You are on page 1of 11

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Centrifuge model tests of geotextile-reinforced soil embankments during an earthquake
Liping Wang, Ga Zhang*, Jian-Min Zhang
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Beijing 100084, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 9 February 2010 Received in revised form 24 October 2010 Accepted 7 November 2010 Available online 10 December 2010 Keywords: Slope Soil Geotextile Reinforcement Centrifuge model test Earthquake

a b s t r a c t
The behavior of geotextile-reinforced embankments during an earthquake was investigated using centrifuge model tests, considering a variety of factors such as gradient of slope, water content of soil, geotextile spacing, and input shaking wave. The geotextile-reinforcement mechanism was revealed on the basis of the observations with comparison of the unreinforced embankment. The geotextile significantly decreases the deformation of the embankment and restricts sliding failure that occurs in the unreinforced embankment during an earthquake. The displacement exhibits an evidently irreversible accumulation with a fluctuation during the earthquake which is significantly dependent on the magnitude of input shaking. The peak strain of the geotextile exhibits a nearly triangular distribution in the vertical direction. The embankment can be divided into two zones, a restricting zone and restricted zone, where the soil and geotextile, respectively, play an active restriction role in the soil-geotextile interaction. The soil restricts the geotextile in the restricting zone, and this restriction is transferred to the restricted zone through the geotextile. The strain magnitude of the geotextile and the horizontal displacement of the geotextile-reinforced embankment decrease with increasing geotextile layers, with decreasing water content of the soil, with decreasing gradient of the slope, and with decreasing amplitude of the earthquake wave. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Geotextiles are an effective reinforcement for various soil structures such as slopes and containing walls (e.g., Schaefer, 1997). In recent years, geotextile has been used to increase the seismic stability level of a large quantity of small-size and medium-size earth embankments, which can be regarded as a kind of typical slope. Field observation is an essential approach to obtain first-hand data for analyzing the behavior of the geotextile-reinforced slopes/ embankments. For example, eleven reinforced soil structures were visually examined for evidence of distress resulting from an earthquake, and the results showed that these structures exhibited excellent seismic stability (Sandri, 1997). The seismic stability of an old earth-fill dam in Japan was significantly increased by constructing a counter-balance fill using geosynthetic reinforcement (Tatsuoka et al., 2007). A large number of field surveys were conducted on geosynthetic-reinforced embankments, and valuable understanding was obtained (e.g., Kelln et al., 2007; Indraratna et al., 2010). Nevertheless, the field observation cannot easily change the boundary

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ86 10 62795679. E-mail addresses: wlp04@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (L. Wang), zhangga@tsinghua. edu.cn (G. Zhang), zhangjm@tsinghua.edu.cn (J.-M. Zhang). 0266-1144/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.11.002

conditions or loading styles, which means that this approach cannot be used in an investigation of the geosynthetic-reinforcement mechanism. The proper geosynthetic design of slopes/embankments is largely dependent upon systematic understanding of the behavior of such reinforced soil structures, which can be investigated by numerical simulations and model tests. The limit equilibrium methods, which have been accepted in many engineering codes, were widely employed to evaluate the stability level of geosynthetic-reinforced slopes/embankments (e.g., Srbulov, 2001). A set of equations were formulated to determine the seismic stability and permanent displacement of cover soil in a solid-waste containment system (Ling and Leshchinsky, 1997). Diverse types of analysis methods, including theoretical and numerical methods, were used to investigate the behavior and influence parameters of the overall stability level of reinforced soil structures (e.g., Sawicki and Lesniewska, 1991; Qhaderi et al., 2005; Shukla and Kumar, 2008; Abusharar et al., 2009; Tolooiyan et al., 2009). The reliability analysis was also introduced to the safety assessment of reinforced soil structures (Genske et al., 1991). The effectiveness of numerical analysis is significantly dependent on the accurate modeling of the soilegeosynthetic interface, which has been investigated using a number of laboratory tests (e.g., Wu et al., 2008; Zhang and Zhang, 2009; Zhang et al., 2010).

