REUSE OF FOUNDRY SANDS IN

REINFORCED EARTHEN STRUCTURES

by

Marc J. Goodhue, Tuncer B. Edil, and Craig H. Benson

Environmental Geotechnics Report 98-16

Environmental Geotechnics Program

Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Madison, Wisconsin 53706

December 11, 1998

 REUSE OF FOUNDRY SANDS IN REINFORCED
EARTHEN STRUCTURES
By Marc J. Goodhue, Tuncer B. Edil, and Craig H. Benson
Environmental Geotechnics Report 98-16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Past regulations required that excess foundry sands be disposed in landfills. However,
new legislation permits the reuse of foundry sands in various applications, such as earthwork
projects, which often require large amounts of earthen materials to be used as structural fill. These
projects often use geosynthetics for reinforcement. Thus, interaction between foundry sands and
geosynthetics must be characterized.
A testing program was conducted in this study to characterize the strength of foundry
sands and their interaction with geosynthetics. Small-scale direct shear, large-scale multistage
interface shear, and pull-out tests were conducted. Multistage interface direct shear tests were
used to facilitate the test schedule. Preliminary testing showed that the multistage tests gave
residual shear strengths similar to those obtained from single specimen test set-ups.
The undrained friction angle of as-compacted foundry sands was found to be the same as
that of the base silica sand. The friction angles ranged between 39 and 50". The undrained
cohesion increased with increasing fines content and ranged between 17 and 28 kPa. lnterface
direct shear tests showed that foundry sands develop good interaction with geosynthetics, and that
the interface strength is primarily due to friction (i.e., adhesion was small). Typical interface friction
angles ranged between 25 and 3S0, with the highest friction angles being obtained for a
geomembrane interface with foundry sand having low bentonite content. Frictional efficiencies
ranged between 51 and 86%. Soaking had little effect on interface friction angle but caused a
decrease in adhesion to values corresponding to machine friction. lnteraction coefficients
calculated from the pull-out tests ranged between 0.30 and 1.7 in the normal stress range of 10 to
50 kPa.
Recommendations for design were developed based on the test data. For mechanically
stabilized earthen structures, interaction coefficients between 0.5 to 0.9 are recommended for
geotextiles and geogrids. Interaction coefficients recommended for embankments range between
0.5 and 0.7. Interface friction angles between 28 and 31" are recommended for embankments and
landfill covers.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Financial support for this study was provided by the Wisconsin Solid

Waste Recovery Research Program (SWRP), which is administered through the

University of Wisconsin System. This report has not been reviewed by SWRP,

and endorsement by SWRP is not implied. Numerous foundries provided their

excess foundry sand for use in this project, as well as other research efforts on

beneficial reuse at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The support of these

foundries is gratefully acknowledged.

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................
1

2 . BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................
3

2.1 FOUNDRY SYSTEM SANDS ......................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Generation of Foundry Sands................................................................ 3
2.1.2 Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sand in Structural Fill.................................4
2.1.3 Leaching Potential ......................
...........................................................8
3 . MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES.........................................10

3.1 MATERIALS .................................................................................................

10
3.1 .1 Reference Sands ...................................................................................10
3.1.2 Foundry Sands ......................................................................................10
3.1.3 Geosynthetics........................................................................................16

3.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ................................................................16

3.2.1 Pullout Tests ..........................................................................................
18
3.2.2 Small-Scale Direct Shear Tests .............................................................24
3.2.3 Interface Direct Shear Tests .................................................................. 25

4 . RESULTS ...........................................................................................................
43
4.1 SMALL-SCALE DIRECT SHEAR TESTS ..................................................... 43
4.1.1 Testing Program ..................... . .........................................................43
4.1.2 Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelopes ......................................................... 43
4.1.3 Effect of Fines..................................................................................... 49

4.2 LARGE-SCALE INTERFACE SHEAR TESTS............................................ 53

4.2.1 Testing Program (Multi-Stage Test Set-Up)........................................... 53
4.2.2 Reference Sands ...................................................................................
55
4.2.3 As-Compacted Foundry Sands ..............................................................55
4.2.4 Soaked Compacted Foundry Sands ......................................................57
4.2.5 Effect of Fines Content on Interface Shear Strength ............................. 60

4.3 PULLOUTTESTS .........................................................................................62

4.3.1 Testing Program ...................................................................................62
4.3.2 Pullout Force-Displacement Cubes ................................................... 62
4.3.3 Interaction Coefficients ........................................................................65
4.3.4 Effect of Fines Content on Pull-Out Strength.........................................68

4.4 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................73

4.4.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls ...........................................76
 4.4.2 Reinforced Embankments ..................................................................... 79
4.4.3 Landfill Applications ...............................................................................
79

5.1 DIRECT SHEAR TESTS...............................................................................

82

5.2 INTERFACE DIRECT SHEAR TESTS .......................................................

82

5.3 PULLOUT TESTS .........................................................................................

83

5.4 DESIGN RECOMNIENDA-\'IONS................................................................ 84

5.4.1 MSE Walls .................................... .. ....................................................84
5.4.2 Embankments........................................................................................ 85
5.4.3 Landfill Covers .......................................................................................
85

6 . REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 86

APPENDICES ...........................................................................................
89

APPENDIX A ................:................................................................
-90
APPENDIX B.................................................................................92
APPENDIX C ................................................................................
104
APPENDIX D................................................................................
108
 LIST OF .FIGURES

Fig. 3.1. Grain Size Distribution Curves for Reference Sand.

Fig. 3.2. Standard Proctor Compaction Curves for the Foundry Sands (Adapted
from Kleven (1998) and Abichou et al. (1998a)).

Fig. 3.3. Grain Size Distribution for the Foundry Sands (Adapted from
Kleven 1998).

Fig. 3.4. Pullout Box,

Fig. 3.5. Variations of lnterface Shear Testing (Adapted from Takasumi et al.
1991).

Fig. 3.6. lndentation Effects of Soil Substrate (Sand B-Geotextile lnterface Direct
Shear Test).

Fig. 3.7. Schematic of lndentation of Geosynthetic into Lower Box.

Fig. 3.8. Porous Stone versus Wooden Substrate.

Fig. 3.9. Shear Stress Displacement Curves from Multistage and New Specimen
Test Set-Ups.

Fig. 3.10. Determination of Displacement for Muhistage Residual Friction Angle.

Fig. 3.1 1. Schematic Diagram of lnterface Direct Shear Set-Up.

Fig. 3.12. Effect of Displacement Rate on Soaked Multistage Shearing Steps.

Fig. 4.1. Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelopes for Reference Sands.

Fig. 4.2. Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelopes for Foundry Sands.

Fig. 4.3. Fines Content versus Bentonite Content for Data from Kleven (1998).
C

Fig. 4.4. Effect of Fines Content on Friction Angle

Fig. 4.5. Effect of Fines Content on Cohesion

Fig. 4.6. Failure Envelopes for Sand D-Geotextile lnterface Direct Shear Tests
(as-compacted and soaked).

Fig. 4.7. Effect of Fines Content on (a) lnterface Frictional Angle and (b) Adhesion

Fig. 4.8. Typical Plots of Pullout Force per Unit Width versus displacement for (a)
Sand A-Geogrid and (b) Sand C-Geotextile

Fig. 4.9. Estimation of Mobilized Length of Geosynthetic from Telltail LVDT Data.

Fig. 4.10. Relationship between Ci and Normalized Mobilized Length (LmIL). For all
Tests L = 1.31 m.

Fig. 4.1 1. lnteraction Coefficient versus Normal Stress for the Geogrid

Fig. 4.1 2. lnteraction Coefficient without Cohesion versus Normal Stress for the
Geogrid.

Fig. 4.1 3. lnteraction Coefficient versus Normal Stress for the Geotextile

Fig. 4.14. lnteraction Coefficient without Cohesion versus Normal Stress for the
Geotextile

Fig. 4.15. lnteraction Coefficient versus Fines for Geogrid: (a) Ci with Cohesion (b)
Ci without Cohesion.

Fig. 4.16. lnteraction Coefficient versus Fines for Geotextile: (a) Ci with Cohesion
(b) Ci without Cohesion.
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Summary of Data from Kleven (1998).

Table 2.2. Summary of Data from Abichou et al. (1998a).

Table 3.1. Properties of Reference Sands Used.

Table 3.2. Foundry Sand Properties (adapted from Kleven 1998 and Abichou et al.
1998a).

Table 3.3. Data for Miragrid 12XT Geogrid (1997 GFR SpecifierlsGuide).

Table 3.4. Data for Belton 113 Geotextile (1997 GFR Specifier's Guide).

Table 3.5. Data for GSE HDT Textured Geomerr~brane(1997 GFR Specifier's
Guide).

Table 3.6. Displacement Rate Data.

Table 4.1. Testing Program for Small-Scale Direct Shear.

Table 4.2. Results of Small-Scale Direct Shear Tests.

Table 4.3 Testing Program for lnterface Direct Shear.

Table 4.4. Results of lnterface Direct Shear Tests.

Table 4.5. Results of Soaked lnterface Direct Shear Tests.

Table 4.6. Pullout Testing Program.

Table 4.7. Pullout-Test lnteraction Coefficients (Calculated with Cohesion).

Table 4.8. Pullout-Test lnteraction Coefficients (Calculated without Cohesion).

-
Table 4.9. Summary of Pullout Mobilized Lengths.

Table 4.10. lnteraction Coefficients for Reinforced Retaining Wall.

Table 4.1 1. lnterface Friction Angles for Reinforced Embankments.

Table 4.12. Interaction Coefficients for Reinforced Embankments (for 3-m high
embankment ur~lessotherwise noted).
 SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

Past regulations required that excess foundry system sands be disposed of in

landfills. New legislation, however, permits the reuse of foundry sands as well as

many industrial by-products in various applications, such as earthwork projects,

which often require large amounts of earthen materials to be used as structural fill

(Wisconsin DNR, 1998). Granular soils are most desirable for these projects,

because of their higher hydraulic conductivity, low compressibility, and high shear

strength. Previous research has shown foundry sands to have these properties

(Mast 1997). Thus, one particularly beneficial application of foundry sands is to

replace earthen materials as structural fill in earthwork projects (Abichou et al.

