.
The soil tested is a naturally occuring silty clay (8% sand, 65% silt,
27% clay) having Liquid Limit L L = 2 5 % , Plastic Limit P L = 16%, water
content w = 17% and particle specific gravity Gs = 2.68. A quantity of this
soil was oven dried and pulverized; then appropriately selected batches of
this dry soil were thoroughly mixed with predetermined amounts of water
to achieve the desired water content. The mixture was left to cure for a
period of 2 h and then it was compacted in the shear box to obtain void
ratio values e~0.50, and moist unit weight 7t=21 kN/m 3. The optimum
water content, Wopt, and corresponding dry unit weight, )~dmax, of soil
material were determined following the standard test method ASTM D
698-78 (Method A). The results of compaction tests are shown in Fig. 3
and suggest that Wopt= 13% and 7dmax= 18.55kN/m3; thus the soil material of this investigation, having a water content equal to 17%, was tested
under conditions wet of optimum with a degree of saturation in excess of
90%.
The reinforcement sheets were cut from four nonwoven geotextiles
(Terram 500, 1500, 4000 and Amoco 4545) and from a woven geotextile
(Nicolon 66448). These geotextiles were selected to represent a wide range
(taking into consideration the scale of the unit-cell) of tensile strength (from
3.5 to 42.6kN/m) and water transmissivity (from 0 to 0-847mm2/sec).
Table 1 summarises some mechanical and hydraulic properties of the
geotextiles. It should be noted that the values contained in Table 1 are
nominal values taken from manufacturer's brochures for the particular types

Geotextile reinforced cohesive soil

625

19.0

Wop t = 13%

Ydmax = 18.55 k N / m 3

Z
.~

18.0

l
A S T M D 6 9 8 - 7 8 ( M e t h o d A)
17.0

~
5.0

i
10.0

Water

15.0
content,

20.0

Fig. 3. Results of compaction tests on the cohesive soil material used in this investigation.
of geosynthetics and should not be taken as the values pertaining to t h e
pieces of reinforcement used in the tests.
The rate of shear used in the tests was 0.4mm/min. This rate is in the
range recommended in the literature (Smith and Criley, 1995; Ingold, 1994).
For the cohesive soil used in the tests, this rate of shearing is taken t o
represent undrained loading conditions. All tests were run following immediately the placement and compaction of soil in the shear box; therefore the
tests are considered unconsolidated-undrained and represent mainly the
short-term conditions developed in the corresponding field applications. It is
recognised, however, that the test results also reflect, to a smaller degree, the
behaviour of reinforced soil under anisotropic consolidation conditions. The!
values of normal stress in the direct shear tests ranged from 25 kPa to
600 kPa.

G. A. Athanasopoulos

626

6 6 6 ~

*"

6 6 6 ~
0

~ < ~

Geotextile rein[brced cohesive soil

627

TEST RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION

The results of the direct shear tests are analyzed in this section in terms of
peak shearing resistance, shear and volumetric deformation behaviour of
reinforced soil and also in terms of the interface interaction between soil/
reinforcement.

Peak shearing resistance

The results of reference tests on unreinforced silty clay are shown in Fig. 4.
The failure envelope (best fit straight line to the data points) indicates a
frictional-cohesive behaviour with strength parameters in terms of total
stresses: qS= 14.8 and c = 4 3 . 2 k P a . The shear stress-shear displacement
curves indicate that the shear displacement coresponding to peak shear stress
increases with normal stress whereas in terms of volumetric strain the
unreinforced soil exhibits a contractive behaviour (except for the lowest
value of normal stress, 50 kPa). This contractive behaviour can be explained,
at least in part, by the consolidation settlement of near-saturated cohesive
soil being developed after the application of normal stress.
The results of tests on specimens reinforced with Terram, Amoco and
Nicolon geotextiles are shown in Figs 5-9. Note that the failure envelopes in
these figures are represented, for clarity purposes, by the best fit curves only.
It should also be useful to empasise that these failure envelopes describe the
behaviour of the composite material (reinforced soil) and not the manner in
which the interface bond is being developed. In general a failure envelope of
reinforced soil provides information on whether the shearing strength
increase is derived by an increased angle of internal friction or by an
increased value of cohesion intercept. It is then possible, in a subsequent step
and if an appropriate model is available for describing the state of stresses
and strain during testing in the unit-cell, to estimate for each strength increment value, the portion derived by the interface friction and the portion
derived by interface adhesion. The plots of Figs 5-9 indicate that the
nonwoven geotextiles offered a rather substantial strength increase to the
cohesive soil. The failure envelopes for low values of normal stress have a
linear form for all reinforcement materials. In the case of Terram 4000
geotextile the failure envelope approaches a bilinear form similar to that
found for granular material under drained conditions (Athanasopoulos,
1993). This type of failure envelope is usually taken to indicate that for low
values of normal effective stresses the reinforcement slips with regard to soil
whereas after exceeding a certain critical value of normal stress the reinforcement is deformed in unison with the surrounding soil. In the case of
Terram 500 the failure envelope for higher values of normal stress develops a