1%/min (Fig. Chen et al.5:1 17% 17% 17% 12% 17% 17% e 6 cm 6 cm 6 cm 12 cm 6 cm 9.. with a plastic limit and liquid limit of 5% and 18%. 1996. it can be shown that the gauze is a reasonable substitute of the geotextile prototype.3% was buried in the embankment to measure the acceleration response . with kinematic viscosity of 500 cSt. A specially manufactured shake table was equipped on the centrifuge to generate horizontal earthquake waves via a complex hydraulic pressure servo-system. 2. 2.5:1 1. According to similarity criterion (Table 2) (Ko. and input shaking wave. 1988). Fig. Model Fig.7 g 9. such as geotextiles and soil nails (e. and 0. respectively. Hu et al. Porbaha and Goodings. with a maximum dry density of 1. The behavior of geotextile-reinforced embankments during an earthquake was investigated by using centrifuge model tests in this paper. respectively.. The shear strength of the soil (water content: 17%) was 20 kPa in cohesion and 25 in the internal frictional angle. A type of medical gauze with a thickness of 0. The elastic modulus of this reinforcement material was 40 kN/m according to the strain-controlled tensile loading test with a strain rate of 0.7 g 6.3 by referring to the similar soils empirically. 2009. 2..7 g 9.7. and a new distribution reinforcement force was proposed (Zornberg et al. The soil was compacted by 5 cm-thick layers into the container with a dry density of 1. 2 shows the shear modulus of the soil and the Poisson’s ratio was taken as 0. China. Tests 2. The standard Proctor test results showed that the optimum water content of the soil was 15.0012 mm. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 223 The model tests offer a powerful approach to investigate the behavior and failure mechanism of reinforced soil structures under earthquake conditions by considering various factors with efficiency. It should be noted that the dry density of the soil was selected to be smaller than the actual case to obtain a more significant deformation for a better analysis of the reinforcement rules. the performance of the geotextile. The primary centrifuge tests were conducted on the geotextilereinforced (RP) and unreinforced embankments (UP). The shear strength of the soil with a moisture content of 12% was somewhat larger.7 g 9.5:1 1. Therefore. However. through which the deformation process of the soil could be observed and recorded.7 g 9. This explanation can help to establish a proper design of geotextile reinforcement under earthquake conditions. the geotextile-reinforcement mechanism was revealed to explain how the geotextile reduces the deformation and prevents the probable failure of the embankments. 1998). 0. 20 cm wide and 35 cm high.5:1 (Vertical: Horizontal) for the primary tests and increased to 3:1 for a comparison. 2007..2. 1 shows the schematic view of the geotextile-reinforced model embankment for the primary test. the water content of the soil (RC2). The water content of soil was 17% (corresponding maximum dry density: 1. In addition. Viswanadham and König. and the results were used to analyze the effectiveness of a pseudo-static seismic stability analysis (Matsuo et al. 1b) were used for a comparison (RC3). similar deformation and failure mechanism as presented in a prototype. which has a typical thickness from several mm with an elastic modulus of hundreds of kN/m at a centrifugal acceleration of 50 g. In addition. A series of centrifuge tests were conducted to investigate the failure mechanism.14 mm was used to simulate the geotextile of the reinforced embankment. 2010).. which was obtained under the condition that the axial strain reached 5%. Dynamic centrifuge tests were used to demonstrate that the earthquake loading has a significant effect on the tension experienced by the geomembrane on a landfill slope (Thusyanthan et al. Schemes Table 1 lists the centrifuge model tests conducted in this paper. The soil was retrieved directly from the stratum of a forest park in Beijing. The gradient of slope was 1..65 g/cm3) for a comparison. the influence characteristic of different factors on the dynamic behavior of the reinforced embankment was investigated based on the measurements of centrifuge model tests. The model container for the tests was made of aluminum alloy and was 50 cm long. and control particle size (d60) of the soil were 0.L. Four layers of geotextile were horizontally arranged with an equal spacing of 6 cm at different elevations throughout the embankment (Fig. respectively. The consolidated undrained cyclic triaxial tests were conducted on the unsaturated soil.4.. considering different factors such as slope inclination. Wang et al.1998). reinforcement layout. The unreinforced embankment is identical except for removal of the geotextile. Measurements A series of accelerometers with a measurement accuracy of 0. soil moisture. 1). The specific gravity of the soil was 2. a few comparative tests were conducted to discuss the effectiveness of the knowledge and the influence factors by altering several aspects based on the primary tests.1.2%.79 g/cm3. It can be seen that the peak to peak secant shear modulus decreased with increasing shear strain.04 mm. including the gradient of the slope (RC1).5 g Unreinforced-primary (UP) Reinforced-primary (RP) Reinforced-comparative-1 (RC1) Reinforced-comparative-2 (RC2) Reinforced-comparative-3 (RC3) Reinforced-comparative-4 (RC4) 2. Devices The 50 g-ton geotechnical centrifuge of Tsinghua University was used for the centrifuge model tests. silicone oil. Table 1 List of centrifuge model tests. was painted on both sides of the container to decrease the friction between the embankment and the container. The average particle size (d50).45 g/cm3 for both water contents. few results were reported using this type of test on the research of behavior of geotextile-reinforced embankments during an earthquake.5:1 3:1 1.3. 2010. and two layers of geotextile (layers 2 and 4 in Fig.5:1 1. the geotextile spacing (RC3). In addition. Case Gradient Water Geotextile Amplitude of of slope content spacing shaking wave of soil 1. respectively. 2007). The model embankment was 25 cm in height for all the tests and a 6-cm-high horizontal soil layer under the embankment was set to diminish the influence of the bottom container plate on the deformation of the embankment. A diverse range of centrifuge model tests were also conducted on the reinforced slopes with different reinforcement structures. Wang et al.g. and the amplitude of the input earthquake wave (RC4). this paper focuses on full observations of earthquakeinduced deformation of the embankments and accordingly reports an examination of the response of embankment.03 mm. which were compared to investigate the behavior and reinforcement mechanism of the geotextile-reinforced embankments. effective particle size (d10). A transparent lucite window was installed on one container side. shaking table tests were performed on six geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall models.68 g/cm3) for the primary test and decreased to 12% (corresponding maximum dry density: 1. Centrifuge model tests play an important role in such a research category as they have the advantage of reproducing the same stress level. Apart from traditional investigations of dynamic response such as acceleration amplification. For example. and the soil-geotextile interaction. 3).

