Geotextiles and Geomembranes 12 (1993) 133-159

Pull-Out Resistance of Geogrid Reinforcements

Khalid Farrag
Geosynthetic Engineering Research Laboratory (GERL), Louisiana Transportation
Research Center (LTRC), Gourier Road, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA
Yal c i n B. Acar*
Civil Engineering Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70803, USA
&
Il an Juran
Department of Civil Engineering, Polytechnic University, 333 Jay Street, Brooklyn,
New York, New York 11201, USA
(Received 30 September 1991: accepted 25 November 1991)
ABS TRACT
Testing equipment, specimen preparation and testing procedures are
presented f or load-controlled and displacement-rate-controlled pull-out tests
f or geosynthetic reinforcements in granular soils. The influence of the test type,
confining pressure, soil density, boundary conditions, and geotextile
characteristics on pull-out load-displacement response of selected geogrids
embedded in sand are evaluated. Implications f or testing procedure and
analysis are discussed.
I NT RODUCT I ON
A wi de var i et y o f geot ext i l es a n d geogr i ds ar e n o w a va i l a bl e f or ci vi l
e n g i n e e r i n g a p p l i c a t i o n s ( Bo n a p a r t e et al. , 1987; Koer ner , 1990). I n
*To whom correspondence should be addressed.
133
GeotextUes and Geomembranes 0266--1144/93/$06.00 1993 Elsevier Science Publishers
Ltd. England. Printed in Great Britain
134 Khalid Farrag. Yalcin B. Acar, l l an Juran
selecting a specific geotextile or geogrid for reinforcement of embank-
ments and slopes, the following performance aspects need to be assessed:
(i) st ress-st rai n-st rai n rate behavior of the confined reinforcement-
soil composite system,
(ii) pull-out performance and the associated load transfer mechanism.
A st andard testing procedure for confined properties ofgeosynthetics
does not yet exist. The large number of factors that affect the interface
properties of the confined reinforcement raise major difficulties in
providing comparabl e test results. There is a wide scatter in the available
pull-out test results. These differences in results are due to the use of
different types of pull-out devices, the associated boundary effects,
testing procedures and soil placement and compaction schemes (Juran
e t a l . , 1988). The increasing use of geosynthetics in soil reinforcement
prompts the need to develop and standardize methods in evaluating the
in-soil mechani cal characteristics and interface properties of these
materials. It becomes necessary to design adequate testing equipment,
establish reliable testing procedures, and develop appropriate inter-
pretation schemes.
This paper presents the pull-out testing program implemented at the
Geosynthetic Engineering Research Laboratory (GERL), a laboratory of
Louisiana Transport at i on Research Center (LTRC) and Civil Engineer-
ing Depart ment of Louisiana State University, to develop reliable testing
procedures and interpretation schemes in evaluation of the short-term
and long-term pull-out performance ofgeosynthetic reinforcements. The
fundament al aspects of pull-out testing equi pment and procedure are
reviewed. A pull-out box that incorporates schemes which overcome
most of the current limitations is presented. The factors that affect the
measured interaction properties are evaluated by performance evaluation
tests. Implications for engineering analysis are discussed.
FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF PULL-OUT TESTING
The shear stress-strain relationship developed along the soil-reinforce-
ment interface is commonl y tested in a direct shear box and/ or a pull-out
box. In the direct shear box, tests are usually conducted in accordance
with the conventional procedure used in investigating interface properties
(Acar e t a l . , 1982). Commonl y, a soil sample resting on a geotextile is
sheared al ong the interface and the shear force-displacement behavi or is
recorded. In the pull-out box, a geotextile confined in soil is pulled out
and often the pull-out load and the front displacement are recorded. In
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 135
bot h tests, results are oft en expressed in t erms of a friction ratio, t an 6/ t an
~, (also called t he efficiency factor) where 6 is t he soi l -rei nforcement
i nt erface friction angl e a nd O is t he soil friction angle. Effi ci ency factors
r angi ng from 0.6 to 1.0 for geotextiles a nd val ues l arger t han one for
geogrids are report ed ( Jur an et a l . , 1988; Koerner, 1990).
Fi gure 1 present s a compar i s on of efficiency factors obt ai ned from
tests conduct ed usi ng pul l -out a nd direct s hear testing equi pment . The
frictional resi st ances report ed for di fferent types of i ncl usi ons in dense
sands are f ound to be great er in pul l -out tests t han t hose obt ai ned in
direct s hear tests (Jewell, 1979; Schl osser & Gui l l oux, 1979). I ngol d a nd
Te mpl e ma n (1979) f ound compar abl e val ues in bot h tests for geogrids
tested under low conf i ni ng pressures. However, under hi gher nor mal
stresses, hi gher s hear strength val ues were obt ai ned i n pul l -out tests.
Koer ner (1986) report ed hi gher s hear resi st ance for geogrids in pul l -out
tests while, under hi gher conf i ni ng pressures, direct s hear tests gave
hi gher shear resistance. Rowe e t a l . (1985) report ed t hat bot h tests give
appr oxi mat el y equal val ues of s hear resi st ance for geotextiles tested in
dense gr anul ar fill while for geogrids in a loose fill, pul l -out tests
r ender ed si gni fi cant l y l ower values.
Di rect s hear a nd pul l -out tests are associ at ed with di fferent testing
procedures, l oadi ng paths, failure mechani sms, and boundar y conditions.
Consequent l y, the i nt erface frictional par amet er s obt ai ned from bot h
3.5
~ Direct Pull-out Reference Rein fon:emem Soil
Shear Type Type
3.0 t'-'O------'" + lngot,J(l~83) TemmrSX-~ ~ S ~
1
---4~--- A Colins(1980) Nonwovm Gr ovel (cnu4t~l)
I---O--. + xo~,,~ 09s6) T ~ SX-2 mm s ~
2.s ~ , | . . . . . . . . x . . . . .9s6) ~z-100 D~S, ~
2.0 ~ Row,: (1985) T e n s a r $R-2 Loose sand
~ 1.5
1.0
A . . . . . . . . L ~ . . . . . . . A C]
o.sl ~
0.0 ~
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
NORMAL STRESS (kN/m2)
Fi g. I . Co mp a r i s o n o f t he e f f i c i e nc y f act or s o b t a i n e d f or s o i l - g e o s y n t h e t i c s ys t ems i n
di r ect s h e a r a n d p u l l - o u t boxes .