G. A. Athanasopoulos

628

Silty clay (CL)

300

Unreinforced
tp = 14.8 , c = 43.2 kPa

200
7
o

100

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

~, k N / m 2

I+50kPa
--I---100kPa ~ 1 5 0 k P a
0 200kPa ~ 3 0 0 k P a ]
- X - 4 0 0 kPa --~-400 (c~ctv)-0---500 kPa @ 600 kPa

'

"

50kPa

--II--100kPa

---I-- 400 kPa

~k 150kPa

400 (cxxctv) ---0-- 500 kPa

--O---200kPa

--~-- 300kPa

600 kPa

0.5

O~

,-&

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Shear displacement, mm
F i g . 4. R e s u l t s o f d i r e c t s h e a r t e s t s o n u n r e i n f o r c e d

silty c l a y

)k !

Geotextile rein[brced cohesive soil

629

Silty clay (CL)

300
T e r r a m 500

200

j J

100

J
100

I
200

l
300

I
400

L
500

600

700

~, kN/m 2

50 kPa

I ----41---400 kPa

---II-----75 kPa
t

500 kPa

1.

100 kPa

[]

600 kPa

200 kPa

300 kPa I 1
I

,g

E
E

0.5

50 kPa

--IIt-- 75 kPa

400 kPa

- - A - 500kPa

100 kPa

200 kPa

~(

300 kPal

--(3-- 600 kPa

e~

-0.5

-1.5
1

Shear displacement,
Fig. 5. Results

of direct shear

mm

tests on silty clay reinforced

with Terram

500.

G. A. Athanasopoulos

630

Silty clay (CL)

300
Terrain 1500

200
Z

~d, ~

lO0

I
100

I
200

I
300

I
400

I
500

1
600

t
700

O, k N / m 2
I

50kPa - - i ~ l O O k P a
500 kPa
I 600 kPa

200kPa - - 3 0 0 k P a

~ 400kPa]
[

g.
2
r~

+
0.5

50 kPa

[ --l--

400 kPa

100 kPa

-..-0.-- 500kPa

200 kPa

300 kPa [

600 kPa

i
i
-1.5

Shear d i s p l a c e m e n t , m m

Fig. 6. R e s u l t s o f direct s h e a r t e s t s o n silty c l a y r e i n f o r c e d w i t h T e r r a m 1500.

Geotextile reinforced cohesive soil

631

Silty clay (CL)

300
Terrain 4000

200

J
~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L~e~,~ ~ced
I

100

I
100

I
200

I
300

o, kN/m

@
.

25kPa
@50kPa
400 kPa
O ' 500 kPa
.

I
400

I
500

t
600

i
700

150kPa
I " 600 kPa

--{~-200kPa
.

@,300kPa

]
[

g.

2:

01
1,
I

0.5

25 kPa

--WI--- 50 kPa

400 kPa

----0----500kPa

150 kPa

200 kPa

- - ~ - - 300 kPa 1

600 kPa

01
t~
e~
u~ -0.5
e~
L~
0~

-t

-1.5

~
0

t
1

~
2

~
3

-4

Shear displacement, mm

Fig. 7. Results of direct shear tests o n silty clay reinforced with T e r r a m 4000.

G. A. A thanasopoulos

632
Silty clay (CL)
300
A m o c o 4545

200

2:
t-;
100

100

200

300

400

500

600

7OO

~, kN/m 2

50 kPa

I00 kPa

,Ik

200 kPa

400 kPa

500 kPa

[]

600 kPa

50kPa

lOOkPa

-----Am 200kPa

400 kPa

500kPa

- - ' ~ - - 600 kPa

~.~3--- 300 kPa

e-,
r~

I ~
0.5

- - , ~ - - 300kPa

t~

~, -0.5

"~
0)

-1

Shear displacement, mm
Fig, 8. Results o f direct shear tests on silty clay reinforced with A m o c o 4545.