using the image-based measurement system because a random gray-level distribution was yielded with a mixture of grey soil. 1b). Shear modulus behavior of soil obtained from cyclic triaxial tests (water content: 17%). Schematic view of geotextile-reinforced embankment in primary test (unit: cm). The measurement accuracy of displacement can reach 0. with which the displacement field and its change could be obtained (Zhang et al. an earthquake wave was input on the model container bottom. A significant deformation of the embankment occurred in this period. 2009).5. 8 at different elevations during the earthquake (Fig.194 g in the prototype dimension at a centrifugal acceleration of 50 g.224 L. The effectiveness of this measurement system could be realized by visualizing a region with a random gray-level distribution. 3. equivalent to 0. An image-correlation-analysis algorithm was used to determine the displacement vectors of the soil without disturbing the soil itself (Zhang et al. 1b). with a maximum acceleration of 9.02 mm based on the model dimensions for the centrifuge tests in this paper. 1a). specifying positive as downward in the vertical direction (y-axis) and to the right in the horizontal direction (x-axis) (Fig. Fig. 4). 2. for example.7 g in the model dimension (Fig. white gauze and neighboring white terrazzo. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 40 35 Shear modulus (MPa) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 . Tensile loading test result of medical gauze. The area within the dotted line was used for displacement measurements due to the requirement of the measurement system (Fig. This wave was used in all the centrifuge tests. . 2006). The displacement history of an arbitrary point in the soil could be measured with subpixel accuracy. An image-record and displacement measurement system was used to record the images of the embankment during the centrifuge model tests. The transducers were linked to the automatic data-acquisition system so that real-time records could be obtained during the tests. 1b). It should be noted that the displacement of the gauze reinforcement layer could be measured 7 6 Tension (kN/m) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 Strain (%) 15 20 Fig. After the deformation became stable at 50 g-level. Procedures In all the tests. the dry density of the soil in the middle of the embankment increased about 8%. This wave lasted 1 s. the centrifugal acceleration gradually increased to 50 g and was maintained during shaking..0 1 0 . This system could capture 48 image frames per second..1 Shear strain (%) 1 Confining pressure 100kPa 200kPa Fig. 2. Wang et al. which can be obtained by embedding white terrazzo particles laterally in the soil (Fig. and it covers the main deformation zone of the embankment. usually after about 30 min. 1. Cartesian coordinates were established with the origin as the intersection of the bottom and the axis of the embankment.

2 0. Thus. Here. It can be seen from Fig.6 t (s) 0. Fig. 7 should be noted: (1) the borders are designated as the dotted area in Fig. Thus. a. the measurement results were basically sufficient to analyze the features of displacement response. Observations In this paper. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 Table 2 Similarity criterion for centrifuge model tests. -10 0 0.4 0. the displacement histories showed that significant irreversible deformation. it increased rapidly in the early earthquake period. Seismic wave input. . The displacement during spin-up of the centrifuge was subtracted from the total displacement in the earthquake-induced displacement. acceleration.4 0. horizontal displacement.8 t (s) 1 v (mm) 1* 3* 6* Fig. The dynamic response was slightly increased if the water content of soil was decreased from 17% to 12% because the use of geotextile and change of soil moisture modified the dynamic properties of the embankment. v. a few minor displacements. A distinct landslide occurred during the earthquake in the right side of the unreinforced embankment. a.5 0 0. The amplification factors of the embankment increased if the geotextile reinforcement was used. Fig. and thus they only roughly describe the displacement distributions and point-based measurement should be used in the refined displacement analysis.5 2 0 0. Centrifugal acceleration (g) n Strain Stress Length Dynamic Time Et of geotextile acceleration (E: modulus. For example. and the rate of increase became low when the wave dropped off.5 g as a comparative shaking wave.1 0 0 0.6 0.4 0.5 1 1.3 0. whereas such a failure was avoided if the a a (g) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0.2 0.5 1 1. u.5 0. which can be identified from the concentration of contours. 6). which could be easily transformed to the prototype dimensions from the model dimension using the similarity criterion (Table 2).8 1 b a (g) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0.8 t (s) 1 u (mm) u (mm) v (mm) 0. t: thickness) 1/n n n 225 10 5 a (g) 0 -5 1 1 n except in the comparative test RC4 where the wave was scaled down with the amplitude of 6.2 0. cannot be yielded. The amplification factors of these points can be obtained by using the acceleration histories and are summarized according to different tests (Fig. and the vertical displacement increased with increasing elevation. Wang et al. 5. These factors gradually increased with increasing elevation for both reinforced and unreinforced embankments. (2) the contour lines were obtained using interpolations of measured displacement of a series of points. It should be noted that the displacement refers to the one that is relative to the container during the earthquake.7 0.2 0.6 0. respectively. The horizontal displacement exhibited a significant fluctuation in magnitude. 7 shows the contour lines of post-earthquake displacement over the geotextile-reinforced and unreinforced embankments in the primary tests. both in the horizontal and vertical directions. which reflects the irreversible deformation due to shaking.4 0. 1 3. 5 shows the seismic response of several points at the locations of the accelerometers on the axis of the reinforced embankment in the primary test.05 0 0 0.2 0 0.9 t (s) Fig.6 0. appeared from the beginning of the earthquake application. In addition.3 0. accompanied with the remarkable input shaking acceleration. two points of Fig. The irreversible deformation showed an evident dependence on the magnitude of the input earthquake wave.1 c a (g) u (mm) v (mm) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 0 -0. 7 that the horizontal displacement of the embankments increased from the middle to both free surfaces. acceleration. can be used as a representative for the further analysis of deformation behavior of the embankment.1 -0. 5 showed that the peak acceleration and displacement of the embankment both increased with increasing elevation. It can be noticed that Point 6 moved in the opposite direction of Point 1 and 3 over the entire duration of shaking.L.2 0. 1b and not the actual borders of the embankment. the post-earthquake displacement of the embankment. however. t. vertical displacement. 4. Close examination of Fig. and the vertical displacement monotonically increased during shaking (Fig.6 0 0. Seismic response of typical points of reinforced embankment in primary test. and its high-frequency response waves were filtered because the frame-rate of the captured images was limited (48 frames/s). time.8 0. t. 5).2 0. especially in the horizontal direction. time.1 0.4 0. all the measured results were presented based on the model dimension.4 0.