1998b). Also, foundry sands with sufficient bentonite content have been shown to

have low hydraulic conductivity, a property that allows for the possibility of foundry

sands to be reused as landfill cover material (Abichou et al. 1998a).

Geosynthetics are often used in structural fills as internal reinforcement

(retaining walls) or as a base reinforcement (embankments over soft foundation

soils). Typical design methods for geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls and

embankments require geosynthetic-soil interface strength properties. Thus, if

foundry sands are to be used as a replacGment for traditional earthen materials as

structural fill, the interaction between foundry sands and geogrids or geotextiles

must be characterized. The interaction of geosynthetics with foundry sands may be

 2

different than interaction with traditional granular fill materials because foundry

sands have varying amounts of bentonite, which is used as binder.

Landfill covers often use geomembranes to reduce infiltration. These

geomembranes come into direct contact with compacted cover soils having low

hydraulic conductivity, such as foundry sand. Thus, design of covers with foundry

sand requires knowledge of the interface strength between the geomembrane and

the compacted foundry sand.

The objective of this study was to characterize the strength of foundry sands

and their interaction with geosynthetics. To meet this objective, a testing program

was implemented which included direct shear tests, interface shear tests, and

pullout tests. Results of these tests were used to develop recommendations for

design parameters for various reuse applications.

This report describes the results of this study. Section 2 describes the

process that generates excess foundry sand, the constituents of foundry sand, and

previous research projects on foundry sand. The experimental procedures, test

equipment, and materials used in the laboratory portion of this study are described

in Section 3. Section 4 presents the results of the laboratory tests and design

recommendations. Section 5 includes a project summary and conclusions.

 SECTION 2

BACKGROUND

2.1 FOUNDRY SYSTEM SANDS

This section describes the process by which excess foundry system sand is

generated, the constituents of the sand, and several previous research projects on

using excess foundry system sand in structural fill. For brevity, the phrase "foundry

sand" is used herein to refer to excess foundry system sand.

2.1 .I Generation of Foundry Sands

Foundry sands are generated as a by-product of the cast metal process, which

involves the making of molds into which molten metal is poured to create castings.

These molds are made of system sand, a combination of clean, uniformly graded

sand (usually mostly silica), a binding agent (either clay or chemical), water, and

additives such as seacoal, cereal, fuel oil and wood flour (Javed 1994). Waste

foundry sand is generated because varying amounts of these additives must

continually be reintroduced to the system sand to maintain the desired properties,

resulting in a larger volume of sand than is needed for the foundry process.

System sand is hammered around a pattern to form a void into which molten

metal will be poured. These molds consist of an upper and lower box and

sometimes have cores in the middle to create voids within the metal. Cores are rigid

pieces and are usually made of chemically bonded sand. After the molten metal
has been poured and has cooled, the casting is removed in a process called

shakeout. During shakeout, system sand is collected and becomes mixed with

some core sand. This mixture of sands is then put back into the sand circuit for

reuse.

Degradation of system sand is caused by two factors. First, the introduction

of core sand into system sand during shakeout dilutes the original mixture. Second,

properties of system sand, such as compressive strength, "active" clay content,

plasticity, and gas permeability deteriorate due to thermal degradation of the clay

portion at high temperatures (Kleven 1998).

The silica sand portion of foundry sand usually makes up 85% to 95% of the

total mix by weight. The clay'binder, around 5% to 15% of the mix, is usually

sodium or calcium bentonite, or occasionally kaolinite. About 2% to 7% water is

added to "activate" the clay portion, giving the mixture cohesion and plasticity. The

organic portion usually makes up 2% to 8% of the mix and is added to improve the

surface finish of the cast metal (Kleven 1998). Foundry sand is often

heterogeneous due to the presence of core butts, metal, slag, and additives. This

heterogeneity can be an issue if it affects the geotechnical properties of the foundry

sand.

2.1.2 Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sand in Structural Fill

C

Several studies have characterized the geotechnical properties of foundry

sands. Javed (1994) performed a variety of laboratory tests on seven clay bound

foundry sands to determine their suitability as highway construction materials.

These tests were used to characterize index properties, strength, and hydraulic

conductivity. Javed found that the plasticity index ranged from non-plastic to 12.

Friction angles of 37" and 41" were reported for two dry sands tested in direct shear

at relative densities of 90% and 98%. Javed concluded that foundry sands have

shear strengths comparable to those of natural sands. Corr~pressibilitytests showed

,that foundry sands are more compressible than clean sands, with constrained

moduli in the range of 1500 kPa to 2000 kPa in a vertical stress range of 0 to 1000

kPa. Hydraulic conductivities of 2.8 x cmlsec were measured for a foundry

sand with 5.3% fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve, 0.075 mm mesh), and 2.6

x 1o ' cmlsec
~ for a foundry sand with 35.2O/ f'~nes.

Mast (1997) performed a follow-up study to Javed (1994) to determine the

performance of an excess system sand in an embankment. The 275-m-long, 9-m-

high embankment consisted of three subsections made of clay, foundry sand, and

clean sand. The foundry sand Mast used had 9% clay sized particles (c 0.005

mm). The plasticity index was 6 and the friction angle measured in direct shear was

38" at the as-received water content in a dense state. The hydraulic conductivity

was in the range of to cmlsec.

The embankment described in Mast (1997) was instrumented with settlement

plates, piezometers, vertical and horizontal inclinometers, a sealed double ring

-
infiltrometer (SDRI), and total pressure cells. Data from settlement plates showed

that settlement of the foundry sand was less than 4 mm, which was comparable to

that of the clean sand. Lateral movements were less than 6 mm. The in situ
 6

hydraulic conductivity was 1.0 x cmisec, which is comparable to the hydraulic

conductivity measured in the laboratory. Post-construction standard penetration

tests (SPT) gave N-values ranging from 33 to 54, showing that the foundry sand had

relatively high strength. Mast (1997) concluded that the foundry sand he used had

acceptable shear strength and compressibility for use as an embankment material.

He cautioned, however, that some construction issues must be addressed, including

removal of large objects (e.g., core butts, metal, slag), dust control, and erosion

control. These issues were addressed in his field study without much difficulty.

Abichou et al. (1998b) describe two other highway embankments that were

constructed with foundry sand near Waupaca, Wisconsin, and New London,

Wisconsin, by the Waupaca Foundry in conjunction with the Wisconsin Department

of Transportation (WisDOT) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

(WDNR). 'The first embankment was an overpass approach 213 m long with a

maximum foundry sand thickness of 4.6 m. No data are available regarding the

performance of this embankment. The second embankment was for a bypass and

used 19,000,000 kg of core sand and mold sand. Very little information is available

on this embankment.

Abichou et al. (1998a) and Kleven (1998) conducted tests on several foundry

sands at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kleven (1998) measured Atterberg

limits, particle size distribution, "activeIP clay content (i.e. bentonite content),

compaction, unconfined compression, California Bearing Ratio, and resilient

modulus. Table 2.1 summarizes his results. One notable aspect of Table 2.1 is the
 Table 2.1. Summary of Data from Kleven (1998).

Particle Size l~tterbergLimits

I Classification I
Specific
I Standard Proctor

Soil # I Binder (
I I
PPm I p2.,, I Active
I I

1 1 1 1 I NP I NP 1 I 1 1 1
p 1

5
Clay

Raw
Clay
10.7

14.3
6.7

9.2
5.1

7.0
NP SP- A-3(0) 2.62 18.4 9.6

6 Clay 11.3 7.7 7.5

7 clay1 2.7 0.8 NA
8 day 12.1 8.8 8.5
9 Clay 13.2 9.3 10.5
10 Clay 12.4 8.0 8.4
11 Clay 10.2 5.2 6.6
12
13
14 1
I
Clay
Clay
Clay 1
16.4
13.2
10.0 1
9.8
10.0
3.5 1
10.2
8.4
4.7 NP ( NP ( NP
t
I 1
SC-
SM
SP- ]
A-2-4(0)
A-2-4(0)
A-3(0) 2.73 1 17.3 1 12.3

-'washed after disposal

2
Determined by Vibratory Compaction (AS7
3~etermined by ASTM D698
 8

variation in active clay content. The unconfined compression strength ranged from

71 to 190 kPa for foundry sands with plasticity. Unconfined compressive strength

did not depend on fines content, clay content, or Atterberg limits.

In addition to index and compaction tests, Abichou et al. (1998A) measured

hydraulic conductivity of foundry sand and how it is affected by freeze-thaw,

desiccation, and chemical permeation. Table 2.2 summarizes the data in Abichou et

al. (1998a). The hydraulic conductivity of foundry sands was found to decrease with

increasing bentonite content and plasticity index. At bentonite contents > 6%,

hydraulic conductivity < 1 x loe7cmlsec could be achieved. Additionally, the

hydraulic conductivity of most foundry sands was unaffected by freeze-thaw cycles,

wet-dry cycles, or cherr~icalpermeation.

2.1.3 Leaching Potential

Because foundry sands often contain organic constituents and metals,

studies have been conducted on foundry sands to assess leaching of contaminants

of concern. Lovejoy et al. (1989) conducted laboratory and field tests to determine

.
the leaching characteristics of excess foundry system sands. Toxicity Characteristic

Leaching Procedure (TCLP) tests were performed on three foundry sands and none

were found to be hazardous by the RCRA definition. Monitoring groundwater

beneath a foundry sand pile and a natural soil pile showed no evidence of
C

groundwater contarr~inationbeyond that caused by the pile of natural soil.

 Table 2.2.Surr~maryof Data from Abichou et al. (1998a).

Specific Liquid Plastic Plasticity Bentonite Hydraulic

Sand conductivity'
Gravity Limit Limit Index Content (cmlsec)
1 2.62 NP NP IV P 5.1 5.4x lo*'
2 2.54 21 18 3 6.6 9.0x lo-'
3 2.64 NP NP NP Chemically Bonded N/A
4 2.53 18 17 1 7 2.8x

6 2.64 NP NP NP WashedGreenSand I.I-xIo-~

7 2.56 27 19 8 8.5 6.1 x lo-'
8 2.63 23 19 4 10.5 NT

15 NT 27 20 7 13 9.0x lo-'
16 2.73 NP NP NP 4.7 5.3x I O * ~
Notes: (i) NP = Non Plastic
(ii)
1
NT = Non Tested
Hydraulic Conductivity at Optimum Water Content Based on Standard
Proctor
 SECTION 3

MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

3.1 MATERIALS

3.1.1 Reference Sands

Two sands were used as reference materials for comparison with the foundry

sands: Portage sand and base sand. Portage sand, which was previously used by

Foose (1993) and Tatlisoz (1996), is a medium uniformly graded quartz sand with a

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) classification of SP and a roundness of

0.77. Base sand is fine, uniformly graded quartz sand (SP) used by several

foundries as their base for system sand and has a roundness of 0.63. The base

sand was obtained from Badger Mining Corporation and is designated as GFN 65

(grain fineness number) silica sand. GFN is a term used by the foundry industry to

designate grain size. Particle size distribution curves for ,these sands are given in

Fig. 3.1, and their properties are summarized in Table 3.1.