136 Khalid Farrag, Yalcin B. Acar, llan Juran
tests can vary and often provide conflicting results. The reasons for the
reported differences between the pull-out and direct-shear test results
can be categorized as:
(1) Rest rai ned dilatancy: Cohesionless soils will dilate at low to
medi um confi ni ng pressures and at high densities. If this dilatancy
is restrained in testing, the confi ni ng pressure al ong the interface
will increase until a state is reached where failure can be achieved
without any volume change (critical state). The amount of this
restraint and the magnitude of the increase in confi nement will
depend upon the type and geometry of the imposed boundary
conditions. These distances are often selected arbitrarily in the
boxes used. Furthermore, the pull-out boxes are often designed
with fixed boundari es while displacements are allowed in the top
platten in the direct shear box. Fixed boundari es may promote
restrained di l at ancy and increased confinement. Therefore, even
when the initial states are identical, different stress-deformation
behavi or will be developed due to confi nement induced by
boundary conditions.
(2) Fai l ure and interaction mechani sm: The interaction mechani sm is
different in direct shear and pull-out. In direct shear tests, when the
box di mensi on is large, the mobilized shear strain is postulated to
be uni forml y distributed al ong the soil-geosynthetic interface.
While in the pull-out tests, mobilized strain is a combi nat i on of the
interface shear strain and reinforcement extension. This coupled
mechani sm results in a non-uniform shear strain-stress distribution
along the reinforcement.
A realistic experimental model of pull-out behavi or ofgeosynthetics in
the field shoul d incorporate extensibility. Pull-out boxes are more
appropriate when extensibility is to be incorporated. A standard design
for pull-out testing devices does not yet exist. Therefore, box di mensi ons
and testing procedures differ from one box to the other. The di mensi ons
of the box are usually selected as large as technically possible with the
ant i ci pat i on that boundary effects will be minimized. An evaluation of
most of the available equi pment and testing parameters demonstrates
that the differences in testing equi pment and procedures make
comparisons of available test results extremely difficult (Juran et al.,
1988; Farrag, 1990). The following is a list of desirable features in pull-out
testing procedure and equipment:
(1) The pull-out tests reported are often conducted at a controlled
displacement rate. Few pull-out tests are reported under load-
PuU-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 13 7
controlled mode (e.g., Tzong & Cheng-Kuang, 1987). Pull-out
testing equi pment should have the capability to provide load-
controlled tests to facilitate investigation of time-dependent,
in-soil creep behavior.
( 2 ) In displacement-rate controlled tests, a range of pull-out rates are
reported varying from 0.1 ram/ rai n to 20 mm/ mi n. Myles (1982)
studied the frictional resistance of the geotextile interface under
different strain rates (10-75 mm/ mi n) in a direct shear box and
showed t hat results had little sensitivity to this range of displace-
ment rates. In wide strip tests, Rowe and Ho (1986) showed that the
geogrid tension strength varies with the applied rate of strain. It is
necessary to establish the effect of pull-out displacement-rate on
test results in different types of soils.
( 3 ) The interaction between the soil and the side walls of the pull-out
box can affect test results. Soil confi nement is usually applied by
means of flexible air-bags to insure uniform distribution of
normal stress al ong a pl ane (Christopher, 1976; Palmeira &
Milligan, 1989; Ingold, 1983). The applied confining stress is
partially carried out by the side wall friction causing a reduction in
the normal pressure applied at the reinforcement level. Some
investigators inserted lubricated membranes along the walls in an
attempt to provide a low friction boundary (Jewell, 1980).
Alternatively, the specimen width/box width ratio may be chosen
so as to minimize the effect of friction by side-walls.
(4) The interaction between the reinforcement-soil system and the
rigid front wall can also influence test results. As the reinforcement
is pulled out of the box, the lateral earth pressure developed on the
front face can result in an increase in the pull-out resistance.
Palmeira and Milligan (1989) used a front wall with different
degrees of roughness to investigate the effect of friction on the front
wall on pull-out test results. Chri st opher (1976) incorporated
sleeves around the pull-out slot to transfer the poi nt of appl i cat i on
of the pull-out load far behi nd the rigid front wall. Ot her
investigators (Williams & Houl i han, 1987) used flexible front
faces to mi ni mi ze the rigid front wall effect. The front wall
interaction should be mi ni mi zed in a pull-out box.
(5) The thicknesses of the soil above and below the reinforcement
(referred as the soil thickness), differ according to the available
clear height of the box. If soil thickness is small, the interaction
between the soil-reinforcement system and the boundaries will
significantly influence the shear resistance along the interface.
Brand and Duffy (1987) studied the effect of soil thickness on pull-
138 Khal i d Farrag, Yalein B. Acar, Ilan Juran
out resistance of a geogrid in clays. Thei r results demonstrate that
as the soil thickness increases, pull-out resistance decreases until a
mi ni mum pull-out load is obtained. It is essential to decide upon
the soil thickness in conducting a standard pull-out test.
(6) Different specimen preparation and compaction procedures are
utilized to insure uniform soil density. Soil compaction is carried
out by means of an electric j ack hammer (Johnston, 1985),
standard proctor hammer (Saxena & Budiman, 1985), hand
t ampi ng devices (Elias, 1979) and by mechanical tamping
(Anderson & Neilsen, 1985). A hopper with flexible tube is also
used to insure uniform soil placement (Palmeira & Milligan,
1989; Jewell, 1980). Different specimen preparation procedures
will result in differences in fabric leading to significantly different
stress-deformation behavior. It then becomes essential to
standardize specimen preparation procedures in commercial
testing of confined behavi or of geosynthetic reinforcements.
(7) Several investigators (Christopher, 1976; Koerner, 1986; Brand
& Duffy, 1987) clamped the reinforcement outside the box. This
technique may result in an unconfi ned front portion of the
reinforcement. Consequently, the effective interface area will vary
and confi ned/ unconfi ned properties of the geosynthetic will
couple during the pull-out test.
(8) The existing pull-out testing equi pment are often instrumented to
moni t or only the displacement and the pull-out resistance at the
front face. For extensible reinforcements such as geogrids and
geotextiles, it is essential to moni t or the displacements along the
inclusion in order to interpret the load transfer mechanism and
estimate the pull-out resistance in the field.
The measured pull-out resistance is influenced by factors which
include the details of testing equi pment and procedures discussed above,
and also the following compositional and environmental variables
influencing the behavior of the composite system:
(i) the compositional characteristics of the geosynthetic reinforce-
ment such as its type, geometry and configuration leading to
different extensibility and load-strain-strain rate behavior,
(ii) compositional characteristics of the reinforced soil such as its
grain size distribution, and void ratio,
(iii) environmental variables defining the initial state of the composite
system such as the overburden pressure and the nature of the
imposed deformation (load controlled or displacement rate
controlled).
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 139
Two pull-out boxes which permit an evaluation of different factors
influencing pull-out response are designed and constructed. A testing
program is i mpl ement ed in performance evaluation of the boxes.