It can be seen that reduction of the water content of soil significantly decreased the horizontal displacement of embankments due to the modulus increase associated with the decreasing moisture content. Wang et al. by decreasing the gradient of slope. the displacement distribution of the right half of the embankment was similar with that of the left half (Fig. For simplicity of description. 7).2 Af 1. amplification factor of acceleration.5 RP RC3 (2) (1) to decrease geotextile layers -5 RC4 (3) RC2 2 RC1 (2) to increase slope inclination (3) to decrease soil moisture (4) to decrease wave amplitude 0 4 6 u max (mm) 8 10 Fig. 7. 4. However. this asymmetry was more significant in the horizontal displacement (Fig. It can be concluded that the geotextile significantly decreased the deformation and increased the stability level of the embankment. 8. Fig. Distribution of amplification factors of acceleration of different embankments. 8.4 1. the right half of the embankment was mainly used for further analysis of the geotextile-reinforced embankment because this half exhibited larger horizontal displacement than the left half and exhibited evident landslide in the unreinforced embankment. Af. the post-earthquake horizontal displacement of the reinforced embankment was also significantly smaller than that of the unreinforced one. 7). Behavior of geotextile Fig. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 -20 -20 UP (failure) -18 (1) -15 y (cm) y (cm) -16 -14 -12 -10 0 (4) -10 UP RP RC2 1 1. umax. and input earthquake wave. Moreover. and by decreasing the amplitude of earthquake wave. Fig. thus.226 L. The position of maximum horizontal displacement was located in the middle and upper parts of the embankment and was significantly affected by the geotextile layers. The earthquake-induced displacement distribution of the embankment was somewhat asymmetric on both sides. 8 shows the maximum post-earthquake horizontal displacements according to different centrifuge model tests.1 1. the position is marked only using the elevation in Fig. The maximum horizontal displacement always appeared near the surface of the embankment. .3 1. soil moisture. 6. the horizontal displacement of the embankment can be decreased by increasing the geotextile layers. Post-earthquake displacement contour lines of embankments in primary tests (unit: mm). maximum horizontal displacement. 9 shows the post-earthquake displacement distribution of four layers of geotextile in the right half of the primary reinforced Fig. In addition. Maximum post-earthquake horizontal displacement of different embankments. geotextile was used (Fig. gradient of slope. 7).