Geotextile reinJorced cohesive soil

633

Silty clay (CL)

300
Nicolon 66448

200
Z

100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

~, k N / m z

--'-50

kPa

+ 4 0 0

kPa

-41-100

kPa

-*-600

kPa

-~r-200

kPa

-o-300

kPa

+ 4 0 0

kPa

t~

t-

+
--

0.5

--

50 kPa

400 kPa

----~...~-500 kPa

100 kPa

200 kPa

300 kPa

600 kPa

.3

o=

or

*-

--

A A

A.

-0.5

"5

-1.5
0

Shear displacement, mm

Fig. 9. Results of direct shear tests on silty clay reinforced with Nicoton 66448.

634

G. A. Athanasopoulos

strong curvature and eventually intersects the failure envelope of unreinforced soil (Fig. 5). This type of behaviour indicates a negligible (or zero)
increase of shearing strength at high values of normal stress, a fact that could
be explained by the reasoning presented later in this section.
For the Nicolon woven geotextile the failure envelope of reinforced soil
almost coincides with the failure envelope of unreinforced soil. This means
that this geotextile did not offer any strength increase to soil samples
(Fig. 9). This differentiation of behaviour can be attributed to the different
water transmissivities of nonwoven and woven geotextiles. The pore water
pressures developed during shearing along the soil-geotextile interface can be
rapidly dissipated in the case of nonwoven geotextiles due to the high transmissivity of these fabrics. Thus the interface shearing conditions in this case
can be characterized as being drained resulting in a substantial amount of
interface friction in addition to a possible interface adhesion. In the case of
the woven geotextile, however, its practically nil in-plane flow capability
precludes any rapid dissipation of pore water pressures and thus the shearing
conditions remain undrained. Under such conditions, and when the pore
water pressures are high enough, it becomes very difficult or impossible for
any friction resistance to be developed along the soil/reinforcement interface.
Regarding the adhesion component it is expected that it will have a rather
low value which could not provide an overall strength increment high
enough to be detected by the small size direct shear tests of this investigation.
It should also be pointed out that the water transmissivity of nonwoven
geotextiles depends on the value of normal stress acting on the interface
(Koerner, 1994). Higher values of normal interfacial stress result in a
decrease in the thickness and consequently of the transimissivity of the
geotextile thus favouring the development of an undrained state of stress and
of higher pore water pressures, similar to the case of woven geotextiles. This
behaviour could explain the curved or the flattened shape of the failure
envelopes of reinforced soil, shown in Figs 5-7. It may be argued, then, that
in the case of moist (or near-saturated) cohesive soils reinforced with
geosynthetics, a bilinear (or curved in general) form of failure envelope,
expressed in terms of total stresses, does not necessarily mean a transition
from the slip-type to the stretching-type of failure. It may, instead, indicate a
continuous decrease of water transmissivity of geosynthetic under increasing
values of normal interfacial stress which results in the generation of pore
water pressures which in turn inhibit any further increase of effective normal
interfacial stresses and corresponding strength increase.
The plots of Figs 5-9 indicate that the cohesion intercept of the reinforced
soil is affected--though not significantly--by the geotextile reinforcement. It
should be recognised, however, that in order to be able to draw conclusions
on this aspect, direct shear tests under very low values of normal stress

Geotextile rein/brced cohesive soil

635

should be conducted. The lowest values of normal stresses applied in the

direct shear tests of this investigation, were 50 kPa (or 25 kPa in some tests).
By a linear extrapolation of the failure envelopes obtained from the tests it is
found that the cohesion intercept of reinforced soil is in general lower than
the corresponding value of unreinforced specimens. In view of the testing
limitations, however, it may be argued that this behaviour might be an artifact of the testing conditions in a small size shear box and does not reflect the
actual field behaviour.
Shear and volumetric deformation of reinforced soil

