Sand-geotextile interface characterisation through monotonic and cyclic direct shear tests

Abstract

For the design and performance analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures under repeated loadings, such as those induced by compaction, traffic and earthquakes, the understanding of cyclic soil-geosynthetic interface behaviour is of great interest.Nevertheless, the experimental data concerning this type of behaviour are very scarce.

Soil Geosynthetic Interaction: Design Parameters from Experimental and Theoretical Analysis

“…The static direct shear test results, as already observed in CRD pullout tests, showed that direct sliding coefficients of interaction for dense granular soil-geogrid interface depend on the effective confining pressure [61,88,[91][92][93][94], and they are higher at lower stress levels due to dilatancy effects.…”

“…In general, the authors recorded that the bearing resistance contribution ratio was about 0-10 % of the overall interface shear strength. Only a few researches about soil-geosynthetic interface interaction under cyclic direct shear test are available in literature [91,99].…”

“…Vieira et al [91] studied the behavior of a silica sand/high strength geotextile interface under monotonic and cyclic loading conditions. The cyclic direct shear tests were performed under load and under displacement control.…”

“…Fig. 46 Variation of shear stiffness and damping ratio with the number of cycles (±Δa=2.5 mm, f=0.05 Hz), Vieira et al [91] -The conventional equations proposed to predict the sand-geogrid interface shear strength generally predict values that are smaller than the measured ones. -The passive resistance induced by transverse ribs provides an additional contribution to the shear strength of sand-geogrid interfaces under direct shear mode.…”

“…47 Effect of cyclic loading on the interface shear strength for a displacement-controlled cyclic direct shear tests (after Δa=±2.5, f=0.05 Hz) and b)load-controlled cyclic direct shear tests (after±τ a =46.6 kPa, f= 0.05 Hz). Vieira et al [91] A typical device, schematized in Fig. 48, is composed of an upper box sliding along an inclined support (a lower box or a plane).…”