3.1.2 Foundry Sands

Four foundry sands were tested. The sands had different percentages of

bentonite that span the range of bentonite4ontents typically found in foundry sands.

They were obtained from four different foundries located in Wisconsin and Illinois.

Compaction curves (from ASTM 0 698) and grain size distribution curves for these

sands are in Figs. 3.2- 3.3. Table. 3.2 provides the characteristics of ,the sands
 - Base Sand - -m - - Portage Sand

1 0.1

Particle Diameter (mm)

Fig. 3.1. Grain Size Distribution Curves for Reference Sand.

Table 3.1. Properties of Reference Sands.
 1 Sand D

Water Content (%)

Fig. 3.2. Standard Proctor Compaction Curves for the Foundry Sands
(Adapted from Kleven (1998) and Abichou et al. (1998a)).
 -A- Sand B
+ - Sand C
--o--SandD

10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001

Particle Diameter (mm)

Fig. 3.3. Grain Size Distribution for the Foundry Sands

(Adapted frori'l Kleven1998).
 Table 3.2. Foundry Sand Properties (adapted from Kleven 1998 and Abichou et al. 1998a).
- -
Atterberg Limits Classification Standard Proctor
Foundry Specific Bento-
Roundness
Sand Gravity PL LL PI nite' USCS AASHTO (kNyd,max
m
l3 wept%

2.62 0.69 NP NP NP 2.3 A-3(0) 18.4 9.6

Sand A SM
S P-
2-73 0.55 NP NP NP 4.7 A-3(0) 17.3 12.3
Sand B SM
SP-
Foundry I
2
Sw- A-2-4(0)
2.52 0.61 20 18 7'5 18.2 13.0
Sand C SM
Foundry
2.51 NT 27 20 7 13.0 SC A-2-4(0) 16.9 15.0
Sand D
'~entoniteContent determined by methylene blue titration
NT: Not Tested
NP: Non-Plastic
 16

including plasticity index, USCS classification, and bentonite content (from

methylene blue titration). Foundry Sand A has the lowest bentonite content (2.3%)

and Foundry Sand D the highest (13%). For pullout tests, Foundry Sand A was

used as the low bentonite foundry sand, while Foundry Sand B was used as the low

bentonite content sand in the interface direct shear tests. Foundry Sand A had a

larger fraction of coarse material, as shown in Fig. 3.3. This coarse material

consisted of fragments of core remnants and slag. The as-received sand had large

core butts and slag pieces that were removed with a No. 4 sieve.

3.1.3 Geosynthetics

Three geosynthetics were used: a woven geotextile (Belton 113), a geogrid

(Miragrid 12XT), and a geomembrane (GSE HDT). Properties of these

geosynthetics are in Tables 3.3 - 3.5. Belton 113 is a woven, slit-film polypropylene

geotextile. Miragrid 12XT is a woven polyester geogrid with PVC coating. GSE

HDT is a 1.5-mm HDPE textured geomembrane. These products were chosen

because of their availability and were intended to represent typical geosynthetics

.
that' would be likely be used with foundry sands in reinforced earthen structures or in

landfill covers.

3.2 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDLlRES

The primary equipment used consisted of a pullout box, a small-scale direct

shear machine, and an interface direct shear machine. A detailed description of the
 Table 3.3. Data for Miragrid 12XT Geogrid (1997 GFR Specifier'sGuide).

Product Name 1 Miragrid 12XT

Manufacturing Process 1 Woven
Coating Type Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Polymer Type Polyester (PET)
MassIUnit Area (AS-TM 5261) (glmL) 593
Aperture Size (rnm) 81.3 (MD) x 12.7 (XD)
Wide Width Tensile Strenght
- Strength Q 5% Strain: 51.7 (MD)
(ASTM D4595) (kN1m) 1 ultimate Strength: 92.8 (MD)
Base Reinforcement, Walls, Slopes,
Suggested Uses
Embankments

Table 3.4. Data for Belton 113 Geotextile (1997 GFR Specifier's Guide).

Product Name Belton 113

Structure Woven
Polymer Type Polypropylene (PP)
MassIUnit Area (ASTM 5261) (glmL) 250
Apparent Opening Size
0.425
lASTM D 4751) (mm)
Grab Tensile Strength (kN) ( Strength @ 15% Strain: 2.0
Maximum: 51 .I(MD)
Wide Width Tensile strength1
Strength @ Break: 38.9 (MD)
(ASTM D 4595) (kN/m)
Strength Q 10% Strain: 11.5 (MD)
SeparationIStabilization,
Suggested Uses
Reinforcement
1
Data from manufacturer.

Table 3.5. Data for GSE HDT Textured Geomembrane (1997 GFR Specifier's
Guide).
-

Product Name GSE HDT

Base Polymer High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
Thickness (mm) 1.5
Density (ASTM D 1505) (g/cm3) 0.94
Tensile Strength Strength 8 Yield (13% strain): 22.8
(ASTM D 638) (kN1m) 1 Strength Q Break: 13.1
Suggested Uses Slopes or Seismic Areas
 18

pullout box can be found in Tatlisoz (1996). The interface direct shear machine is

described in detail in Sec. 3.2.3.2.

3.2.1 Pullout Tests

Pullout testing is typically performed to characterize the interaction of a

geosynthetic with soil, which is needed in the design of a geosynthetic-reinforced

retaining walls or embankments. 'The test consists of pulling a geosynthetic out of a

soil and measuring the force required to displace the geosynthetic. The soil is

subjected to a normal stress that represents field loading conditions.

'The resistance of a geosynthetic to pullout has two main components:

friction (all geosynthetics) and rib-bearing (geogrids only). Friction develops between

the upper and lower surfaces of the geosynthetic and the surrounding soil when the

geosynthetic is displaced. Rib bearing is the passive resistance put forth against the

transverse members of a geogrid by the soil. The soil provides this resistance by

"st rike-through," which means that soil particles protrude through the apertures in

the geogrid causing bearing on the (Koerner 1998).

Because geosynthetics are extensible, progressive failure often occurs along

the soil-geosynthetic interface. The geosynthetic begins to move at the clamped

end, but the magnitude of the displacement diminishes with distance from the

- to'deterrnine because the area of the

clamp. As a result, interface friction is difficult

geosynthetic creating friction with the soil is constantly changing and the friction that

is mobilized varies with displacement. For this reason, many pullout boxes are
 19

equipped with devices to measure displacement of the geosynthetic at various

locations in the direction of pullout.

The extensibility and progressive failure vary with normal stress. At low

normal stresses, the geosynthetic may fail progressively until the entire length of the

geosynthetic is displacing. Higher normal stresses can cause the geosynthetic to

become anchored at a given distance from the front of the box. Thus, only a portion

of the geosynthetic-soil interface experiences displacement, and shearing resistance

is not mobilized along the entire interface.

3.2.1.1 Data Reduction

The pullout test data were used to calculate a dimensionless strength

parameter called the interaction coefficient, Ci. For cohesionless soils, the

interaction coefficient is (GRI GT6):

where P is the maximum pullout resistance, W is the width of the reinforcement, L is

the length of ,the embedded portion of the reinforcement, on is the normal total

stress applied to the soil, and $ is the total stress friction angle of the soil. For

cohesive soils, the interaction coefficient is (Bergado and Chai 1994):

c.' = -I

2WL(on tan 9 + c)

where c is the total stress cohesion of the soil. An interaction coefficient between

0.5 and 1.0 indicates a good bond between the soil and reinforcement. Poor bonds
 20

or breakage of ,the geosynthetic correspond to Ci < 0.5. Increasing the normal

stress causes a decrease in interaction coefficient because embedment of the

reinforcement results in the shear strength of the interface being mobilized along a

shorter portion of the geosynthetic.

3.2.1.2Experimental Set-up

Pullout testing was performed using a pullout machine manufactured by

GeoSyntec Consultants. The machine, shown in Fig. 3.4, consists of a box 152 cm

long by 61 cm wide by 61 cm deep. The pullout load is applied by two side-mounted

hydraulic pistons that are driven by an electrically powered hydraulic pump. Normal

stress is applied by a rubber air bladder that is confined by a reinforced steel cover

bolted to the top of the box.

Frontal displacement is measured using an LVDT mounted on the head (Fig.

3.4), which monitors the displacement of the clamp. Displacements of the

geosynthetic are measured at various distances from the front of the box by four

LVDTs mounted on a rack at the back of the box. These LVDTs are attached to

"telltale" wires that enter the box through a slot in the back and are protected by
.
aluminum tubes. During pullout, the wires are pulled along with the moving

geosynthetic and the LVDTs measure the displacements.

Pullout load is measured by a load cell mounted on the head (Fig 3.4). A rod
C

threaded into the load cell pushes against a plate that is attached to the

geosynthetic clamp. The geosynthetic clarr~pconsists of two 1.3-cm-thick steel

plates bolted together.

 -

Fig. 3.4. Pullout Box.

 22

To reduce the amount of soil necessary for testing, a false bottom was placed

in the box. It consists of a piece of 1.9-cm-thick plywood screwed to 10-cm by 10-

cm by 61-cm wooden supports. A piece of smooth polypropylene geomerr~brane

was placed on top of the plywood to prevent soil moisture from moving into the

wood. To reduce sidewall friction, plastic was attached to the sidewalls of the box

and a nonwoven geotextile was placed next to the plastic.