5 0 1 0. The horizontal displacement predicted using Eq.5 2 (%) 1.5 1 0. It should be noted that the curves do not reach the axis.1 0 -0. this demonstrated that the geotextile exerted tensile force with different distribution features if it was placed at different elevations of the embankment. (1) is effective to fit the displacement distribution of the geotextile. 1990). 11 summarizes the vertical distribution of the peak strains of geotextile of different tests. was found from the derivative of Eq. .6 0. 10c). Measured horizontal displacement distributions of geotextile in primary test.4 0.5s 0.L. and the increase rate became fairly small near the embankment surface.. 9. The post-earthquake displacement of a geotextile. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 227 embankment. 10. is not considered in the proposed equation.2 0 0 5 x (cm) 10 15 Fig. Fannin and Hermann. 11 that the layout of geotextile. The positions of peak strain were different on different layers of geotextile. This demonstrated that Eq. the reinforcement effect of the geotextile was significantly dependent on the deformation behavior of the embankment. (2) (Fig. The peak strain exhibited a nearly triangular distribution.2 0 0.6 0. (1). (1) was compared with the measured results (Fig.8 U (mm) 0.g. 1 0. 8). 10). 9). Fig. 2010) under static loading conditions. tensile strain of geotextile. where the horizontal displacement was fairly large over the embankment (Fig. It can be seen that the displacement increased significantly in the zone that was somewhat far from the axis. can be described using the following equation with increasing horizontal coordinate. its peak value nearly occurred at the same position for an individual layer of geotextile during shaking (Fig. they stop at a small distance from the axis because the strain of the geotextile near the central axis of the embankment.8 U (mm) 0. Wang et al.5 (c) Reinforcement layer 3 1 time 1s (residue) 0. The strain of geotextile increased during the earthquake.. In other words.6 0. x: U ¼ A þB 1 þ axb (1) where a. 7c).5 1 0. that is.3 0.2 U (mm) 0.4 0. similar to the observation of other studies (e.2 0 0.5 0 1. however. This trend was similar to that of a sand slope (Zornberg and Arriaga. however.8 (d) Reinforcement layer 4 (bottom) (d) Reinforcement layer 4 (bottom) 10 15 (%) 0. which can be concluded to be small. as follows: 3 ¼ À ÀAabxbÀ1 Á2 1 þ axb (2) The strain distribution of the four layers of geotextile can be derived using Eq. U.16s (%) (b) Reinforcement layer 2 (a) Reinforcement layer 1 (top) (b) Reinforcement layer 2 (c) Reinforcement layer 3 0. which can be determined by the least square method according to the measured displacement of the geotextile. and the maximum strain appeared in the middle part of the embankment. The peak strain of the geotextile exhibited an evident dependence on the horizontal displacement behavior of the embankment (Fig.2 0 1 0.8 U (mm) 0. the flat region near the axis of the embankment was shorter than that of the slope. The maximum strain appeared at the second layer of geotextile in the primary test. and B are the fitting parameters. 3. A. soil behavior.4 0.5 0 2. with comparison by model predictions.4 0. b. 2003) or a silty slope (Hu et al.2 0 5 x (cm) Fig. 3. U.6 0. gradient of slope and input earthquake wave had a significant effect on the behavior of the geotextile. The strains of geotextile were both small near the axis and near the surface of the embankment and exhibited a peak value at a certain distance from the axis. The strain of the geotextile. post-earthquake horizontal displacement of geotextile. It can be inferred from Fig. test fit (%) 2 (a) Reinforcement layer 1 (top) 1.1 -0. and the comparison results showed that the prediction exhibited a good fit to the measurements. Strain distribution of geotextile in primary test.

however. as follows: Fig. That is. respectively. . post-earthquake horizontal displacement. located in the restricting zone and restricted zone.6 1. the displacement of soil significantly decreased near the geotextile (Fig.2 0 0.5 1 1. This surface can be regarded as the boundary of different reinforcement effects of the geotextile. whereas the negative indicates that the geotextile pulls the soil. s ¼ E3 (3) where E is the elastic modulus of geotextile.5 5. In other words. u. namely on the outer side of the P-surface. Fig. Accordingly.5 Peak strain (%) Fig. denoted as the P-surface. 3). 12 shows the distribution of soil-geotextile friction stress in the primary test that was obtained using Eq. (4) according to the known distribution of the strain of the geotextile (Fig.4 u (mm) 0 0. and s is the tension stress of geotextile. In the restricted zone. It can be noticed that the tensile force of the geotextile should be balanced with the accumulation of soil-geotextile friction stress. The changes were different at different zones. Wang et al. 11. which also reflected different features of the soil-geotextile interaction. 13). it exhibited a significant change near the geotextile. can be used as a boundary point to distinguish different restriction states between the geotextile and soil. f ¼ RP RC1 RC2 RC4 ds d3 ¼ E dx dx (4) 2 2. It can be inferred that the restricting zone of the embankment is smaller than that of the slope because the embankment has the restricted zone on the both sides that can be balanced by each other. 12. 12). which is equivalent to the peak strain of the geotextile. It is defined that the positive friction stress indicates that the soil pulls the geotextile. Soil-geotextile interaction The tensile force of the geotextile increased linearly with increasing strain according to the tensile loading test (Fig.228 L. the zone at the inner side of the P-surface was denoted as the restricting zone where the soil restricts the geotextile. 13. This y (cm) Axis Axis P-surface Geotextile P-surface Geotextile Friction stress u (mm) -0. 12).2 Measurement line u (mm) 0 0. Distribution of soil-geotextile friction stress in right half of embankment in primary test. a surface. can be obtained using the derivative of the tension stress of the geotextile. It can be seen that the friction stress was positive near the embankment axis and became negative near the surface. and the other zone was denoted as the restricted zone where the geotextile restricts the soil (Fig. Vertical distributions of post-earthquake horizontal displacement in right half of embankment in primary test.2 0. 13 compares the distributions of post-earthquake horizontal displacement of the embankment along different vertical lines. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 0. can be obtained by connecting all the zero points on four layers of the geotextile. and there was definitely a zero point in friction distribution along the geotextile.6 1. The horizontal displacement usually increased with increasing elevation. Fig. The positions of zero points moved to the surface with decreasing elevation of the embankment (Fig. which indicated that the tensile modulus of the geotextile was constant before the rupture of the geotextile occurred. Distribution of peak strain of geotextile of different embankments.2 Restricting zone Restricted zone 0 5 10 15 x (cm) Fig. This zero point of the friction stress. thus the friction stress. f. 10).