TESTI NG PROGRAM
The pri mary objective of the performance evaluation study was to assess
the sensitivity of test results obt ai ned in the designed equi pment to the
changes in the fundament al testing parameters (geogrid type, specimen
width, sleeve length, soil thickness, displacement rate, soil density and
confi ni ng pressure) and to establish a data base for development of
reliable testing and interpretation procedures. Table 1 presents the
i mpl ement ed testing program.
Equipment
A schematic diagram of the box and associated i nst rument at i on are
presented in Fig. 2. Figure 3 presents a view of the pull-out box and the
sand hopper system. The different component s and characteristics of the
box are described below:
(i) The i nner di mensi ons of the pull-out box are 1-52 m (60 in)
long, 0-90 m (36 in) wide and 0.76 m (30 in) high. The box is
constructed in modul ar units to allow changes in box di mensi ons
and front wall openi ng size. A sleeve is used at the facing to
transfer the interface pull-out load behi nd the rigid front wall. An
air bag is used at the top to provide a uni forml y distributed
vertical pressure.
(ii) Pull-out load is applied by a hydraulic loading system through
cl ampi ng plates that extend inside the sleeve. This arrangement
ascertains that the geosynthetic specimen remains confined
t hroughout the test. The l oadi ng system can appl y either a
const ant pull-out rate or a constant pull-out load. Load
controlled mode is used to evaluate the creep behavior.
(iii) The front displacements, the pull-out rate and the pull-out load
are acqui red/ moni t ored at the cl ampi ng plates by means of a
LVDT, velocity transducer and a load cel, respectively.
Displacements al ong the reinforcement are measured by tell-tale
wires connected to LVDTs. Two earth pressure cells are placed on
the front wall.
140 Khalid Farrag, Yalein R Aear, llan Juran
Ta b l e I
Testing Program and Testing Parameters
Purpose ~ Geogrid Dimension Confining Unit Displacement
type L/ W pressure weight rate, 6
(m) (kN/m 2) (kN/m 3) (mm/min)
Repeatability
Specimen
width
Tensar SR2 1.00/0.30 48-2 16.5
Conwed i.00/0-30
9027
Tensar SR2 1.00/0-30 48.2 16.7
1.00/1~45
i.00/0.60
1-00/0-75
!.00/0-30 48.2 16.4 Sleeve length Tensar SR2
(0, 20 and 30 cm)
Soil thickness Tensar SR2
(20, 40, 60 and
70 cm)
Displacement Tensar SR2
rate
6.0
4.0
20.0
1.00/0.30 48.2 16.4 6-0
1.00/ff30 48.2 16.4
Soil density Tensar SR2 1.00/0.30 48.2 15.7
16.4
16.7
17-0
Confining Tensar SR2 1.00/1~ 30 34-0 16.5
pressure 48.2 16.5
69-0 16.5
Conwed 1.00/0.30 48-2 16.7
9027 96.0 16.7
140-0 16.7
Effect of Conwed 1.00/0-30 48.2 16.7
transverse 9027
fibs
4-0
6.0
10-0
20-0
4-0
6-0
6-0
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
~Unless otherwise noted, all tests are conducted at a displacement rate of 6 mm/min, at a
soil thickness of 60 cm (30 cm top and 30 cm bottom) and a sleeve length of 30 cm.
( i v) An e l e v a t e d s a n d h o p p e r wi t h v a c u u m e x t r a c t i o n is u s e d t o
f a c i l i t a t e s a n d p l a c e me n t a n d r e mo v a l f r o m t h e box.
( v) A d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n s y s t e m mo n i t o r s t h e i n p u t p a r a me t e r s a n d
r e c o r d s t h e r e s p o n s e p a r a me t e r s (e. g. d i s p l a c e me n t r at e, a p p l i e d
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 141
I
30.5 l
m l
30.5 l
c m ~
cm
[ AI ~
i V l T M
5cm 153 cm 5 cm
Fig. 2. A s c h e ma t i c d i a g r a m o f t h e p u l l - o u t box.
Fi g. 3. A v i e w o f t h e b o x a n d t h e s a n d l o a d i n g s ys t em.
~.~2 Khahd Farrag, Yalcin B. Acar, llan Juran
100
80
~ - 20
0
.01
q
t
o n . . . . . . I ~ 1 . . . . . . I . . . . . . .
.1 1 10
GRAIN SIZE (nun)
Fig. 4. Grai n size distribution of the sand used in the study.
vertical pressure, pul l -out l oad, soil pressure at t he walls, and
di spl acement s at t he front and at l ocat i ons al ong t he rei nforce-
ment).
Mat eri al s
A l ocal l y avai l abl e commer ci al bl ast i ng sand is used. The grai n size
di st ri but i on of' this s and is pr esent ed i n Fig. 4. Thi s sand is poor l y gr aded
9,it h a n eftective di amet er , Duo of 0-26 mm a nd ma xi mum and mi n i mu m
densi t i es of l 7.4 kN/ m 3 ( 110-9 pcf) and 15.6 kN/ m 3 (99.0 pc0, respectively.
l vt~ di fferent types of geogrids, Tensar SR2 and Conwed-9027, are
s cl eoed in per l or mance assessment eval uat i on tests. Geogr i d speci mens
ol 0. t 5 rt~, 0~30 m, 0.45 m and 0.75 m i n wi dt h and 0.90 m i n l engt h are
~c'~(t'd i n ~he box.
"~ e s t pr oc e dur e
i he sand i~ pour ed i nt o t he pul l -out box from t he el evat ed hopper
~hrough a flexible outlet. The el evat ed hopper moves al ong t he box to
: t*~am a relatively uni f or m s and fill. The s and is pl aced i n four layers of
~ cm ~0 m) each, l evel ed and t hen compact ed to t he desi red relative
~s i v, , Compact i on effort is i mpar t ed manual l y usi ng a vi brat i ng
' c~, , , hammer . After compact i on, t he densi t y is meas ur ed with a
. ~.~.. clc~s4ty gauge. When t he sleeve el evat i on is reached, t he
~:~, , w~ ~ pl aced on the compact ed bot t om l ayer of sand. Geogr i d
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 143
specimens are bolted to the cl ampi ng plates which are then inserted
through sleeves of 30 cm (1 ft) length on the front wall. The inextensible
tell-tale wires used for displacement measurement along the reinforce-
ment are connected to the five LVDTs placed on a rear end table. The
wires are encased in a polyethylene tube placed along the reinforcement.
Subsequently the top layer of sand is placed in layers of 15 cm and
compacted.