3.2.1.3 Experimental Procedure

The pullout test procedures used were conducted in general accordance with

GRI test methods GG5 and GT6. For tests using dry sand, the soil was weighed,

shoveled into the box, and tamped to create the desired density. Foundry sands

were first passed through the No. 4 sieve and then wetted to optimum water content

based on standard Proctor. The moist soil was then sealed with plastic and allowed

to sit one week to allow for hydration and equilibration. Kleven (1998) showed that

one week is necessary to re-hydrate the dry bentonite.

The foundry sands were compacted to about 92% of the standard Proctor

maximum dry density, except for Foundry Sand D, for which only 85% could be

achieved. Compaction was performed with two compactors, one large (15.2-cm by

15.2-cm plate, 10 kg), and one small (described in Sec. 3.2.3.2). Two passes were

made with the large compactor (40 - delivered from height of 30 + 4 cm)
+ 5 blowsllift
and one pass was made with the small compactor (100 f 20 blowsllift delivered from

30 + 4 cm). Soil below the geosynthetic was compacted in three lifts (total height =

18 cm) and leveled to the appropriate height for the geosynthetic. The geosynthetic
 23

(131 cm by 40.6 cm) was then placed and the telltale wires were attached at four

locations (i.e., 6, 36, 72 and 130 cm from the front of the geosynthetic). The upper

soil was compacted on top of the geosynthetic in three lifts (total height = 26 cm),

leaving a gap of about 5 cm between the top of the soil and the top edge of the box

for the inflatable bladder.

A nonwoven geotextile was placed on top of the soil to protect the bladder.

Then the bladder was placed and the reinforced steel cover was bolted to the box.

After pressurizing the bladder, the pullout test was performed by setting up the data

collection system and turning on the hydraulic pump. All tests were continued to 10

cm of displacement or failure of the geosynthetic.

Difficulty was initially experienced in obtaining a constant displacement rate

and in applying the desired normal stress. The displacement rate is controlled by an

electric-powered hydraulic pump fitted with a rate control arm. This pump circulates

fluid through the two pistons, which provide the pullout force (Fig. 3.4). In addition to

the rate control arm, each of the pistons has a valve that controls the displacement

rate of the piston. A constant displacement rate is difficult to maintain because the

valves on the pistons are extremely sensitive at the rate used in this study (1

mmlmin). Also, it is difficult to keep the pistons moving at the same rate. This

probleni was overcome by constantly monitoring the pistons during the test and

adjusting the v+lves on the two pistons as Eeeded.

Another problem encountered in the initial tests was that the desired normal

stress was not always achieved. In some tests, an apparent increase in normal
 24

stress resulted in lower pullout resistance. To check if the air bag pressure was

transmitted as normal stress to the soil, the pressure in the air bag was measured

by a transducer attached to a tee in the air pressure line and the normal stress

applied to the soil was measured with an earth pressure cell placed between the

inflatable bladder and the soil. This test showed that the air pressure applied to the

bag was much higher than the normal stress being applied to the soil. Examination

showed that the low normal stress was caused by leaks in the rubber bladder. In

subsequent tests, the normal stress applied to the soil was verified by the earth

pressure cell and not the pressure transducer.

3.2.2 Small-Scale Direct Shear Tests

Small-scale direct shear tests were conducted with a Wykeham-Farrance

Engineering Ltd. direct shear machine, as described in Ligler (1998). The tests

were conducted following methods described in ASTM D 3080. 'The machine

consists of a 6.4 by 6.4 by 3.2-cm shear box. Normal load is applied to an upper

loading platen through a lever arm. Shear force is measured by a load cell and

shear and vertical displacements are measured by LVDTs. Data collection is

.
handled by LabView software and an analog-to-digital card in a personal computer.

Direct shear tesis were also performed in the large-scale machine described

-
in Sec. 3.2.3, and while the results for the reference sands were comparable to the

small-scale machine, the results for the compacted foundry sands were anomalous.

The foundry sands tested in the large-scale machine failed along a concave

inteface, which is inconsistent with the failure plane assumed in direct shear.
3.2.3 lnterface Direct Shear Tests

lnterface direct shear testing is performed to determine the interface strength

between soil and reinforcing materials, particularly geosynthetics. The test consists

of displacing soil subjected to a normal stress across a geosynthetic and measuring

the resistance. There are three different variations of this test, as described by

Takasumi et al. (1991): fixed shear, partially fixed shear, and free shear, shown in

Fig. 3.5. The difference between these variations is the manner in which the

geosynthetic is attached.

In the fixed shear test, the geosynthetic is glued to a rigid substrate, usually

wood. 'The advantages of this test are that the rigid substrate ensures a horizontal

failure plane and that less soil is required. 'The disadvantage of the fixed shear test

is that the geosynthetic is not allowed to elongate, which can affect the interface

strength. In partially ,fixed shear, the geosynthetic is clamped at one end and free at

the other, with soil both above and below the geosynthetic. The advantage of this

test is that it models the field situation most accurately. The disadvantage of this

test is that the geosynthetic may deform into the lower shear box. Free shear

leaves the geosynthetic unattached at either end, with soil above and below the

geosynthetic, as in the partially fixed test. -The advantage of this test is that a

special box is not required. Disadvantages of the free shear test are that the

geosynthetic may deform into the lower ;hear box and the geosynthetic can slide

during testing (Takasumi et al. 1991).

 Geosynthetic
glued to block

(a) Fixed Shear

osynthetic

\ Clamp
(b) Partially Fixed Shear

,Geosynthetic

(c) Free Shear

Fig. 3.5. Variations of Interface Shear Testing (Adapted from Takasurr~iet al.
1991).
 27

Partially fixed shear testing was initially attempted in this study. Data from a

test with Foundry Sand B and the geotextile, shown in Fig. 3.6, indicated that the

shear stress increased with increasing displacement, rather than reaching a

constant peak or a residual value. Fig. 3.6 shows that this increase is more

pronounced at higher normal stresses. The shear stress continued to increase

because of indentation of the geosynthetic into the lower soil. This problem is

illustrated schematically in Fig. 3.7, which shows.soil from the upper box being

forced down into the lower soil due to the normal stress. This caused the

geosynthetic to become concave upward, which causes an increase in passive

resistance with increasing displacement at the leading edge of the upper soil.

To determine if this problem could be alleviated using a rigid substrate, wood

was used as the substrate (without gluing the geosynthetic to the wood) and soil

was placed in the upper portion of the box. Testing with a wooden substrate

produced a nearly constant residual shear stress at larger displacements, as shown

in Fig. 3.8. Thus, for the remainder of the tests, a rigid substrate was used in the

lower box. The substrate consisted of a porous stone prepared with a mixture of

Portage sand and epoxy. The stone provided a rigid base, like the wood, and also

permitted drainage and had frictional characteristics similar to the soils being tested.

Data from a multistage test with the porous stone is also plotted in Fig 3.8 for

comparison with the wooden substrate. Another variation used in this project was

"multistage shearing.'' Multistage shearing means only one test set-up is used

instead of a new soil sample for each normal stress. The advantages of multistage
 Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3.6. Indentation Effects of Soil Substrate (Sand B-Geotextile Interface Direct
Shear Test).
 lndentation of geosynthetic
causes passive resistance
at leading edge of upper soil

Fig 3.7. Schematic of lndentation of Geosynthetic into Lower Box.

 Woodl
Porous Stone

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3.8. Porous Stone versus Wooden Substrate.

 31

testing are time savings and elimination of variability in test specimens (Bemben and

Shulze 1993). However, the friction angle obtained from multistage tests is smaller

than the peak friction angle obtained from a traditional test. Head (1982) suggests

that when the multistage set-up is used in traditional, soil-only direct shear tests, the

failure plane is forced down into the lower box during each consolidation step which

causes a new failure plane in each shearing step. This did not occur in this study,

however, because the location of the failure plane was maintained by the rigid

substrate. Bemben and Shulze (1993, 1995) tested Ottawa sand with smooth and

textured geomembranes and found that the multistage shear stresses coincided

with the residual shear stresses found from new test set-ups.

To assess how results from multistage tests differ from those obtained with

new test setups, interface shear tests were performed for Sands B, C, and D with

the geotextile using both multistage and new specimen set-ups. Stress-

displacement curves for Foundry Sand B and the geotextile are shown in Fig. 3.9.

Displacements for the multistage shearing tests in Fig. 3.9 are offset slightly from

zero so that the curves for the same normal stresses can be compared. The shear

stress from multistage shearing is essentially the same as that from the new

specimen set-ups at a displacement of about 5 mm for normal stresses of 30 and 50

kPa. 'The percent reduction in tan6 from the new specimen (peak) set-ups to

tan6 multistage (residual) was 2% for ~ o u h r Sand

y B, 4% for Foundry Sand C, and

18% for Foundry Sand D. Because a residual friction angle is obtained in multistage

testing, a consistent method was needed to define the residual shear stress. This
 0 10 kPa, new specimen 30 kPa, step 2
I 30 kPa, new specimen 50 kPa, step 2 1
x 50 kPa, new specimen 0 50 kPa, step 3

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3.9. Shear Stress Displacement Curves from Multistage and New Specimen
Test Set-Ups for Foundry Sand B.
 33

was done by graphing mobilized friction angle versus displacement on a log scale

for a multistage set-up, as shown in Fig. 3.10 for interface tests with base sand and

Foundry Sand B with the geotextile. The friction angle becomes stable after about 8

mm of displacement for both sands. Other foundry sands showed sirr~ilarbehavior.

Thus, residual friction angles from interface tests were found by choosing the shear

stress at 8 mm of displacement. In a field situation, displacements of 8 mm are

likely to occur during construction and thus, the residual friction angle obtained for

this displacement will accurately represent the true condition.

3.2.3.1 Experimental Set-up

Interface shear testing was performed using the interface direct shear

machine shown schematically in Fig. 3.1 1. The machine was manufactured by

GeoSyntec Consultants to comply with the requirements in ASTM D5321. The

machine consists of an upper box, 30 cm long by 30 cm wide by 7.6 cm deep, and a

lower box, 35.6 cm long by 30 cm wide by 7.6 cm deep. The longer lower box

allows for 5 cm of travel without requiring an area correction for the stress

calculations.

Normal stress is applied to the soil by a square loading platen that fits into the

upper box (Fig. 3.1 1). This platen is loaded by an air bladder that rests on top of the

platen and is confined above by a circular plate connected by a rod to the outer
C

frame. The vertical load is measured by a load cell, into which this rod is threaded.