The diagrams of Figs 5-9 include plots of the shear stress versus shear
displacement and of vertical deformation of specimen versus shear displacement for all values of normal stresses applied in the direct shear tests.
Regarding the shear stress versus shear displacement behaviour of the reinforced cohesive soil specimens, an inspection of the pertinent plots indicates
that the peak shearing restistance of reinforced soil is developed at a higher
shear displacement compared to the unreinforced soil. This behaviour is similar
to the behaviour observed in reinforced granular soils (Athanasopoulos, 1993).
To facilitate a comparison between reinforced and unreinforced soil, regarding
the development of shearing stiffness, the plots of Fig. 10 were prepared. In
these plots the shear stress versus shear displacement curves of unreinforced and
reinforced cohesive soil are shown for the three geotextiles used in the tests and
for a low (100 kPa) and high (500 kPa) value of vertical stress, av. It is observed
that the Terram 4000 geotextile offers a shear stiffness increase for all values of
shear displacement. The Amoco geotextile, however, resulted in an initial
decrease of shear stiffness for low values of shear displacement. This type of
behaviour has been also observed in tests on granular soils and is usually
attributed to the particular test conditions (Athanasopoulos, 1993). As it might
be expected, the Nicolon reinforcement did not offer any substantial change in
the shear stiffness of reinforced specimens.
A comparison between reinforced and unreinforced soil with respect to the
development of vertical deformation versus shearing displacement can be
made with the help of the plots of Fig. 11. According to these plots the effect
of geotextile reinforcement on the volumetric deformation of cohesive soil
depends on the value of normal stress av. For low values of normal stress
(e.g. av = 1 0 0 k P a ) the reinforcement results in a decrease of vertical
compression of soil specimen for all types of geotextiles including the woven
Nicolon fabric. For higher values of normal stress (e.g. av = 500 kPa) the
behaviour is reversed, i.e. the vertical compression of the reinforced specimen
is increased. It is interesting to note that this increase is rather substantial for
the woven Nicolon geotextile.

636

G. A. Athanasopoulos

300
250

g~ 200
~g
150

250

v = 500 kPa.

av i 500 kPa

"

.............................................

100
50

......... Unreinforced
Reinforced w / T e r ~

............................ ~
~
...-

100 kP~
a v = 100 kPa"

.........................................................

......... Unreinforced
Amoco 4545
% = 500 kPa

~, 200

150
u~

1oo
r~

a v = 100 kPa

50

......---i

250

......... Unreinforced
Nicolon 66448

200

o v = 500 kP;

150

~ lOO

er~

o v = 100 kPa

50

L
1

I
7

Shear displacement, mm
Fig. 10. Development of shearing resistance with shear displacement for unreinforced and
reinforced silty clay.

Bond development at soil/geosynthetic interface

It was mentioned in a previous section that the establishment o f the failure
envelope o f a reinforced soil could be used for estimating values of interface

Geotextile reinJbrced cohesive soil

0.4

637

......... U n r e i n f o r c e d
Terram 4000
..3
e-

0.0

E
100kP
-0.4
100 kP~

-0.8

-1.2

.........

kPa

500

Unreinforced
Amoco 4545

0.0
..Y

c v

= 100 k P a

a)

-0.4
a v = 100 kPa

~3
-0.8

a v = 500 k P a

>
-1.2

.........

Unreinforced
Nicolon 66448

o
o v = 100 kPa

-0.4
~3
.2

a v = 100 kP~
fly = 600 k P a
-0.8

~ v = 6 0 0 kP~
-1.2

Shear displacement,
Fig.

11.

Development

of vertical

mm

deformation with shear d i s p l a c e m e n t

reinforced

for unreinforced

and

silty clay.

friction angle as a function of normal interfacial stress. To achieve this goal

the results of the direct shear tests of this study were further analyzed by
utilising the simple model described by Athanasopoulos (1993) for granular
soils This model is strictly applicable only under drained loading conditions

638

G. A . A t h a n a s o p o u l o s

Although the specimen loading conditions in this investigation were

undrained (or partially drained) it may be assumed that along the soil/reinforcement interface the conditions became drained due to the in-plane flow
capability of nonwoven geotextiles. Thus, the aforementioned model could
be used for obtaining at least approximate values of interface friction angle
in terms of total stresses. Due to the cohesive character of the soil used in the
tests, however, it became necessary to introduce into the model an adhesiontype component of the interface bond. If the adhesion developed between
soil and reinforcement is denoted by c~, then the corresponding friction angle
may be estimated by the relationship:

[A'A~- Asc~]

6 = tan -1 [

A-~-d~-, J

(2)

where:
A t =
A s =
A~=
o- V

Xo =

Ko.av

sheared area of soil in the shear box

area of contact surface between soil and reinforcement
shear strength increase due to reinforcement
normal total stress applied in the direct shear test
coefficient of earth pressure at rest = 1-sin q~
= normal interfacial stress.