A st andard test is defined as a test conducted on a Tensar SR2 geogrid
of 30 cm (1 ft) width and 92 cm (3 ft) length at a confi ni ng pressure of
48.2 kN/ m 2 (7 psi), sand density of 16.5 kN/ m 3 (105 pcf), soil thickness of
61 cm [30 cm placed on the top hal f and 30 cm placed on the bottom
halt], a displacement-rate of 6 mm/ mi n, and a sleeve length of 30 cm
(1 ft).
ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS
Repeatability of tests and load transfer mechanism
The repeatability of the pull-out response in standard tests is demon-
strated in Fig. 5a while the repeatability of displacements obt ai ned at the
front and rear ends of the reinforcement are displayed in Fig. 5b.
Geosynthetics are extensible reinforcements. Consequently, methods
developed in evaluating the shear resistance of rigid reinforcements
cannot be applied in interpreting pull-out test results for geosynthetics.
The displacement distribution al ong the geogrid is indispensable in
interpretation of test results and in evaluation of pull-out resistance. The
interface shear distribution al ong the confined geogrid is established by
nodal -di spl acement measurements. The locations of the nodes for
displacement measurement are displayed in Fig. 6. The displacement
distribution al ong the geogrid is measured at different pull-out load
levels. Figure 7 presents the development of displacements along the
reinforcement with pull-out load. The progressive movement of the
geogrid nodes duri ng testing is demonstrated.
The displacements recorded al ong the geogrids demonstrate the non-
linearity in the displacement distribution along the geogrid due to
coupl i ng of the shear strain at the interface with material elongation
resulting in a hi gher extension at the front part. It is necessary to
i mpl ement a load-transfer procedure to determine the confined
extension properties and interface shear stress-strain behavior. Such a
procedure is presented by Juran et al. (1990).
144 Khalid Farrag, Yalcin B. Acar, / / an J uran
8O
E 6 0
Z
a
I
0 4 0
. J
I--
0
!
. J
"J 2 0
=)
n
GEOGRI D: TENSAR SR2
O'n = 4 8 k N/ m 2 { 7 p s i )
Vn = 1 6 . 5 k N/ m 3 { 1 0 5 p c f )
= 6 r am/ r ai n
0 I I I I I I
20 4 0 6 0 80 I 0 0 120 140
F RONT DI S P L A CE ME NT ( r a m}
( a )
140
E
120
I -
Z
"~ I 0 0
I.iJ
U
. ~ 8 0
. J
n
or)
6 0
. J
. ~ 4 0
E3
0
Z
20
0
GEOGRID: TENSAR SR2
o- n = 4 8 k N/ m2 { 7 p s i )
)'n = 16.5 k N/ m 5 ( 105pc f )
2 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 0 8 0 0 I 0 0 0 1200
T I ME ( s e c )
( b )
Fi g. 5. Re p e a t a b i l i t y o f tests. ( a ) P u l l - o u t l o a d v e r s u s f r o n t d i s p l a c e me n t , ( b) d i s p l a c e -
m e n t s d i s t r i b u t i o n a l o n g t h e r e i n f o r c e me n t .
Geogrid speci men width
The de ve l opme nt o f soi l - wal l fri cti on al ong the box si de wal l s can
i nf l ue nc e t he test results. The appl i e d c o nf i ni ng pressure c an be parti al l y
c ar de d by the fri cti on al ong the si de walls. As a result, the c o nf i ni ng
pressure appl i e d o n the s pe c i me n wi l l be reduced. Thi s reduct i on wi l l be
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements
Disolocement Meosurement Locotions
145
Fig. 6. Displacement measurement locations along a geogrid.
o
~- o
tt.I , ~
U 0
= =
~ , ~ GEOGRID: TENSAR SR2
o" n = 4 8 k N / m 2 ( 7ps i )
~C~\ ~ , , ~ - - P e o k L o o d
I 2 3 4
GE OGRI D N OD E S
F i g . 7. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s p l a c e m e n t s a l o n g t h e g e o g r i d .
mor e pr e domi na nt near t he si de walls. Speci men wi dt h/ box wi dt h rat i o
s houl d be so sel ect ed as to keep t he r ei nf or cement a nd t he si de wal l at a
di st ance whi ch will mi ni mi z e t hi s effect. I n or der to eval uat e t he effect of
t he si de fri ct i on i n t he desi gned box, (a) l oad cells are pl aced at t he cent er
a n d cl ose to t he wal l of t he box at geogr i d level a nd t he vert i cal r esponse
to vert i cal pr essur e is r ecor ded, a nd (b) pul l - out tests are conduct ed usi ng
di fferent s peci men wi dt hs.
Fi gur e 8a demons t r at es t hat l ower cell pr essur es are r ecor ded cl ose to
t he wal l t han at t he cent er. Fi gur e 8(b) shows t he results of tests on Tens ar
geogr i d s peci mens of di fferent wi dt hs. These tests were conduct ed unde r
a conf i ni ng pr essur e of 48-2 k N/ m 2 (7 psi), soil densi t y of 16.7 k N/ m 3
(106 pcf) a n d pul l - out rat e of 4 mm/ mi n. A si gni f i cant r educt i on i n t he
pul l - out r esi st ance is not ed whe n s peci men wi dt h is i ncr eas ed to 76 cm
(2.5 ft). Tests c onduc t e d wi t h geogr i d s peci mens of 30 cm to 61 cm (1 ft to
146 Khal i d Farrag, Yalcin B. Acar, l l an Juran
@
i
i
1.10
1.00
0 . 9 0
0.80
~:- 3 4 kPa
4 8 k P a
[ ] 7 0 k P a
g
B O X WI D T H = 2 L = 0 . 9 0 m
i i i t t i t i i = i J i
0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 7
NORMALIZED DISTANCE FROM SIDE WALL, x/L
( a )
8O
"E 6 0 S p e c i me n s wi t h 0 . 5 0 , 0 . 4 5 8~ 6 0 m Wi d t h ~
/ / I
z
~. ~- - - ~- - ' - ~- - - - ~
o
..J 40
t - 0 . 7 5 m W i d t h
?
_J
J
2 0
o. GEOGRI D: TENSAR SR2
o- n = 4 8 k N / m 2 ( T p s i )
~n = 16.7 k N/ m3 ( 1 0 6 p c f )
= 4 mm/ mi n
I I I
0 20 40 6O 80
F RONT DI S P L A CE ME NT ( r a m)
( b )
Fig. 8. (a) The change in vertical pressure ratio at the geogrid level along the width of the
box. (hi The effect of geogrid specimen width on the pull-out response.
2 fl) rendered results within the variability of tests. It is concl uded that a
dJsta nee of at least 15.0 cm is left between the speci men edge and the box
wall (i.e. a maxi mum speci men width 2 ft for the designed box) to
mi ni mi ze the side wall effect on test results.