Both shearing boxes are contained by an outer box, which allows soaked tests to be

performed.
 onstant after 8 mm
of displacement
a

U a
H a
I I
0
0.1 1 10 100
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3.1 0. Determination of Displacement for Multistage Residual Friction

Angle.
LVDT \
Track
Figure 3.1 1. Schematic Diagram of Interface Direct Shear Set-up.
 36

During testing, the outer containment box, with the lower shear box clarr~ped

inside, is screw driven horizontally on two greased tracks by a stepper motor. The

rate and distance of displacement are controlled by a computer that is wired to the

motor and three limit switches. 'The upper box is fixed horizontally by a reaction bar

that is connected to a load cell to measure shear force. Thus, the outer

containment box, along with the lower shear box that is clamped to it, are the only

moving parts. Horizontal and vertical displacements are measured by linearly

variable differential transducers (LVDTs). All data collection was done using a PC

with a Validyne UPC601-G PC Interface Card.

For soaked tests, the outer box was sealed and filled with water. A

tensiometer was placed in the soil specimen to verify saturation. The tensiometer

consists of a plastic tube (diameter = 5 mm) with a porous ceramic tip (diameter =

10 mm) attached to the end of the tube and sealed with epoxy. This ceramic tip was

placed in the center of the upper shear box, 2.5 centimeters above the interface,

and connected to a pressure transducer to measure either positive or negative pore

water pressure, depending on the degree of saturation of the specimen. The

specimen was assumed to be saturated when the negative pore pressures

dissipated after the specimen was submerged in water. A soaking time of 4 hours

was required for Foundry Sand B, 72 hours for Foundry Sand C, and 96 hours for

Foundry Sand D.
-
3.2.3.2 Specimen Preparation

Foundry sand specimens were prepared by mixing dry sand with tap water in

20-L buckets to obtain optimum water content as determined by D698 (standard

Proctor). Prior to n-lixing, the sands were passed through the No. 4 (4.8 mm) sieve

to remove large metal pieces and core remnants. Each sand was allowed to

equilibrate in a sealed bucket for at least one week to allow for hydration of the

bentonite.

To prepare a test specimen, a 33-cm by 36-cm geosynthetic specimen was

first cut and clamped to the lower box on top of the porous stone. The upper box

was then placed on top of the geosynthetic. To create a gap of 1 mm between the

upper and lower boxes, a piece of geomembrane cut to the shape of the box edges

was placed between the boxes. The upper box was then filled with three lifts of

sand.

The reference sands (Portage Sand and base sand) were placed dry by

pouring a known mass of soil into the upper box and tamping it to the correct volume

to achieve a relative density of 90°/~.

The foundry sands were compacted to maximum standard Proctor density at

optimum water content. Compaction was performed in three 2-cm-thick lifts using

25 f 5 blows per lift delivered from a height of 10 f 3 cm. 'The compactor weighed
C

4.9 kg and consisted of a 10.2-cm by 10.2-cm by 1.9-cm piece of steel welded to a

1.9-cm diameter by 122-cm long rod. Maximum standard Proctor unit weight was

achieved by corrlpacting a measured mass of soil at optimum water content into the
 38

known volume of the upper box. A gap of 1.3 cm was left between the top of the

soil and the top of the box for loading platen. The upper surface of the soil was

flattened with a scraper to create an even gap below the top of the box.

An additional step was performed for soaked tests. A tensiometer saturated

with deaired water was placed on top of the first lift. The tube for the tensiometer

was routed through a hole in the back of the upper box. Sand was then compacted

above the tensiometer as before.

3.2.3.3 Tests on Dry Sand and Compacted Foundry Sands

Tests with dry sand or foundry sand compacted at optimum water content

were conducted using the following procedure. First, the normal stress was applied

by pressurizing the air bladder until the vertical load cell read the desired force.

Next, the machine was set to displace the lower box at a rate of 1 mmlmin, as

recommended by ASTM D5321 for tests in which no excess pore pressures are

anticipated. Data acquisition was then initiated. Shearing was performed in four

"multistage" steps. The first step was run at the lowest normal stress to a

displacement of 10 mm to remove the "peak behavior of the soil, so that all shear

strengths would correspond to a similar displacement. The next three steps were

run at three pre-determined normal stresses, each to a displacement of 14 mm.

-
The position of the box was not reset between steps. Thus, the total displacement

was 52 mm.
3.2.3.4 Tests with Soaked Foundry Sands

For soaked tests, the specimen was first allowed to soak long enough to

allow negative pore pressures (measured by the tensiometer) to dissipate. To

expedite testing, soaking was done without application of a normal stress. In a field

situation, soaking would likely occur under a normal stress, since it would probably

happen after construction. The time for soaking ranged from about 4 hours for

Foundry Sand B to 4 days for Foundry Sand D. After soaking was complete, the

platen was placed and a normal load was applied. The specimen was allowed to

consolidate while pore pressure and vertical displacement were measured.

Consolidation was continued until the vertical displacement became constant.

The consolidation data were used to determine the maximum displacement

rate that would prevent generation of excess pressure. 'The time for 90'

consolidation (tgO)was found using a Taylor construction and the time to 50% (t50)

was calculated as described in ASTM D 3080 (i.e., t50 = tgd4.28). Some typical

consolidation curves are given in Appendix C. Then, after estimating the

displacement at failure (df), the displacement rate (d,) was calculated from the

equation:

where time to failure, tf, is 50t50. C

Table 3.6 summarizes the data obtained from consolidation steps performed

in multistage shear tests. The displacement rates used were the same for a given
 Table 3.6. Displacement Rate Data.

Foundry Bentonite Time to

Displacement (mmlmin)
Content Failure2
Sand at Failure'
("10)

Sand B 1 *.4 1 170 1 2.0 1 0.057 0.05

1 1 I 1
- - -

Sand c 7.5 neb 3.2 0.05

Sand D 1
I
13 1
I
600 1
I
5.0 1
I
0.01 1
I
0.013
' ~ r o mtests at optimum water content
2
Calculated from consolidation data
3 . .
From Sabatini et al. (1998)
 41

soil, irrespective of the geosynthetic used. The displacement rate could not be

determined for Foundry Sand C using the ASTM D3080 method because the

vertical consolidation data were lost. Thus, the shear rate reported in Sabatini et al.

(1998) for several clayey soils tested with textured geomembranes was used. 'This

rate (0.01 mmlmin) was the same as was calculated from a later test with Foundry

Sand D. The higher displacement rates used for Sands B and C were believed to be

reasonable because of their higher hydraulic conductivity than clays.

The effect of displacement rate was investigated prior to starting the testing

program by testing Foundry Sand B with a geotextile. Results of these tests are

presented in Fig. 3.12. One multistage set-up was used with four shearing steps.

The first two steps were performed at displacement rates of 0.03 and 0.1 mmlmin at

a normal stress of 30 kPa. Fig. 3.12 shows that variation in the shear stress-

displacement curves for the different rates is small. This is also true for shearing

steps at 50 kPa, with displacement rates of 0.03 and 0.02 rnmlmin. Thus,

displacement rates in the range of 0.02 to 0.1 mmlmin do not have a great effect on

the shear strengths obtained in soaked interface shear tests.

 0
30 kpa, 0.03 mmlmin
30 kPa, 0.1 mmlmin -
Normal Stress, Displacement Rate
A 50 kPa, 0.03 mmlmin
50 kPa, 0.02 mmlmin

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 3.12. Effect of Displacement Rate on Soaked Multistage Shearing Steps on

Foundry Sand B.
 SECTION 4

RESULTS

4.1 SMALL-SCALE DIRECT SHEAR TESTS

4.1.ITesting Program

Small-scale direct shear tests were conducted on the two reference sands

and the four foundry sands. Table 4.1 summarizes the testing program for small-

scale direct shear testing. Three normal stresses were used for each soil: 11, 34,

and 56 kPa. Reference soils were placed dry in the shear box at 90% relative

density, while foundry sands were compacted at optimum water content to 100% of

the maximum dry unit weight as determined by standard Proctor. A shearing rate of

1.2 mmlmin was used in all tests. None of the specimens were soaked prior to

testing.

4.1.2 Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelopes

4.1.2.1 Reference Sands

Failure envelopes for Portage sand and base sand are shown in Fig. 4.1.

They were obtained by least-squares regression on the three points for each sand.

The peak friction angles from these envelopes are 42" for both sands. Das (1994)

reports friction angles ranging from 35 to 38" for dense rounded sand.
 Table 4.1. Testing Program for Small-Scale Direct Shear.

Dry Unit Water

Normal Stresses Shear rate
Soil Weight content'
(mmlmin)
(k~lm~) )
.
/
O
(

Base
ii,34,57 1.2 16.9 0
Sand
Portage 1.2 17.5 0
11, 34 ,57
Sand
Foundry 18.4 9.6
. 11,34, 56 1.2
Sand A
Foundry 17.3 13.0
10, 33, 55 1.2
Sand B
Foundry 18.2 12.3
11,34, 55 1.2
Sand C

Sand D
1,
1
11. 33, 55 I
I
1.2
I
16.9
I
15.0

'compaction water content

 -e-- Portage Sand - -.
- - Base Sand

Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. 4.1. Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelopes for Reference Sands.

 46

Fig. 4.1 shows a cohesion intercept of 6 to 8 kPa for the reference sands, which

corresponds to forces developed in the testing device referred to herein as "machine

friction." Reference sands tested in the large-scale direct shear machine (Appendix

A) showed slightly lower machine friction (2 to 5 kPa) to those tested in the small-

scale machine. The large-scale test, however, gave lower friction angles (38" for

Portage and base) than the small-scale machine (Appendix A). Tt- is discrepancy

may be due to boundary effects of the small-scale machine, which would be less of

a factor in the large-scale machine. The small-scale values will be used, however,

because of the anomalous results obtained for the as-compacted foundry sands

tested in the large-scale machine (Sec. 3.2.2).

4.1.2.2Foundry Sands

Mohr-Coulomb failure envelopes for the four foundry sands tested at

optimum water content are given Fig. 4.2. Table 4.2 summarizes the results of the

small-scale direct shear tests. The friction angles for Foundry Sands 6 ,C, and D

range from 39" to 43", which is similar to the values of 37" and 41" reported by

Javed (1994) for two foundry sands at relative densities of 90 and 98%. The

foundry sand friction angles were also similar to that of the reference sands (42").