The derivation of eqn (2) is based on the same assumptions mentioned by

Athanasopoulos (1993). One additional assumption regarding the thickness
of the shear zone was also made in this investigation: due to the very small
mean particle diameter of the soil used in the tests, the thickness of the shear
zone z, was assumed to be equal to zero (Fig. 2).
Equation (2) was used to estimate values of friction angle, 6, for different
values of normal interfacial stress and of the adhesion, c~. Figure 12
summarises the results of calculations in graphical form for the nonwoven
geotextiles and includes plots of the frictional efficiency (6~ok)versus the
interfacial normal stress for three values of adhesion efficiency: c~/c= 0.0, 0.5
and 1.0. According to these plots the frictional efficiency of the reinforcement either decreases or remains constant (on the average) with increasing
values of normal interfacial stress. This behaviour is in agreement with the
behaviour described by the hyperbolic curve depicted in Fig. 1. The gradient
of this curve--which is equal to the interface friction angle, 6--decreases as
the value of normal interfacial is increased. For higher values of normal
stress, however, this dependence on the normal stress diminishes and eventually the value of interface angle becomes constant. It is interesting to note,
however, that for values of normal interfacial stresses lower than, approximately, 100 kPa the results of the present investigation suggest that the value
of interface friction angle, 6, increases with increasing values of normal

Geotextile reinforced cohesive soil

Terram 500 ---il--Terram 1500 ~

Terram 4000 ~

639

Amoco 4545J

Ca/C = 0.0

9-

'

Terrain 500

---II.---Terram 1500

Terram 4000 ~

Amoco 4545

&

Terram 4000 +

Amoco 4545

Ca/C = 0.5

oO

Terram 500

Terram 1500

Ca/C = 1.0
2
9-

"
0

i
50

i
100

~
150

200

a
250

300

Normal interfacial stress, kPa

Fig. 12. V a r i a t i o n o f frictional et~ciency o f n o n w o v e n geotextiles w i t h n o r m a l interracial
stress.

640

G. A. Athanasopoulos

stress. It is believed that this behaviour does not reflect the actual field
behaviour of the interface bond development, being an artifact of the testing
procedure under low confining stresses.
According to the plots of Fig. 12 the Terram 4000 geotextile developed
the highest efficiency ratio ranging from 2.90 to 2.07 for values of c~/c
ranging from 0.0 to 1-0. These high efficiency values should not be
considered as unreasonable since they are referenced to the undrained
angle of the cohesive soil, ~b= 14.8 . The corresponding friction angles are
6 =43 30.6 . The interface friction angles for the other two Terram and
the Amoco geotextiles ranged from 1.5 to 22 . It is interesting to note that
the values of friction angle 6 for the three Terram geotextiles increased
with the thickness of geotextile, a fact that could be explained by the
expected increasing transmissivity of the geotextiles. It is also interesting to
note that the Amoco geotextile, despite its low tensile strength, developed
relatively high friction angles, a fact that could be attributed to its high
water transmissivity.

CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of direct shear tests on a geotextile-reinforced nearsaturated cohesive soil the following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Nonwoven geotextiles possessing the capability of in-plane flow of
water (transmissivity) can be used for reinforcing near-saturated
cohesive soils provided these fabrics also possess a reasonable amount
of tensile strength. The failure envelope of the composite material
(soil+ reinforcement) takes, in general, a curved shape indicating a
continuous transition from drained to undrained behaviour as the
value of normal interfacial stress is increased. Although a critical
value of normal interfacial total stress can be derived from the failure
envelope of composite material its value should not be taken to
represent the transition from slippage failure to stretching failure of
the reinforcement.
(2) Woven geotextiles with practically nil water transmissivity, despite
their high tensile strength, cannot provide substantial strength
increase to cohesive soils with a water content much higher than the
optimum value obtained from compaction tests. When the structure
of these geotextiles contains openings that can be filled with the
particles of cohesive soil, then some adhesion-type strength increase
can be obtained with values of adhesion efficiencies ranging from 0.3
to 1.0 (as is also the case with geogrid reinforcement).