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcement,~ 147
Sleeve length
The i nt er act i on bet ween t he soi l -i ncl usi on system and t he rigid front
wall of t he pul l -out box can affect t he meas ur ed pul l -out resistance. As
t he r ei nf or cement is pul l ed out of t he box, lateral eart h pressure devel ops
agai nst t he ri gi d front face and results i n an appar ent i ncrease i n t he
geogri d pul l -out resistance. The rigid boundar y effect can be r educed by
means of a sleeve i ncor por at ed ar ound t he slot on t he front wall. Sleeves
t ransfer t he poi nt of appl i cat i on of t he pul l -out l oad i nsi de t he soil mass
far beyond t he ri gi d front wall.
The effect of sleeve l engt h is i nvest i gat ed by tests conduct ed with no
sleeve at t he front face, and sleeve l engt hs of 20 cm (8 in) and 30.5 cm
(12 in). Fi gure 9a shows t he effect of sleeve l engt h on t he peak pul l -out
l oad. I n t hese tests, t he lateral pressures devel oped on t he faci ng were
also meas ur ed usi ng t he two eart h pressure cells fixed on t he rigid front
wall of t he box. The r el at i onshi p bet ween t he sleeve l engt h and t he lateral
pressure devel oped on t he front wall is pr esent ed in Fig. 9b. Cell 01 is
l ocat ed hi gher t han Cell 02 (see Fig. 2). Bot h cells di spl ay a decr easi ng
lateral eart h pressure as t he sleeve l engt h is i ncreased. The results from
bot h cells demonst r at e t hat t he i ncrease in t he sleeve l engt h l eads to a
r educt i on i n t he eart h pressure devel oped at t he front rigid wail:
consequent l y, a r educt i on i n t he pul l -out resistance. The effecl of t he
rigid front wall is mi n i mu m when a sleeve l engt h of at least 30 cm is used.
It is deci ded to use a sleeve l engt h of 30 cm in st andar d pul l -out tesling.
Soil thickness
The ri gi d boundar i es above and bel ow t he r ei nf or cement can affect t he
i nt er act i on me c ha ni s m bet ween t he soil and t he geogrid. These
boundar i es can l ead to i ncreases i n t he nor mal stresses in t he vicinity of
t he geogri d surface, speci fi cal l y when t he soil t hi ckness is smal l and t he
soil di l at ancy is rest rai ned. Moreover, friction can devel op bet ween t he
soil and t he bot t om ri gi d boundar y. Thi s friction will also updat e t he
mobi l i zed soi l -geogri d shear stress at t he interface.
Tests are per f or med with di fferent t hi ckness of top and bot t om soil.
Top and bot t om soil t hi cknesses of 10 cm, 30 cm and 40 cm are used. In
one test, a top soil t hi ckness of 30 cm and bot t om soil t hi ckness of 40 cm
(i.e. a total soil t hi ckness of 70 cm) is also used i n an at t empt to i nvest i gat e
t he i nf l uence of di fferent soil t hi cknesses. Tests are conduct ed with t he
Tens ar geogri d under a conf i ni ng stress of 48.2 kN/ m 2 ('7 psi) and an
average soil densi t y of 16.4 kN/ m 3 (104 pcf). The effect of soil thickness,
on t he pul l - out r esponse of t he geogri d is shown in Fig. 10. The f ol l owi , :
observat i ons are made:
148 Khalid Farrag, Yalcin B. Acar, flan Juran
I 0 0
" ~ 8O
Z
o 6 0
<~
o
J
I -
: ~ 4 0
o
i
,,-I
J
n 2 0
0
GEOGRI D: T ENSAR SR2
cr n = 4 8 k N/ m 2 ( 7 p s i )
X n 16.4 k N/ m 3 ( 1 0 4 p c f )
= 2 0 mm/ r a i n
- ~ " ~ " " - ' ' - - - ~ N o -s le e v e
f --
~
m { 8 i n l
S le e v e 3 0 c m { 1 2 i n )
1 I I
50 I00 150
F RONT DI S P L A CE ME NT ( mm)
(a)
2 0 0
120 , , ,
i " X G E O G R I D : T E N S A R $ R 2
100| ~ Confining P ressure: 4 8 . 2 kN Im 2
- - - . Ear t h pressure a t te s t c o m p le ~ n
l u 'CELL01 /
~m 4 0 " l - " J C E L L 0 2
f '
2 0 t , I , I , g
0 10 20 30
S LEEVE L E NGT H (cm)
(b)
Fig. 9. Th e ef f ect o f s l eeve l e ngt h o n t he pul l - out r es pons e. (a) Pul l - out l oad; (19) l at er al
ear t h pr e s s ur e o n t he f r ont wal l .
(a) The decrease i n soil t hi ckness results i n an appar ent i ncrease i n
t he pul l -out st rengt h of t he geogrid.
(b) The i ncrease i n t he soil t hi ckness above t he geogri d f r om 30 cm to
40 cm does not have any si gni fi cant effect on t he pul l -out
resi st ance of t he geogrid.
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 149
z
J
0
. J
k-
0
.5
._1
a.
80
/ r . 2O c m
601- / " . . . - - ~- - ~ / T = 40era
/ I i ~'----../....
/ / ' / / f " ~ ' .

I # ( / / , . 7 . . . . . .
1 1 t 7
20 [ GEOGRI D: TE_NSAR SR2
I ~ . 4.8 kNlm ~ 17p$i) .
I Y.n " 16,4 kN/mi (104pcf)
0 8 = 6ram/rain
50 IO0 150 200
FRONT DI SPLACEMENT ( r am)
Fig. 10. The effect of soil t hi ckness on pul l -out response.
These results suggest that a soil thickness of at least 30 cm (1 fi) above
and below the reinforcement (a total of 2 ft soil thickness) is necessary in
uniform sands in order to eliminate the effect of the boundary and
confi nement effects on the pull-out response.
Displacement rate
ASTM D4595-86 recommends a st andard rate of strain of 10 + 3% per
mi n for wide strip method of test. However, this rate is established by
experience obt ai ned in unconfi ned tests. In confined tests, reinforcement
experiences its peak pull-out strength at much lower levels of strain.
Therefore, there is a need to establish the displacement-rate for confined
tests.