Foundry Sand A, however, had a friction angle of 50". An explanation for this

anomalously high friction angle is given inSec. 4.1.3.

 Foundry Sands
I I

Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. 4.2. Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelopes for Foundry Sands.

 Table 4.2. Results of Small-Scale Direct Shear Tests.

Soil 1 Fines Content (%) 1 $ (O) 1 Cohesion (kPaj

Base Sand 1.1 42 8.3 1.O

Portage Sand ' 0.0 . 42 6.0 0.99

Foundry Sand A 6.5 50 28.4 1.O

Foundry Sand B 9.2 39 16.7 0.99

Foundry Sand C 11.2. 43 19.2 1.O

Foundry Sand D 19.2 42 28.0 1.O

 49

Cohesion in the as-compacted foundry sands (16.7 to 28.4 kPa) was higher

than the reference sands (2 to 5 kPa) and Javed (1994) (< 2 kPa). This is probably

a result of suction and non-planar failure surfaces observed in these tests, which

may have increased the apparent cohesion. Fredlund and Rahardjo (1993) suggest

that the effective cohesion in unsaturated soils is a combination of both true

cohesion and suction. Thus, it is likely that the effective cohesion measured in the

direct shear tests on compacted foundry sands had a suction component, since the

foundry sands were unsaturated. Also, the failure surfaces in these direct shear

tests were not planar, but undulated. This may have been due to non-uniform

compaction and heterogeneity of the foundry sands, which could cause the failure

plane to deviate LIP or down in weaker areas. Heterogeneity is greater in foundry

sands than clean sands because the plastic fines in foundry sands are not

distributed evenly throughout the sand matrix, but instead can form small clods.

The undulated failure surface may have created an "interlocking rough surface,"

(Mitchell 1993) which can also contribute to higher apparent cohesion.

4.1.3 Effect of Fines

Lupini et al. (1981) suggest that shear strength of a soil can be correlated to

the clay fraction if the mineralogy of the clay fraction is constant. Thus, the shear

strength of the foundry sands as a function of fines content was examined, since
C

industrial bentonite, which has reasonably constant clay mineralogy, usually makes

up the clay fraction in foundry sands. Fines content (O/O particles by weight < 0.075

mm) was examined instead of bentonite content because it is easier to measure

(with wet sieving) than bentonite content, which requires methylene blue testing.

Also, the bentonite contents obtained from methylene blue tests conducted for this

study were not in agreement with those in Kleven (1998) for the same sands.

Moreover, fines content and bentonite content are correlated, as shown in Fig. 4.3.

Thus, fines content should be a good index test to use for comparing foundry sands

since it is easy to perform and correlates well with bentonite content and shear

strength.

The effect of fines content on shear strength was examined by graphing

friction angles for the base sand and four foundry sands against fines content as

shown in Fig. 4.4. The fines in the base sand had no effect on the friction angle of

the foundry sands. The friction angle, however, for Foundry Sand A (50") is higher

than the other foundry sands. Foundry Sand A contained large, angular pieces

(-2O0l0 larger than 1 mm) of core remnants and slag. Friction angles for the other

foundry sands were similar (39 to 43"). Overall, the friction angle for foundry sands

remained reasonably constant as a function of fines content, except for Foundry

Sand A. This is consistent with the findings of Lupini et al. (1981), who measured

fairly constant residual friction coefficients for sand-bentonite mixtures with 0 to 15%

bentonite.

Cohesion generally increases with fines content as shown in Fig. 4.5. This
C

result is expected because suction in the compacted sand should increase as the

bentonite content increases. The effective pore size decreases as bentonite fills the
 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Bentonite Content (%)

Fig. 4.3. Fines Content versus Bentonite Content for Data from Kleven (1998).
 / I I I l l / I I I I I l l 1
- -
- -
-
A
-
- -
- A -
- C -
- D --
- Base
AkA B A A -
-
A -
-
\ -
- \ -
- Portage -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
I l l / l l l l l I I I l I l I I

% Fines
Fig. 4.4. Effect'of Fines Content on Friction Angle

- -
-

"\
-
Portage
C
-
-
-
-
I
I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
0 5 10 15 20
OO
/ Fines

Fig. 4.5. Effect of Fines Content on Cohesion.

 53

voids of the base sand, causing higher capillary forces, and thus increased suction.

Foundry Sand A, however, has a higher cohesion (28 kPa) than expected for sand

with low bentonite content (2.3%). This could have occurred if the testing water

content was dry of the actual optimum water content (i.e. the optimum water content

measured was not correct), since suction increases as the degree of saturation

decreases (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993).

Overall the friction angle of the foundry sands is reasonably constant and the

increased cohesion exhibited by the foundry sands (as compared to the reference

sands) are due to higher suctions that result form the inclusion of fines and water.

4.2 LARGE-SCALE INTERFACE SHEAR TESTS

4.2.1 Testing Program (Multi-Stage Test Set-Up)

Table 4.3 summarizes the testing program for the interface direct shear tests.

Multistage interface tests were run for three foundry sands (B, C, and D) and the two

reference sands with the geogrid, geomembrane, and geotextile. Foundry Sand A

was not used in interface testing because it had not yet been acquired. As in the

small-scale direct shear tests, reference soils were placed dry in the shear box at

approximately 90% relative density and foundry sands were compacted at optimum

water content to 100% of the maximum d_ry unit weight. The foundry sands were

tested as-compacted and soaked. Shear stress versus displacement curves are

given for each test in Appendix B.

 Table 4.3 Testing Program for Interface Direct Shear.

Shear rate
Normal Stresses (kPa)
(mmlmin) Dry Unit Water
Soil Dry or Weight content1
Geomem- (kN/m3)
Geogrid Geotextile Com- Soaked ("/o)
brane
pacted
Base 30,50, 30,50, 30,50, I - 1 16.9 0
Sand 100 100 100
Portage - 30, 50, - -
1 16.7 0
Sand 100
Foundry 30,50,
S a n d B 100 ( 30, 50,
100 1 30, 50,
100 1 0.05
1 17.3
1 12.0

SandC
1
~ o u n d r y 30, 50,
100
1 309 5 0
100
309 5 0
100
1 1 0.05 18.2 12.3

Foundry 30, 50, 30,50, 30, 50,

1 0.01 16.9 15.0
Sand D 100 100 100
I I I I I I

' ~ o r n ~ a c t i owater
n content
4.2.2 Reference Sands

Results of interface direct shear tests are summarized Table 4.4. The base

sand-geogrid interface had the highest friction angle (32"). Some of this friction was

due to soil dragging across the porous stone substrate through the apertures of the

geogrid. 'The geomembrane (30") had the next highest friction angle with the base

sand, and then the geotextile (28"). The Portage sand-geotextile interface (with

Portage sand substrate) had a friction angle of 32". All of the interface friction

angles are smaller than the friction angles for the sands. Frictional efficiency

(tantiltan$) ranged from 0.59 to 0.69 for the three geosynthetics, which shows that

the base sand has reasonably good frictional interaction with all of the

geosynthetics. The small adhesion intercepts obtained for reference sands are

likely due to machine friction.

4.2.3 As-Compacted Foundry Sands

Interface friction angles ranged from 25" to 35" for the three foundry sands

tested as-compacted with three geosynthetics (Table 4.4). Frictional efficiency

ranged from 0.51 to 0.86. Adhesion ranged from 4.4 to 22 kPa, with adhesional

efficiencies between 0.26 and 1.O.

The geomembrane gave the highest interface friction angle for Sands B and

D. This was expected since the geomernbrane had the roughest surface of the

three geosynthetics. The Foundry Sand C-geomembrane interface, however, had

 Table 4.4. Results of Interface Direct Shear Tests.

Friction Angle (6") and Frictional Efficiency (tan G/tan $)

Soil Data Geogrid Geomembrane Geotextile
Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency
Soil % Fines $ (O) (6") (60) (8")

Base Sand 1.1 42 32 0.69 30 0.64 28 0.59

Foundry
9.2 39 30 0.71 35 0.86 31 0.74
Sand B
Foundry
11 43 31 0.64 28 0.57 30 0.61
Sand C
Foundry
19 42 25 0.51 33 0.73 29 0.61
Sand D
v
Adhesion (kPa) and Adhesional Efficiency (c,/c)

Soil Data
Geomembrane Geotextile
C
Geogrid Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency
Soil Fines (kPa) (kpa)
(kPa)
Base Sand 1.1 8.3 2.9 0.35 7.6 0.92 8.2 0.99
Foundry
9.2 17 17 1.OO 4.4 0.26 7.8 0.46
Sand B
Foundry
11 19 14 0.73 10.4 0.53 8.0 0.40
Sand C
Foundry
19 28 22 0.76 8.3 0.27 11.9 0.40
Sand D

,
I
 57

the lowest friction angle of the three geosynthetic interfaces tested with Foundry

Sand C.

The highest adhesions were obtained with geogrid interfaces. This was

probably caused by adhesion between the foundry sand and the porous stone

caused by soil suction. Adhesion is higher for the geogrid than the other

geosynthetics because the foundry sand protrudes through the large apertures,

resulting in more contact with the porous stone. In a field situation (under

unsaturated, undrained conditions), this adhesion should be operative for a geogrid

because the foundry sand will protrude through the apertures.

4.2.4 Soaked Compacted Foundry Sands

Table 4.5 surr~marizesresults of the soaked interface tests and includes the

as-compacted test results for comparison. Friction angles ranged from 24" to 35"

for the nine foundry sand-geosyn.thetic combinations tested. Adhesion ranged from

1.6 to 8.8 kPa. The soaked failure envelopes for Foundry Sands C and D gave

friction angles similar to the as-compacted sands, with almost no adhesion. A

representative soaked failure envelope of these sands is presented in Fig. 4.6 for

Foundry Sand D and the geotextile. The soaked failure envelope is parallel to the

as-compacted envelope, with an adhesion intercept near zero. Soaked tests on

Foundry Sand B gave the same friction angles and adhesion intercepts as in the as-

compacted tests. This was expected since Foundry Sand B is has low bentonite

content (2.4%) and has low cohesion. Overall, soaking the foundry sands and

testing them under fully drained conditions caused a decrease in interface adhesion
 Table 4.5. Results of Soaked Interface Direct Shear Tests.