Geotextile reinforced cohesive soil

641

(3) The presence of geosynthetic reinforcement in a cohesive soil results in

an increase in the strain required to reach the peak (or ultimate)
shearing resistance. A contractive behaviour of the composite material was observed during shearing of reinforced soil. It was found,
however, that for low values of normal interfacial stress the presence
of reinforcement reduced the volumetric deformation of the reinforced soil. This behaviour was reversed for high values of normal
stress, i.e. the presence of reinforcement resulted in an increase of the
compressibility of cohesive soil for all types of geotextiles used in the
tests (nonwoven and woven). The shear stiffness of the composite
material is generally increased for large shear displacements, despite
some initial drop, which most probably is caused by the testing
procedure.
(4) The interaction at the soil/geosynthetic interface, encompasses the
development of frictional and adhesional shear resistance which
depends on the geosynthetic properties. The frictional efficiency, in
terms of total stress parameters, may take high values (greater than 2)
and decreases with increasing normal interfacial stress for a constant
value of adhesional efficiency. Values of interface friction angles
between a nonwoven geotextile (possessing high tensile strength and
water transmissivity) and the near-saturated cohesive soil were found
to be of the order of 300-40 , a fact that indicates the great potential
of dual-function geosynthetics in field applications.
(5) On-site, near-saturated or even saturated, cohesive soils can be used
as backfill material in reinforced soil applications in association
with geosynthetics possessing both high tensile strength and high
water transmissivity (nowoven geotextiles, geocomposites etc). In
these cases, however, some provisions should be made regarding the
volumetric deformations of reinforced soil mass which are expected
to develop during the consolidation phase following the construction.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to express his thanks to former civil engineering students
of the University of Patras, D. Papandropoulos, A. Papageorgiou and Chr.
Tsarouhis for the careful performance of the laboratory tests described in
this paper. Thanks are also expressed to the graduate students of geotechnical engineering at the Department of Civil Engineering of the University of
Patras, P. Pelekis and E. Leonidou for assisting in the preparation of some of
the figures of this paper.

642

G. A. Athanasopoulos
REFERENCES

Alwahab, R. M. & Al-ourna, H. H. (1995). Fiber reinforced cohesive soils for

application in compacted earth structures. In Proc. of Geosynthetics '95, Nashville, Tennessee, Vol. 2, pp. 433~446.
Athanasopoulos, G. A. & Bousias, P. Z. (1988). Interfacial friction in sand-geotextile composites. In Proc. of Second International Symposium on Phase Interaction
in Composite Materials, University of Patras, Greece. Omega Scientific Publications, U.K., pp. 1545.
Athanasopoulos, G. A., Atmatzidis, D. K. & Bousias, P. Z. (1990). Sand-geotextile
interaction by direct shear testing. In Proc. of 4th International Conference on
Geotextiles Geomembranes and Related Products. A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Hague, Vol. 2, p. 795.
Athanasopoulos, G. A. (1993). Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12, 255273.
Atmatzidis, D. K. & Athanasopoulos, G. A. (1994). Sand-geotextile friction
angle by conventional shear testing. In Proc. of 13th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, India, Vol. 3, pp.
1273-1278.
Bartolomey, A., Ponomaryov, A., Kleveko, Y. & Ofrikhter, V. (1996). Use of
geosynthetic materials for increase bearing capacity of clayish beddings.
Geosynthetics: Applications, Design and Construction, Proceedings (?["the First
European Geosynthetics Conference, Maastrict, pp. 459~461.
Bauer, G. E. & Zhao, Y. (1993). Evaluation of shear strength and dilatancy behavior of reinforced soil from direct shear tests. In Geosynthetic Soil Reinforcement
Testing Procedures, ASTM STP 1190, ed. S. C. J. Cheng. Philedelphia, pp. 138
151.
Bergado, D. T., Chai, J. C., Abiera, H. O., Alfaro, M. C. & Balasubramaniam, A. S.
(1993). Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile
composites. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 12, 327 349.
Bouazza, A. & Djafer-Khodja, S. (1994). Effect of particle size on the mechanical
behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 13,
807-812.
Das, B. M., Omar, M. T. & Singh, G. (1996). Strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced clay slope. Geosynthetics: Applications, Design and Construction,
Proceedings of the First European Geosynthetics Conference, Maastrict, pp. 419
426.
Delmas, Ph., Gourc, J. P., Blivet, J. C. & Matichard, Y. (1988). Geotextile reinforced retaining structures: a few instrumented examples. In Proc. of International Geotechnical Symposium on Theory and Practice of Earth Reinforcement.
Fukuoka, Japan.
Delmas, Ph., Gotteland, Ph., Gourc, J. P. & Haidar, S. (1992). Two full size structures reinforced by geotextiles. In Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics,
ASCE GSP No. 30, ed. R. H. Borden, R. D. Holtz and I. Juran, Vol. 2, pp.
1201-1212.
Fakher, A. & Jones, C. J. F. P. (1996). Effect of particle size on the mechanical
behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Geosynthetics International, 3(3), 349367.