Tests are conducted to investigate the effect of displacement-rate on
pull-out response using the Tensar geogrid. Figure 11 shows the pull-out
response of the geogrid under four different pull-out displacement-rates
(2 mm/ mi n, 6 mm/ mi n, 10 mm/ mi n, and 20 mm/ mi n). An order of
magni t ude increase in the displacement-rate from 2 mm/ mi n to 20 mm/
mi n results in a reduction of 25% in the peak pull-out resistance. It is
noted that hi gher displacement rates mobilize lower strains along the
reinforcement. Pull-out l oad will mobilize both the interface shear along
the geosynthetic-soil interface and the passive resistance along the
transverse ribs. Lower strains al ong the reinforcement i mpl y a hi gher
cont ri but i on from the interface friction. Passive resistance al ong the
transverse ribs will lead to hi gher pull-out resistance and mobilize hi gher
strains al ong the reinforcement.
The test results with this specific type of soil and the Tensar geogrid
150 Khal i d Farrag, Yalcin B. Acar. 11an Juran
60
i
40
<
3 0
0
TENSAR SR2
Conf i ni ng Pr essur e: 48.2 kN/ m2
Soi l D~Mty: 16.4 kN/ m3
m l * I * I , I i
5 10 15 20 25
DISPLACEMENT RATE (ram/rain)
(a)
1. 0l
0. 8
0. 4
0.2
0. 0
0
. . . . . ~ ' ~ ma ~ s ~ ' "
Displacements correspond
I 20 mm(m!n ~
10 ram/rain - -
6 ram/rain
i , I i i
1 2 3 4 5 6
(b)
Fig. II. The effect of displacement rate on the pull-out response. (a) Pull-out load:
(b) displacements along the reinforcement.
indicate that displacement rates of less than 6 mm/ mi n influence test
results to a lesser degree. Displacement rates of less than 6 mm/ mi n are
recommended in standard pull-out testing of geotextiles in uniform
sands.
Pul l -out resistance o f geogrid reinforcements 151
Soi l density
The frictional resistance al ong the inclusion is hi ghl y influenced by soil
density. Dense soils, under moderate confi ni ng pressures, tend to dilate
when shear stresses are mobilized al ong the reinforcement interface. The
soil surroundi ng the soil-reinforcement interface develops a condition of
restrained di l at ancy as the reinforcement is pulled out. The magnitude of
this restraint depends upon the type of test (displacement controlled or
stress controlled), soil density, soil thickness and confi ni ng stress. When
soil dilation is restrained, the confi ni ng stress at the interface increases
and results in an apparent increase in the pull-out resistance.
The effect of the relative soil density on the pull-out response are
evaluated by tests conducted with soil compacted at different densities
(15-7 kN/ m 3, 16-4 kN/ m 3 and 16.7 kN/ m 3) and under identical confi ni ng
pressures of 48.2 kN/ m 2. Figure 12 shows the effect of soil density on
Tensar geogrid. An increase in the soil density results in an increase in
the peak pull-out resistance and significantly higher interface stiffness
moduli are obtained. Soil compaction mobilizes the lateral earth
pressure resistance on the geogrid and increases the frictional resistance
mobilized at the interface. The restraint on geogrid movement and
slippage increases the interface modulus and peak pull-out resistance.
The increase in density concentrates the strains to the point of load
application on the front face and consequently, the mode of failure can
be due to breakage of the reinforcement rather t han slippage along the
reinforcement.
Confining pressure
The effect of confi ni ng pressure on the frictional resistance of the
reinforcement has been demonstrated by several investigators (McGown
e t a l . , 1982; Juran & Chen, 1989). For geogrid reinforcements, confined
extension duri ng pull-out testing is restrained by the passive resistance of
the soil and particles interlocking within transversal geogrid elements.
The confined extension results in an apparent increase in the tensile
strength and stiffness modulus.
Figure 13 shows the effect of the confi ni ng pressure on the pull-out
response for Tensar geogrid measured under confi ni ng pressures of
34 kN/ m 2 (5 psi) and 48-2 kN/ m 2 (7 psi). Figure 14 presents test results on
Conwed geogrid tested under confi ni ng pressures of 48.2 kN/ m 2 (7 psi),
96.4 kN/ m 2 (14 psi) and 140 kN/ m 2 (20 psi).
An increase in the confi ni ng pressure results in significant increases in
152 Khalid Farrag, Yalcin B Acar, 11an Juran
G E O G R I D : T E N S A R S R 2
Or. = 4 8 k N / m 3 ( 7 p s i )
= 4 r a m / r a i n
Yn = 1 6 . 6 k N / m 3
,,~Yn = 1 6 . 4 k N / m 3
. . . . . . . . . . . Yn = 1 5 . 4 k N / m 3
6oS I
/ , ~ . ur. u KNI m
o _ j 4 0
o
2 0
O r I I I I
2 0 4 0 6 0 8 0
F R O N T D I S P L A C E M E N T ( r a m )
( a )
I 0 0
C O N F I N I N G ~ = 48 kPa
70 IMspimmmmt Rate = 3.8 - 6 ram/rain
I "
4O
1 0
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 1"/.5
DRY DENSI TY (kNl m3)
(b)
the pull-out resistance of these geogrids. Although the increase in the
confi ni ng pressure reduces soil t endency to dilate, it leads to an increase
in the passive soil resistance on the transverse ribs: consequently, the
geogrid pull-out resistance increases. The effect of the confining pressure
on the mobilized load transfer al ong the reinforcement is also illustrated.
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 153
0
a c ~
Z
, , 6
U 0
t Z
. J ~
O.
(/)
Q
0. 8
0 . 6
0 . 4
0 . 2
GEOGRID T E NS A R SR2
0" n = 4 8 k N / m 21, 7psi )
fYn = 16.4 k N/ m 3
/ / ~ Y n ~ 16. -6 k N/ m3
I I I T
I 2 3 4 5
G E O G R I D N O D E S
( c )
Fig. 12. The effect of density on the pull-out response. (a) Development of pull-out load:
(b) the change of peak pull-out resistance with soil density: (c) displacements along the
reinforcement when the peak pull-out load is reached.
The soil-geogrid interface shear stress is more uni forml y mobilized
al ong the geogrid under low confi ni ng pressures. The increase in the
confi ni ng pressure restrains the geogfid displacement and results in a
hi gher mobi l i zat i on of the soil-geogrid interface shear stresses near the
pull-out appl i cat i on point, a lower mobi l i zat i on of t he shear stresses at
the rear end, and consequently a need for shorter effective adherence
length of reinforcement.
These results suggest that the design criteria for geogrid reinforced soil
structures shoul d take into account the in-soil confi ned extension
properties derived from pull-out tests rather t han the material properties
obt ai ned from unconfi ned extension tests. The unconfi ned behavi or of
the geogrid is substantially more ductile and its strain level at peak load
is hi gher t han t hat obt ai ned under confi ned conditions. The use of
unconfi ned properties may result in over-conservative design values for
admissible geogrid extension and corresponding structure displacements.