Soil Data Friction Angle (6")

Geogrid
Geomembrane Geotextile
Foundry % Fines 4'
Sand ("1 As- As-
Soaked Soaked Soaked As-Compacted
Compacted Compacted
Sand B 9.2 39 31 30 32 35 32 31

Sand C 11 43 32 31 24 28 29 30

Sand D f 19 42 26 25 32 33 29 29

Soil Data Adhesion (kPa)

Geogrid Geomembrane Geotextile

Foundry Ca
% Fines
Sand (kPa) AS- AS-
Soaked Soaked Soaked As-Compacted
Compacted Compacted
Sand B 9.2 17 10.0 16.7 6.4 4.4 4.6 7.8

Sand C 11 19 5.4 14.3 8.8 10.4 2.0 8.0

Sand D
-- - -- -
1 --
19
1
- - -- - -28--
- I_- 1
4.4
--- - -
22.0
-- -
1 --
-
4.3
- -- -
] --
7.8
-- 1 -- - 1 ---
11.9
-
- -
 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. 4.6. Failure Envelopes for Sand D-Geotextile Interface Direct Shear Tests
(as-compacted and soaked).
to near the value corresponding to machine friction reported for the base sand

interfaces, but did not affect the friction angle.

In Sec. 4.2.3, the geogrid interface was reported to have greater adhesion

than the other geosynthetics because of suctions between the foundry sand and the

porous stone. The low adhesions obtained in the soaked geogrid interface tests

support this hypothesis.

4.2.5 Effect of Fines.Content on Interface Shear Strength

The effect of fines content on interface shear strength is presented in Fig.

4.7, which shows interface friction angle (4.7 (a)) and adhesion (4.7 (b)) versus fines

content. Fig. 4.7 -(a) shows that friction angle is reasonably constant with increasing

fines content. This means that in as-compacted undrained conditions, fines have no

effect on the friction angle of foundry sands. This trend is consistent with that found

for soil-only direct shear tests, also plotted in Fig. 4.7 (a).

The effect of increasing fines on adhesion depends on the drainage condition

and the geosynthetic, as shown in Fig. 4.7 (b). The data in Fig. 4.7 (b) are grouped

into soaked tests and as-compacted tests (and not by geosynthetic type) to
.
emphasize the contrast between interface adhesion in the soaked and as-

compacted conditions: For the soaked interfaces, adhesion decreases with

increasing fines and is comparable to the -"machine friction." In contrast, for the as-

compacted geomembrane and geotextile interfaces, there is an increase in

adhesion with increasing fines content that is above the machine friction for fines
 A Soil Geosynthetic Interfaces
~ O ~ I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I ~ ~ ~ I I ~

% Fines

As-Compacted GG Interface
As-Compacted lnterfaces
Soaked lnterfaces

0 5 10 15 20
C

% Fines

Fig. 4.7. Effect of Fines Content on (a) Interface Frictional Angle and (b) Adhesion
 62

content > 6.5. The as-compacted geogrid interface showed the greatest increase in

adhesion with increasing fines, near that of the soil alone. 'These trends are

consistent with the previous discussion of adhesion in the geogrid-foundry sand

interfaces resulting from suction in the soil and porous stone between the geogrid

apertures, and the lack of adhesion for the other geosynthetic interfaces. That is,

suction can only cause an increase in adhesion at the interface between two porous

materials, and not the interface between a soil and a geosynthetic.

4.3 PULLOUT TESTS

4.3.1 Testing Program

Table 4.6 summarizes the pullout testing program. This program included

three foundry sands and the base sand with the geogrid and geotextile. Foundry

Sands A and C were compacted to about 92% of the maximum standard Proctor dry

unit weight at optimum water content. Foundry Sand D was compacted to about

850h of the maximum dry unit weight. These were the maximum dry unit weights

that could be reasonably achieved with the available compaction methods. All tests

were run to 100 mm of displacement or until geosynthetic failure occurred.

4.3.2 Pullout Force-Displacement Curves

-
Typical graphs of pullout force per unit width versus displacement are

presented for Foundry Sand A-geogrid in Fig. 4.8 (a) and Foundry Sand C-geotextile

in Fig. 4.8 (b) for all three normal stresses. Graphs of pullout force per unit width

versus displacement for the remainder of the tests are given in Appendix D and
 Table 4.6. Pullout Testing Program.

Dry Water
Normal Stresses Shear rate
Soil Density content'
(kpa) (mmlmin)
(kN/m ) (O/o)

Base
Sand 1
Foundry
Sand A
1 10,30, 50 1
Foundry
Sand C

Foundry
Sand D
1 I I I

'compaction water content

2
For Sand C-geogrid the normal stresses were 10,21, and 35 kPa
 Displacement (rnm) .

Displacement (mrn)

Fig. 4.8 Typical Plots of Pullout Force per Unit Width versus Displacement for
(a) Sand A-Geogrid and (b) Sand C-Geotextile
 65

Table D-1 summarizes 'the maximum pullout force unit width for each test. In
general, the pullout force increases rapidly at low displacements (< 20 mm) and

then either increases steadily or becomes constant at higher displacements. At low

normal stresses, the pullout force becomes constant because the entire

geosynthetic is displaced and thus shear strength is completely mobilized along the

entire length of the geosynthetic. At higher normal stresses, the pullout force

continually increases due to progressive failure, meaning that only a portion of the

geosynthetic is displaced because the friction mobilized along the geosynthetic is

non-uniform. At a normal stress of 50 kPa, both the geogrid and geotextile broke.

Geosynthetic failure at a normal stress of 50 kPa occurred in the geogrid for all

sands and in the geotextile for all sands except Foundry Sand A.

4.3.3 Interaction Coefficients

Results of the pullout tests are summarized in Tables 4.7 - 4.8. The

maximum pullout force was used in all calculations of interaction coefficients. The

interaction coefficients (Ci) were calculated with and without soil cohesion (Eqs. (3.1)

and (3.2)) for each foundry sand. All calculations of Ci for base sand were made

without cohesion using Eq. (3.1). In all cases, the interaction coefficients for the

geogrid were higher than those for the geotextile.

The higher interaction coefficients obtained for the geogrid are believed to be
C

due to shear strength being mobilized along a greater length of the geosynthetic

than occurred for the geotextiles. The mobilized length (L,) was estimated by

plotting normalized nodal displacement versus distance from the front of the pullout
 Table 4.7. Pullout-Test lnteraction Coefficients (Calculated with Cohesion).

Geogrid Geotextile
Soil % Fines
10kPa 130kPa150kPa 10kPa 1 3 0 k P a / 50kPa

1
I

Foundry
6.5 0.33 0.31' 0.28' 0.24 0.23 0.20
Sand A
Foundry
11.3 0.48 0.45 0.40~ 0.38 0.33 0.26'
Sand C
Foundry
19.2 0.40 0.48 0.43' 0.28 0.28 0.22'
Sand D
'~eosyntheticbroke
2
Estimated for 50 kPa by extrapolating data

Table 4.8. Pullout-Test lnteraction Coefficients (Calculated without Cohesion).

Geogrid Geotextile
Soil % Fines
10kPa
10k~a130k~al50k~ a 1 3 0 k ~ a l 50kPa
Base Sand 1.1 0.98 0.72 0.80 0.98 0.39 0.27'
Foundry
6.5 1.I 0.56' 0.42' 0.80 0.41 0.30
Sand A
Foundry
11.3 1.5 0.98 0.71~ 1.2 0.56 0.36'
Sand C
Foundry
19.2 1.7 0.98 0.70' 1.2 0.58 0.35'
Sand D
'Geosynthetic broke
2~stimatedfor 50 kPa by extrapolating data
 67

box as shown in Fig. 4.9. IVormalized nodal displacements (at the end of the test)

are computed by dividing the ultimate displacements monitored by the telltale

LVDTs by those monitored by the front end LVDT. The estimated L, for each

pullout test are summarized in Table 4.9. In every test, the geogrid had a greater L,

and thus a higher Ci. Fig. 4.10 also shows that Ci is strongly correlated with L
,, with

greater Ci obtained with greater .L,

Figs. 4.1 1 - 4.14 show Ci (calculated with and without soil cohesion) versus

normal stress for the geogrid and geotextile. In general, Ci decreases with

increasing normal stress due to increasing progressive failure. The interaction

coefficients for the foundry sands calculated with soil cohesion are < 0.5, whereas

the interaction coefficients are often > 1 when soil cohesion is ignored. Also, the

typical drop in Ci with increasing normal stress is not apparent when cohesion is

included, while it is distinct when cohesion is ignored. Higher interaction coefficients

are obtained without cohesion because the cohesion was large relative to the

frictional component of the soil shear strength, particularly at low normal stresses.

Moreover, the soil cohesion is probably not transferred to the soil-geosynthetic

interface in a pullout test, since the suction in the foundry sand that is responsible

for soil cohesion is not transferred to the geosynthetic interface. This concept is

consistent with the low adhesional efficiency measured for the foundry sand-

geosynthetic interfaces in direct shear able 4.4). Thus, calculating Ci without soil

cohesion is probably more realistic for most foundry sands with clay binder.
 Estimated

I . ,
I l l J I r ! J d ' l

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Distance from Front of Box (cm)

Fig. 4.9. Estimation of Mobilized Length of Geosynthetic from Telltail LVDT Data.
 Table 4.9 Summary of Pullout Mobilized Lengths.

Geogrid L, (cm) Geotextile Lm(cm)

Soil Type % Fines*
10kPa 30kPa 50kPa 10kPa 30kPa 50kPa

Base Sand 1.I 131 131 131 131 90 40

Foundry
2.2 131 80 60 100 60 40
Sand A

Foundry
11.3 131 131 90 80 50 35
Sand C

Foundry
19 131 131 90 80 50 40
Sand D
 Geogrid 0 Geotextile

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.O 1.2

Normalized Mobilized Length (L,/L)

Fig. 4.10. Relationship between Ci and Normalized Mobilized Length (LmIL).

For all Tests L = 1.31 m.
 -w-- Sand A
--0--SandC
--Q--Sand D

Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. 4.1 1. lnteraction Coefficient versus Normal Stress for the Geogrid.