Geotextile reinforced cohesive soil

643

Farrag, K. A. & Griffin, P. (1993). Pull-out testing of geogrids in cohesive soils. In

Geosynthetic Soil Reinforcement Testing Procedures, ASTM STP 1190, ed. S. C.
J. Cheng, Philadelphia, pp. 76-89.
Fourie, A. B. & Fabian, K. J. (1987). Effect of particle size on the mechanical
behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 6,
275-294.
Giroud, J. P., Darrasse, J. & Bachus, R. C. (1993). Effect of particle size on the
mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Journal of Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 12(3), 275-286.
Ingold, T. S, (1981). Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour of sandgeotextile composites. Geotechnique, 31(3), 399-412.
lngold, T. S. (1983). Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour of sandgeotextile composites. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. 109(5), 738744.
Ingold, T. S. & Miller, K. S. (1983). Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering.
ASCE, 109(7), 883-898.
Ingold, T. S. (1994). The Geotextile and Geomembranes Manual. Elsevier Advanced
Technology, U.K.
Kamon, M., Akai, T., Fukuda, M. & Nanbu, Y. (1996). In-situ failure test of high water
content soft clay embankments reinforced by GHDs. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, Kyushu, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 215-220.
Koerner, R. M. (1994). Designing with geosynthetics, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, U.S.A.
Kojima, K., Tateyama, M., Sakamoto, N. & Maruyama, O. (1996). Geosynthetic
reinforced soil retaining wall using clay on a very soft ground for Hokuriku
bullet train yard in Nagano. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Earth Reinforcement, Kyushu, Japan. Vol. 1, pp. 227-232.
Ling, H. I. & Tatsuoka, F. (1994). Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 120(7), 1166-1184.
Mitchell, J. K. & Zornberg, J. G. (1995). Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Geosynthetics International, 2(1), 265-307.
Murthy, B. R. S., Sridharan, A. & Bindumadhava (1993). Effect of particle size on
the mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 12, 235-253.
Nataraj, M. S., Maganti, R. S. & McManis, K. L. (1995). Interface frictional characteristics of geosynthetics. In Proc. of Geosynthetics '95, Nashville, Tennessee,
Vol. 3, pp. 1057-1069.
Palmeira, E. M., Tupa, N. & Gomes, R. C. (1996). In-soil behaviour of geotextiles
confined by fine soils. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth
Reinjorcement, Kyushu, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 129-132.
Porbaha, A. & Goodings, D. J. (1996). Effect of particle size on the mechanical
behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, 122(10), 840-848.
Pradhan, T. B. S., Shiwakoti, D. R. & Imai, G. (1996). Effect of normal pressure:
and width of geosynthetic horizontal drain in pullout behaviour using saturated
clay. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement,
Kyushu, Japan, Vol. 1, pp. 133-138.

644

G. A. Athanasopoulos

Shin, E. C., Das, B. M., Puvi, V. K., Yen, S. C. & Cook, E. E. (1993). Effect of
particle size on the mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile composites.
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 16, 534-541.
Smith, M. E.& Criley, K. (1995). Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour
of sand-geotextile composites. Geoteehnical Fabrics Report, April, 28-31.
Tatsuoka, F., Uchimura, T., Tateyama, M. & Koseki, J. (1996). Geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls as important permanent structures. Geosynthetics:
Applications, Design and Construction, Proceedings of the First European
Geosynthetics Conference, Maastricht, pp. 3-24.
Wayne, M. H. & Wilcosky, E. (1995). Effect of particle size on the mechanical
behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Geotechnical Fabrics Report, March,
10.
Zornberg, J. G. & Mitchell, J. K. (1994). Effect of particle size on the mechanical
behaviour of sand-geotextile composites. Geosynthetics International, 1(2), 103148.