Interacti on mechani s m
The magni t ude of the mobilized shear resistance al ong the soil-
reinforcement interface depends upon the type of reinforcement. In case
of geogrids, the interface shear strength is pri mari l y mobilized by the
skin friction and the passive resistance against transversal fibs. For
154 Khalid Faring Yaicin R Acar, I lan J uran
80
E
~- 60
z
0
1 40
F-
o
I
.J
.J
20
o.
O 0.8
0. 6
N 0. 2
GEOGRID TENSAR SR? 3
?'n = 16.4 kN/ m 3 (104 p c f )
: 6 r a m / r a i n
/ " ~ " . ~ . . . . O - n : 48k N/ m 2
/
I I I
50 I 00 150
FRONT DI S P L A CE ME NT ( r a m)
( a )
20~
p o " n = 5 4 k N / m 2
G ~ p R e oSkRp2u 1,- o u t l o a d - ~
I I I I
0 I 2 3 4 5
GEOGRI D NODES
( b )
Fig. 13. The effect of confining pressure on pull-out response ofTensar SR2. (a) Pull-out
load: (b) displacements along the reinforcement.
coars e gr ai ne d soi l s, t he o pe ni ng s i n t he geogri ds ma y a l l o w s oi l part i cl es
to i nt erl ock be t we e n t he ribs; t hus , i nc r e as i ng its s he ar strength. Th e
i nt erf ace f ri ct i on be t we e n t he soi l a nd t he geogri d de pe nds o n t he t ype o f
soi l and t he s urf ace r oughne s s o f t he g e o g d d whi l e t he c ont r i but i on o f
pas s i ve soi l res i s t ance a l o ng t he t ransverse ri bs to t he overal l pul l - out
st rengt h d e p e n d s o n ma n y factors s uc h as c o n f i n i n g pressure, geogri d
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements
I 00
155
E
z
E:]
0
_J
,0- n = 1 4 0 k N/ m 2
8 0 1 ~ . . % 'n = 9 6 k N / m 2
L / " ~ . / ~ ' n = 4 8 k N / m 2
0 I 0 2 0 3 0
F R O N T D I S P L A C E M E N T ( r am)
( a )
4 0
/ o n = 4 8 k N / m 2
oa:~ 0.8
0.4
GEOGRID: CONWED
0.2
Ya = 16" 7kN/ m3 ( 106pcf )
"- 2 ram/rain
0 I I I I
I 2 3 4 5
G E O G R I D N O D E S
( b )
Fig. 14. T h e effect o f conf i ni ng pressure on pul l - out response o f Conwed 9027. ( a) Pul l -
out l o a d : ( b ) d i s p l a c e m e n t s a l o n g t h e r e i n f o r c e m e n t .
geomet ry a nd t he di amet er rati o ( t he rati o o f t he me a n grai n si ze o f the
soi l to t he si ze o f t he geogri d openi ng) .
Fi gure 15 presents the resul ts o f pul l - out tests on Conwe d geogri ds
perf ormed wi t h a nd wi t hout t hei r transversal ribs. The resul ts provi de a
s ens e o f t he cont ri but i on o f t he passi ve resi st ance on t he transverse ribs
to t he overal l pul l - out l oad. The f ri ct i onal resi st ance al ong the
156 Khalid Farrag Yalcin B. Acar, nan Juran
E
z
Q
o
._1
..~
0
.5
_ J
o .
GEOGRI D: CONWED
Yn = 16. 7 k N/ m 5 ( 1061: ) cf )
= 9 6 k N/ m 2
o - - -
oe o ~ O ~ o ~ o oo .
~ a ; e g o "
CT n = 4 8 k N/ m 2
o No T r a n s v e r s a l Ri bs
o Wi t h T r a n s v e r s a l Ri bs
i I I I I I I
0 I0 20 30 4O
FRONT DI SPLACEMENT ( r nm)
Fig. 15. The effect of transverse ribs on the pull-out response of Conwed geogrid.
l ongi t udi nal ribs constitutes an average of 75% of the total pull-out load
for this specific geogrid. It is also noted that the passive resistance al ong
the transverse ribs is mobilized at higher levels of strain resulting in a
higher post-peak pull-out resistance. The strain level required to
mobilize the passive resistance al ong the transverse elements would vary
with the geogrid and the soil type.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
There exists significant differences in pull-out or direct shear tests used
in experimental modelling of soil-geosynthetic interaction mechani sm
and/ or performance evaluation of in-soil properties of geosynthetics.
Standard testing equi pment and testing procedures are needed to obtain
comparabl e results and to develop appropriate methodologies in
modelling the load-transfer mechanism.
Pull-out boxes are designed and constructed at GERL/LTRC-LSU.
The component s of these equi pment and the procedure used in testing
are presented. Tests conducted in performance assessment of this
equi pment employed a uniform sand, and TENSAR SR2, CONWED
9027 geogrids.
The following conclusions are obt ai ned for the uni form sand and the
geogrids used in this study:
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 157
(1) Side frictions on the side walls of the box decrease the peak pull-
out load. A mi ni mum clearance of 15 cm (6 in) is necessary in
order to avoid any side-wall effect in case the friction along the
wall is not mi ni mi zed by some other means.
(2) The increase in sleeve length decreases the effect of front wall on
the pull-out resistance. The tests conducted in this study
demonstrate t hat sleeve lengths of at least 30-5 cm (12 in) of length
are necessary.
(3) Increased thickness of soil cushi oni ng the geosynthetic decreases
the effects of the top and bottom boundaries. A soil thickness of at
least 30 cm above and 30 cm below the geogrid is needed to
el i mi nat e the influence of these boundaries.
(4) Hi gh di spl acement rates affect both the pull-out load and the
displacement distribution al ong the reinforcement. The displace-
ment rate effects are mi ni mi zed if rates of the order of less t han
6 mm/ mi n are used.
(5) Increased densities lead to mobilization of the interlocking
mechani sm and consequently, result in a hi gher contribution of
the passive resistance exerted on the transverse ribs. At hi gher
densities, pull-out resistance increases and displacements move
closer to the point of appl i cat i on of the pull-out load.
(6) Similar to the effects of increased densities, confi nement increases
the peak pull-out resistance and moves the displacements al ong
the reinforcement toward the point of application of the load.
(7) Pull-out resistance is developed by a combi nat i on of the passive
resistance developed al ong the transverse ribs and interface shear
mobilized al ong the geogrid.
(8) Met hods developed and employed in evaluation of rigid
reinforcements shoul d not be used in det ermi ni ng the confined
extension properties and shear stress-strain behavi or ofgeogrids.