12) showed that the soilgeotextile interaction was more significant on the inner side of the L-surface because there the normal stress was larger on the soilgeotextile interface.6 0. It can be seen that the horizontal normal strains of these elements were all negative. 7a). 16 compares the strain histories of the typical elements of the reinforced and unreinforced embankments in the primary tests. Close examinations indicated an inflection at the displacement distribution curve from which the rate of increase of displacement began to decrease. at an arbitrary plane of the element. 6.5 1 u (mm) 0. 14).2cm L-surface #4 (b) y = -16.9cm (c) y = -10. Wang et al. u. which indicates that the soilgeotextile interaction along the lower geotextile was stronger because there was more normal stress and it was farther from the surface. It can be seen that the horizontal displacement increased with increasing distance from the 0. the horizontal normal strain was selected because the geotextile mainly restricted horizontal deformation. Furthermore.4 0.4 1 0. Thus. This strain can be determined directly by a common finiteelement method with the displacement vector of the nodes being directly obtained using the image-measurement system. 14 by the dashed line.6 0.8 u (mm) 0.1 0 0 3 6 x (cm) 9 12 15 (d) y = -4. the soil played an active restriction role in the soil-geotextile interaction.2 0.. the geotextile played an active restriction role in the soil-geotextile interaction. i. 13). 5). 15. In this paper. i.e.2cm #1 0. Therefore.8 L-surface axis. a continuous surface. a 1-cm-long square element was used for strain analysis. The L-surface was located on the outer side of the P-surface and divided the restricted zone into two zones. the division of the zones can be confirmed from the observations in other comparative tests. The strain at the center was thought to be the strain of this element.6 0. the distribution of post-earthquake horizontal displacement of the reinforced embankment was examined to investigate the influence of geotextile on the embankment deformation resulting from the earthquake (Fig. 14.5 0. post-earthquake horizontal displacement. 15. was obtained by connecting these inflections using a curve.6cm Continuity Soil Soil Soil u (mm) Reinforment Restricting zone Restricted zone Dominant compression effect Dominant shear effect Fig. Fig. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 229 demonstrated a remarkable trend that the geotextile restricted the soil from deforming to the embankment surface. The displacement distributions along the vertical lines between two layers of geotextile were more notably changed near the lower geotextile than near the upper geotextile. namely on the inner side of the P-surface. which was also observed in other comparative tests. as indicated in Fig. All the strain components. The distribution of horizontal displacement of the reinforced embankment exhibited different features on different sides of the L-surface.2 0 0. 12). Fig. can be easily derived. demonstrating Axis T ypical element Strong application Weak application (a) y = -20. the two zones divided by the P-surface of the embankment exhibited significantly different features of soil-geotextile interaction. A close comparison of soil-geotextile friction distribution (Fig.3 0.e. Reinforcement mechanism It was found that significant irreversible deformation of the embankment was induced by the earthquake application (Fig. Division of embankment in primary test and reinforcement mechanism. Fig.8 P-surface Slip surface in unreinforced slope #3 #2 Geotextile u (mm) 0. . 15 outlines the L-surface and P-surface. the geotextile is usually assumed to exhibit tensile stress to mainly restrict the horizontal displacement of the surrounding soil.. as shown in Fig. Thus. In the figure. Distribution of post-earthquake horizontal displacement at different elevations in right half of embankment in primary test. On the contrary. which divided the right half of reinforced embankment into three different-featured zones. denoted as the Lsurface. which demonstrated a remarkable trend where the soil restricted the geotextile from moving to the embankment surface. Moreover.4 0.7 0. were selected to analyze their strain histories to understand the features in more details. which again confirmed the conclusions on the soil-geotextile interaction that were derived from the friction analysis (Fig. and the slope-direction shear strain was selected because the slip surface of the unreinforced slope was approximately parallel to the slope surface (Fig. the displacement of soil significantly increased near the geotextile (Fig. Several typical elements. in the restricting zone.L.

5 -2 -2. t.5 -1 (%) -1.6 t (s) 0. 15) during earthquake in primary tests. was introduced to describe that the geotextile decreases the shear deformation of the x d Typical element #4 reinforced embankment in comparison with the unreinforced one.6 0.5 0 0 -0. This strain reached a significant magnitude at about 0. 16.8 1 RP UP (%) 2 1. g.2 0.8 0.8 1 RP UP x x a Typical element #1 0. In addition. It can be concluded that a significant shear effect of geotextile occurred in the area near the slip surface compared with the unreinforced embankment. Elements #3 and #4. the shear strain increased at a smaller rate and reached a lower level far from failure if the geotextile was used.8 0.5 -2 -2.2 0 0 -0.8 1 x b Typical element #2 0. 3x. Strain history of typical elements (location indicated in Fig.4 t (s) 0.5 0 0. just across this element.5 0 0.2 0.230 L.5 -1 -1. They became nearly stable after about 0.6 (%) 0.4 s.6 0.5 -2 -2.2 0 RP UP (%) 0 -0. occurred.6 (%) 0. the horizontal dilation deformation also decreased significantly. All the strains changed rapidly in the early period of the earthquake for both the reinforced and unreinforced embankments. this change caused an evident increase in the horizontal normal strain. horizontal normal strain. The shear strain of Element #1 in the unreinforced embankment increased rapidly in the early period of the earthquake (Fig. the geotextile significantly decreased the shear deformation of the embankment in the area near the slip surface. Wang et al.3 s when the landslide. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 -1 (%) -2 -3 -4 -5 0 0.8 1 RP UP c Typical element #3 dilation in the horizontal direction. In contrast to Element #1. exhibited the feature that the geotextileinduced increase extent of compression strain seemed larger than the decrease extent of shear strain. Accordingly.4 t (s) 0.2 0. The following indexes were defined to describe the extents of the shear effect and compression effect: Fig. In other words. the concept of compression effect can be used to describe that the geotextile increases the horizontal compression deformation of the embankment.5 -1 -1.5 0 0.5 (%) (%) 1 0. shear effect.6 0. located on the inner side of the L-surface.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0. 9 post À earthquake shear strain of unreinforced slope = post À earthquake shear strain of reinforced slope post À earthquake normal strain of unreinforced slope . 16a). A concept.4 t (s) 0. time. when the input seismic wave began to weaken. : compression effect index ¼ post À earthquake normal strain of reinforced slope 8 < shear effect index ¼ (5) . However. slope-direction shear strain.

