Comparative Model Study of Geosynthetic Pull-Out Response

Abstract

This technical note describes the analysis of reinforcement pull-out tests using a shear model that incorporates a hyperbolic shear stress-displacement relation for the soil-reinforcement interface. Numerical studies of pull-out tests were performed for small to large strains in inextensible and extensible reinforcements. Predictions based upon a hyperbolic model of shear mobilisation are compared with a theoretical bilinear model presented by Madhav et al. in 1998. Comparative parametric studies using both models were carried out for ranges of relative stiffness and bond resistance values. Normalised load-displacement relations and the variations of pull-out force and displacements with distance, are presented for comparative evaluation. The finite difference equations of the hyperbolic model result in a faster convergence than the bilinear model. The incorporated hyperbolic model estimates the pre- and post-yield deformations, and shear stress and tensile force variations along the length of the reinforcement. Predictions of laboratory and field pull-out results from the available theoretical and experimental tests for inextensible steel straps, and extensible geotextiles, polymers, and nylon geosynthetics are also presented.

Continuum Modeling and Analysis of Polymeric Sheet Reinforcement Subjected to Axial Pull

“…Elongation of reinforcement was considered and the resulting finite difference equation was solved by Gauss-Siedel iteration method. Gurung and Iwao [31] compared satisfactorily the results of theoretical pullout tests and experimental results. Gurung [32] presented one dimensional expression for pull-out of planar reinforcement that analyses small to large strain cases of inextensible to extensible reinforcements.…”

Closure to “Stiffness of Soil–Geosynthetic Composite under Small Displacements: I. Model Development” by Jorge G. Zornberg, Gholam H. Roodi, and Ranjiv Gupta

“…While this was the overriding objective, the authors thought to adopt a reasonable shear mechanism along the geosynthetic plane as well as reasonable constitutive relationships for the geosynthetic and soil-geosynthetic interface. The authors comprehensively reviewed (and appropriately cited) previous studies with similar scope and focus (e.g., Alobaidi et al 1997;Bergado and Chai 1994;Gurung and Iwao 1999;Juran and Chen 1988;Perkins and Cuelho 1999;Sobhi and Wu 1996;Sieira et al 2009; Weerasekara and Wijewickreme 2010; Wilson-Fahmy and Koerner 1993; Yuan 2011). However, as previously stated, the solution posed by Shewbridge and Sitar (1990) is not relevant to the focus of the study presented by the original paper and Roodi and Zornberg (2017).…”