The results presented in this study demonstrate the significant
variability obt ai ned in pull-out load-displacement response of geogrids
due to differences in equi pment and testing procedures. It is necessary to
realize the influence of these parameters on pull-out response in
st andard commercial testing ofgeosynthetics and in interpretation of the
load-transfer mechani sm using pull-out test results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Design, construction, and performance assessment of the pull-out
testing facility at GERL are supported by funds awarded and provided to
158 Khalid Farrag Yaicin B. Acar, llan Juran
LSU and by t he Loui si ana Tr anspor t at i on Resear ch Cent er of Loui si ana
Depar t ment of Tr anspor t at i on and Devel opment , Federal Hi ghway
Admi ni st r at i on, t he Boar d of Regent s of t he State of Loui si ana, Conwed
Plastics Inc. and Civil Engi neer i ng Depar t ment of Loui si ana State
University. The funds awar ded and pr ovi ded by t hese agenci es and
i nst i t ut i ons are gratefully acknowl edged. Dr I l an Jur an of Pol yt echni c
Uni versi t y has had si gni fi cant cont r i but i ons in est abl i shment of GERL
in cooper at i on and col l abor at i on with t he second aut hor. Dr Juran' s
efforts and cont r i but i ons are grat eful l y acknowl edged by GERL. LTRC
proj ect officer, Mr Paul Gri ffi n and Conwed Plastics Product
Devel opment Manager , Mr Lee Ri c hmond are acknowl edged for t hei r
col l abor at i on and cooperat i on. We acknowl edge and appreci at e t he
efforts of Ex-di rect or of LTRC, Mr Ara Ar man, t he current director, Dr
Pet er St opher, ex- chai r man of t he Civil Engi neer i ng Depar t ment , Dr
Roger IC Seals and t he current c ha i r ma n Dr Ri char d Avent in
est abl i shment and e nha nc e me nt of GERL. Any opi ni ons, fi ndi ngs, and
concl usi ons or r ecommendat i ons expressed in this mat eri al are t hose of
t he aut hor s and do not necessari l y reflect t he views of t he sponsors.
REFERENCES
Acar, Y. B., Durgunoglu, T. & Tumay, M. T. (1982). Interface properties of sand.
ASCE, JGE, 108(GT3), 648-54.
Anderson, L. R. & Nielsen, M. R. (1984). Pull-out resistance of wire mats
embedded in soil. Report for the Hilfiker Company, Eureka, CA.
Bonaparte, R., Holtz, R. D. & Giroud, J. P. (1987). Soil reinforcement design
using geotextiles and geogrids. Geotextile Testing a n d the Design Engineer,
ASTM STP 952, pp. 69-116.
Brand, S. R. & Duffy, D. M. (1987). Strength and pullout testing of geogrids.
Geosynthetics Conference, New Orleans, Vol. 1, pp. 226-36.
Christopher, B. R. (1976). Tensar SS2 geogrid evaluation. Evaluation report to
Tensar Corporation.
Elias, V. (1979). Friction in reinforced earth utilizing fine grained backfills.
International Conference on Soi l Reinforcement, Paris, France, pp. 435-8.
Farrag, K. (1990). Interaction properties of geogrids in reinforced soil walls - -
testing and analysis. Dissertation submitted to Graduate School of
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.
lngold, T. S. & Templeman, J. (1979). The comparative performance of polymer
net reinforcement. International Conference on Soi l Reinforcement, Paris,
Vol. 1.
Ingold, T. S. (1983). Laboratory pull-out testing of grid reinforcement in sand.
Geotech. Testing J., 6(3 ), I 01 - 11.
Jewell, R. A. (1979). Discussion presented to Section 8, Proceedings o f VII
European Conference on Soi l Mechanics and Foundat i on Engineering,
Brighton, UK.
Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements 159
Jewell, R. A. (1980). Some effects of rei nforcement on the mechani cal behavi or
of soils. Dissertation submi t t ed to Cambri dge University, Cambridge, UK.
Juran, I., Knochenmus, G., Acar, Y. B. & Arman, A. (1988). Pull-out response of
geotextiles and geogrids (Synthesis of Available Experimental Data).
Proceedings o f Sympos i um on Geotextiles f o r Soi l Improvement, ASCE,
Geotech. Special Publ i cat i on 18, pp. 92-111.
Juran, I., Guermazi, A., Chen, C. L. & Ider, M. H. (1988). Model i ng and
si mul at i on of load transfer in reinforced soil: Part 1. Int. J. Numer. Anal.
Meth. Geomech, 12, pp. 141-55.
Juran, I., lder, H. & Farrag, Kh. (1990). Strain compatibility analysis for
geosynthetic reinforced soil walls. ASCE, JGE, 116(2), 312-29.
Koerner, R. M. (1986). Direct shear/ pul l -out tests on geogrids, Report No. 1,
Dept. of Civil Eng., Drexel Univ., Phi l adel phi a, PA.
Koerner, R. M. (1990). Designing with Geosynthetics. 2nd edn, Prentice Hall,
Engl ewood Cliffs, NJ.
McGown, A., Andrawes, K. Z. & Kabir, M. H. (1982). Load-extension testing of
geotextiles confi ned in-soil, 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles. Las Vegas, Vol. 3,
pp. 793-8.
Myles, B. (1982). Assessment of soil fabric friction by means of shear, 2nd Int.
Conf. on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, Vol. 3, pp. 787-91.
Palmeira, E. & Milligan, G. (1989). Large scale direct shear tests on reinforced
soil. Soil and f oundat i ons , Japan. Soc. Soi l Mech. Found Eng., 29(1), 18-30.
Rowe, R. K. & Ho, S. K. (1986). Det ermi nat i on of geotextile stress-strain
characteristics using a wide strip test, 3rd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna,
pp. 885-90.
Rowe, R. K., Ho, S. K. & Fisher, D. (1985). Det ermi nat i on of soil-geotextile
interface strength properties, 2nd Canadi an Sympos i um on Geotextiles,
Montreal, Canada, pp. 25-34.
Saxena, S. K. & Budi man, J. S. (1985). Interface response ofgeotextiles, Proc. 1 l t h
Int. Conference on Soi l Mechanics and Foundat i on Engineering, San Francisco,
Vol. 3, pp. 1801--4.
Schlosser, F. & Guilloux, A. (1979). Friction between soil and strips in reinforced
earth structures, Int. Conf. on Soi l Reinforcement, Paris, France, Vol. 1.
Tzong, W. H. & Cheng-Kuang, S. (1987). Soil-geotextile interaction mechani sm
in pull-out test, Geosynthetics Conference. New Orleans, Vol. 1, pp. 250-9.
Williams, N. D. & Houl i han, M. F. (1987). Evaluation of interface friction
properties between geosynthetics and soils, Geosynthetics Conference. New
Orleans, Vol. 2, pp. 616-27.