. H. Nimbalkar. Yin. Centrifuge modeling test of a geotextile-reinforced wall with a very wet clayey backfill. 907e917.. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 44 (5).... whereas Elements #3 and #4. 1991. the compression effect is transferred to this zone due to the continuity of the embankment and prevents the occurrence of landslide. Kelln. drawn on the basis of systematic observations of these tests. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 231 8 #1 6 shear effect index Dominant shear effect Dominant compression effect (3) (2) 4 #2 2 #3 0 0 #4 (4) 2 4 6 compression effect index 8 (5) Fig. (1) The soil restricts the geotextile in the restricting zone of the embankment. W. 603e617. were located on the lower side of the demarcation line. The soil restricts the geotextile in the restricting zone.J. Summary of the state-of-art in centrifuge model testing. Sugito. C. The geotextile also significantly (6) (7) decreased the earthquake-induced deformation of the embankment. B. 1990. 17 shows the relationship of the indexes of shear effect and compression effect of the elements in different positions of the embankment in Fig.J. and different factors of influence were considered.. on the outer side of the L-surface. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (7). Balkema. In: Craig. 676e686. J. The compression effect is transferred to the zone on the outer side of the L-surface due to the continuity of the embankment and prevents the occurrence of landslide in the unreinforced embankment. where the soil and geotextile. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (1). and its peak value occurred at an invariable position with a certain distance from the axis. Rotterdam. the shear effect becomes significant in this zone of the reinforced embankment... Wang et al. Adachi.. (4) The geotextile restriction becomes relatively small on the outer side of the L-surface. A probabilistic approach. A demarcation line with inclination of 45 can be used to divide the four elements into two groups. pp.. The main conclusions. T. were located on the upper side of the demarcation line. The geotextile-reinforcement mechanism of the embankments can be explained as follows (Fig. Elements #1 and #2..F. Schofield (Eds. D. Hu. H.. 15) in primary test. 12e22. Zhang. and decreasing amplitude of the earthquake wave. Y. Chen. Hermann. G. In other words.W. J. According to the different features in the distribution of horizontal displacement of the embankment. B. According to the P-surface. C. H. Chang. Relationship of indexes of shear effect and compression effect of different elements (location indicated in Fig. (5) that the larger index means more significant effect. and this failure was restricted by using geotextile.Y... R. There were zero points in the distributions of soil-geotextile friction stress.. indicating a significant compression effect. The irreversible deformation appeared from the beginning of the earthquake and was significantly dependent on the magnitude of input shaking. It can be inferred from Eq. the embankment was divided into a restricting zone and restricted zone.J. (2) The restriction is transferred to the restricted zone of the embankment through the geotextile. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (1). James.. M. thus the compression effect is significant in this zone of the reinforced embankment. and this restriction is transferred to the restricted zone through the geotextile. G. D. Sharma. S. on the inner side of which the soil-geotextile interaction is more significant.-Y. The strain magnitude of geotextile and horizontal displacement of the geotextile-reinforced embankment decreased with increasing geotextile layers. 15). Y. 2007. 15). (3) The geotextile exerts a strong restriction on the deformation of the soil on the inner side of the L-surface. though another effect was also visible (Fig. which were used to give the P-surface in the embankment. The vertical distribution of peak strain of the geotextile was also affected by these factors. played the active restriction role in the soil-geotextile interaction.. 2007CB714108) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.). respectively. The acceleration response of the embankment increased with increasing elevation. J. Rujikiatkamjorn. in which the geotextile increases the horizontal compression deformation. J. The geotextile exerts a strong restriction of the deformation of soil on the inner side of the L-surface. Vinod. Christie. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (6). the L-surface was introduced to divide the restricted zone into two sub-zones. and the amplification factors increased if the geotextile was used. References Abusharar.. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 27... Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 5.. 2010. Ko. 2010. which confirms that the friction is accordingly larger in this zone than that in the zone on the outer side of the L-surface (Fig. A simplified method for analysis of a piled embankment reinforced with geosynthetics. Remarks and conclusions A series of dynamic centrifuge model tests was conducted to analyze the behavior and reinforcement mechanism of cohesive soil embankments reinforced using geotextile during an earthquake. 2007. Klapperich. 11e18. Lee. Field assessment of the performance of a ballasted railtrack with and without geosynthetics. which demonstrated that the L-surface can be used as a boundary to distinguish whether the shear effect or compression effect was dominant. 346e359. The strain of a layer of geotextile increased during the earthquake..C. R. on the inner side of the L-surface. Fannin. J. Zheng. 50979045). S. indicating a significant shear effect whereby the geotextile decreases the shear deformation of the embankment.M. Centrifuge modeling of geotextilereinforced cohesive slopes. 403e414. 15. 2009. 12). 7. the shear effect was dominant in the zone on the outer side of the L-surface and the compression effect was dominant in the zone on the inner side of the L-surface. Fig. C.. The peak strain of geotextile exhibited a nearly triangular vertical distribution. decreasing water content of soil.T. Hung. S. however. Gallagher.. 39e52. Since the shear deformation is dominant in the landslide. Centrifuge 88.. Chen. D. Hughes.. Indraratna. Earthquake resistant design of earth walls. Performance data for a sloped reinforced soil wall. decreasing gradient of slope.L.. Genske. Acknowledgements The study is supported by National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (No. Chen.. .. Lee. Deformation of a soft estuarine deposit under a geotextile reinforced embankment. as follows: (1) A distinct sliding failure occurred during the earthquake in the right side of the unreinforced embankment. 1988. 17. C. Zhang.

. Wang et al. 2010.G. Stability of fabric reinforced cohesive soil slopes.. I. König. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (4e5). Seismic stability and permanent displacement of landfill cover systems.G. Lesniewska. 1998. S. G. J. Sandri.reinforced steep clay slopes... A comprehensive method for analyzing the effect of geotextile layers on embankment stability. Zhang. G. Ground improvement. Soils and Foundations 50 (4).G. 77e88. Zornberg. 204e220.-M. 1346e1361. Centrifuge modeling of geotextile. H. J. Goodings. Vafaeian. Matsushima. 165e171. J. 235e253. J. D. Geosynthetics International 15 (2). Performance of geosynthetic reinforced slopes at failure.. A performance summary of reinforced soil structures in the greater Los Angeles area after the Northridge earthquake. Soils and Foundations 49 (1).. D.I.. 113e122.K..R.. Y.R. New image-analysis-based displacement-measurement system for geotechnical centrifuge modeling tests. 87e96. Remedial treatment of soil structures using geosynthetic-reinforcing technology. A parametric study of the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil slopes. Tsutsumi. . Selamat.centrifuge study. Computers and Geotechnics 33 (4e5). 1998. S. F. Aschauer. Zhang. Tatsuoka. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 15 (4e6). 2009. 2008. Zhang. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 10 (2). 2001. F. 125e146. Viswanadham. Schaefer. O.. Ghaffari.K..J. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 222e232 Tolooiyan.F. 2003. A. 75e84... L. Zhang.. F... 399e405. 696e703. Zhang. Computers and Geotechnics 28. Saito. Wang. 78e95. Liang.. A. M. M.. Nail reinforcement mechanism of cohesive soil slopes under earthquake conditions. Sitar. J.. Yokoyama.. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 69. 459e469.. Zhang. A. H.. Kumar. Zhang. Wick.. Zhang. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (2). 2006.. Madabhushi. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (1). Geosynthetics International 5 (1e2). K. D.. Mitchell. G. Wang. D.. Transactions B: Applications 18 (4).232 L. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124 (8). ground treatment: developments 1987-1994.. 2007.. 2009.M. Wu. Hu.M. 603. K. 371e389. D. 1991.. W... L. R... ground reinforcement. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 33 (5). A tilt table device for testing geosynthetic interfaces in centrifuge. 97e126.. G. Centrifuge modeling of geotextile-reinforced slopes subjected to differential settlements.M. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2). D. Zhang. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2). Zhang... International Journal of Engineering..I. 31e38. Image analysis measurement of soil particle movement during a soil-structure interface test. 670e683... 1997. 2009.. Matsuo. 2010. Analyses of stability of geogrid reinforced steep slopes and retaining walls. Y.P.M. Overall slope stability of prestressed geosynthetic-reinforced embankments on soft ground. M. Mohri. Hashemolhoseini.P.V. T. S... Y. Abustan. V. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (5). G... Monotonic and cyclic modeling of interface between geotextile and gravelly soil.S. Porbaha. J.. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 34... Qhaderi. 1997. B.. 2007. Singh. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129 (1). 32e45. Arriaga. Srbulov.. 255e268. Ling. 2009. Leshchinsky.. S. 1996. J. Tension in geomembranes on landfill slopes under static and earthquake loading. Thusyanthan.1997.P. Shaking table tests and analyses of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. Zornberg.. Sawicki. Large-scale monotonic and cyclic tests of interface between geotextile and gravelly soil.. N. 248e259. M.. Ferstl. 2005. Shukla. J. F. 2008. Measurement 42 (1). H. Strain distribution within geosynthetic-reinforced slopes. N.. Tateyama. R.