2.0 I l r l l l l l l , l , l l l l l l l I l l l l , l l l l
-
-
-
- Q -w- Sand A

Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. 4.12. lnteraction Coefficient without Cohesion versus Normal Stress for the
Geogrid.
 l I I . , \ l l l ~ l l l ~l l l l l ~ l l l l ~ l l l l
-
-
-
-It-- Sand A
-
- - - 0-Sand
- C
-
-
-
C -

Normal Stress (kPa).

Fig. 4.13. lnteraction Coefficient'versus Normal Stress for the Geotextile.

2.0 I l l , ~ l l l ' , l l l ' , ' l l l ~ l ' l l , l l l l

-
-
- -bSand A

Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. 4.14. lnteraction Coefficient without Cohesion versus Normal Stress for the
Geotextile.
4.3.4 Effect of Fines Content on Pull-Out Strength

lnteraction coefficient versus fines content is shown in Fig. 4.15 for the

geogrid and in Fig. 4.1 6 for the geotextile. lnteraction coefficients calculated with

and without cohesion are shown. Figs. 4.15 (a) and 4.16 (a) show that the Ci for the

base sand (1.1OO/ fines) is significantly larger than Ci for the foundry sands (> 6.5%

fines) when cohesion is included, and that Ci is similar for all three foundry sands.

Figs. 4.1 5 (b) and 4.16 (b) both show in contrast, that when Ci is calculated without

cohesion, it is essentially the same for all sands at a given normal stress. 'Thus, if

cohesion is ignored, a single set of Ci corresponding to various normal stresses can

be used for foundry sands having a fines content in the range of fines contents in

the foundry sands tested in tt- is study.

4.4DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

This sectior~provides recommended design inputs for foundry sands used in

geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls and embankments and landfill covers/liners.

These inputs are based on the test results from this project and are intended to be

used as general guidelines and for preliminary design. They are not specific design

inputs for final design. Tests on the specific soil and geosynthetic being considered
C

should be conducted during final design. Furthermore, these guidelines are based

only on laboratory behavior which need to be verified by field observations before

general acceptance.
 % Fines ( c 0.075 mm)

% Fines ( c 0.075 mm)

Fig. 4.15. Interaction Coefficient versus Fines for Geogrid: (a) Ci with Cohesion
Ci without Cohesion.
 % Fines ( c 0.075 rnm)

% Fines (c 0.075 rnrn)

Fig. 4.1 6. Interaction Coefficient versus Fines for Geotextile: (a) Ci with Cohesion
(b) Ci witliout Cohesion.
4.4.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls

4.4.1.1 Interaction Coefficients

Geogrids and geotextiles can be used in reinforced-soil retaining walls. The

design of these structures requires Ci for calculation of the anchorage capacity of

the geosynthetic, which must be sufficient to provide resistance to the active earth

pressures exerted on the wall facing attached to the geosynthetics. The anchorage

capacity (AC) is found by (Mirafi 1992):

AC = 2L,,Ci (d,y, + q) tan@, (4.1

where Lan is the anchorage length, d, is the depth of overburden over the

geosynthetic, yr is the unit weight of the reinforced soil, q is the surcharge and @, is

the friction angle of the reinforced soil.

lnteraction coefficients for reinforced retaining walls recommended by

manufactures are summarized in Table 4.10, along with interaction coefficients

recommended for foundry sands. The design interaction coefficients for foundry

sand (Cid) were determined by taking an average Ci from the three normal stresses.

To be conservative, all measured Ci > 1 were assumed to equal one when

computing Cid. The normal stresses used in this study (10, 30, 50 kPa) represent

the typical range of normal stresses encomtered in a 3-m-high retaining wall.

The foundry sands in Table 4.10 were grouped according to fines contents

since Foundry Sand A (fines content = 6.5%) gave lower interaction coefficients

than Foundry Sands C and Dl which contain more fines. The geogrid interaction
 Table 4.1 0. Interaction Coefficients for Reinforced Retaining Wall.

Geogrid Geotextile
Soil Type
Ci Source Ci Source

0.7 - 0.75, Mirafi (1992)l

CL, ML 0.7 - 0.75 ~ i ~(1992)
~ f i
0.7 - 0.8 Keystone (1995)

0.75 - 0.85, Mirafi (1992).

SM, SP, SW 0.75 - 0.75 Mirafi (1992)
0.9 Keystone (1995)

0.85 - 0.9, Mirafi 992)1

SW, GP, GW 0.85 - 0.9 Mirafi (1992)
1.o Keystone (1995)

Base Sand (SP) 0.8 Test Data 0.6 Test Data

Foundry Sand A
0.7 Test Data 0.5 Test Data
(SP-SM)
Foundry Sands C
and D 0.9 Test Data 0.6 Test Data
(SW-SM, SC)
coefficients recommended for the base sand (0.8), Foundry Sand A (0.7), and

Foundry Sands C and D (0.9) compare favorably to those recommended by the

geogrid mar~ufacturerfor similar soils. The calculated Ci for the geotextile (0.5 - 0.6)

are lower than those recommended by a different geotextile manufacturer. This

may be due to lower stiffness of the geotextile (Belton 113), which did not permit

enough mobilized interface shear strength.

4.4.1.2 Drainage Issues

Leshchinsky and Perry (1987) suggest that proper drainage requires that the

reinforced soil in a geotextile-reinforced retaining wall have a hydraulic conductivity

r lom3cm/sec. However, a permeable backfill soil can be placed at facing and/or

adjacent to the reinforced soil (on the side opposite the facing) when the reinforced

soil is less permeable. Leshchinsky and Perry also recommend that the reinforced

soil should have less than 12OI0fines to avoid migration of fines into the geotextile by

seeping water. Retention of fines can also be assessed by conducting gradient ratio

tests (ASTM 05101) or by checking particle size criteria (Christopher and Holtz

1989) for the foundry sand and geotextile being considered. When designing

geosynthetic-reinforced retaining walls with foundry sand, drainage and filtration

-
should be considered, since foundry sands often have greater than 12O/0 fines

(Table 2.1) and low hydraulic conductivities (Table 2.2).

4.4.2 Reinforced Embankments

Geosynthetic reinforced embankments can fail by lateral spreading (interface

failure) or pullout of the geosynthetic. Thus, both interface shear strength and

interaction coefficients are necessary for design. The design recommendations are

summarized in Tables 4.1 1 - 4.12. For interface strength, only friction angles are

given (Table 4.1 1). Adhesion should be ignored since it is generally small, and is

likely to be negligible under fully drained conditions.

The recommended interaction coefficients in Table 4.12 are lower than those

recommended for retaining walls (Table 4.10) because in an embankment, there is

only one geosynthetic layer which is likely to be at a greater depth. 'Thus, the design

Ci should be lower since the normal stress will be higher. Recorr~mendedCi for a 3-

m high ernbankment are shown in Table 4.12. In three of these cases the Ci would

be less than 0.5 for a 3-m embankment. Thus, the maximum embankment height

for C, = 0.5 is provided for these cases.

4.4.3 Landfill Applications

Foundry sands have been shown to have sufficiently low hydraulic

conductivity to be used in landfill covers as barrier layers (Abichou 1998a). The

design of a landfill cover or liner requires interface friction angles between the cover

soil and the geosynthetics for use in stability analysis. An average 6 = 31" and

frictional efficiency of 0.65 were obtained for the textured geomembrane interface

with the two foundry sands having sufficiently low hydraulic conductivity to be used

as landfill cover soils. This friction angle is higher than that typically found for clay-
 Table 4.1 1. Interface Friction Angles for Reinforced Embankments.

Geotextile

' 1
(")
Efficiency / Source

Silty Sand (
I
- 1
I I
23 0.87
Koerner
(1998)
Rounded I - Koerner
Sand I - I I (1998)
Angular
Koerner
Sand 35 - 42' 0.72 - 0.93
(1998)
ISW)

Sand
1 30 1 0.68 1 Test Data Test Data

Foundry
sand2
I
I
29 1
I
0.62 ( Test Data.
I
Test Data

'Range is for three different uniaxial geogrids.

2
Average of three different foundry sands.

Table 4.12. Interaction Coefficients for Reinforced Embankments

(for 3-m high embankment unless otherwise noted).

Soil
.
Geogrid Ci Geotextile Ci

Base Sand (SP)

Foundry Sand (SP-SM) 0.5~ 0.5'

Foundry Sand (SW-SM, SC)

1
Embankment height = 1.5 m
2~mbankment height = 2.0 m
 81

geomembrane interfaces, which range from 17 to 27" (Sabatini et al. 1998).

Adhesion should be ignored in design since the adhesion is typically low, and will

probably be negligible under fully drained conditions.

 SECTION 5

CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to characterize the strength of foundry sands

and their interaction with geosynthetics to facilitate the reuse of foundry sands in

structural fill and in landfill covers. Direct shear tests, interface shear tests, and

pullout tests were performed to meet these objectives. Recommendations were

then made for design parameters based on the results of these tests.

5.1 DIRECT SHEAR TESTS

Results of the direct shear tests showed that as-compacted foundry sands

have friction angles ranging from 39 to 50" under undrained shear. These friction

angles similar to the friction angle for dry base sand (42"). An exception is the

friction angle for Foundry Sand A, which had a larger coarse fraction.

The cohesion ranged between 16.7 and 28.4 kPa and generally increased

with increasing fines content. Larger suctions obtained at higher bentonite contents

are probably responsible for the greater cohesion. However, under fl-lily drained

conditions, the cohesion is likely to be negligible.

5.2 INTERFACE DIRECT SHEAR TESTS,

An interface direct shear testing program was conducted in a 30-cm by 30-cm

direct shear box. As-compacted undrained and soaked drained tests were
 83

performed. The tests were conducted using a multistage set-up, meaning that one

specimen was used to develop an entire failure envelope.

Interface direct shear tests yielded interface friction angles ranging from 25"

to 35" for the three foundry sands tested as-compacted with three geosynthetics.

Soaking the foundry sands and testing them under fully drained conditions did not

affect the friction angle. Frictional efficiency was reasonably constant with

increasing fines.

Adhesion was low for the geotextile and geomembrane interfaces, but was

near the cohesion of the soil for the geogrid. Higher adhesion was obtained with the

geogrid because the foundry sand protrudes through the large apertures, resulting in

more contact with the porous stone. Soaking caused a decrease in interface

adhesion to near the value corresponding to machine friction reported for the base

sand interfaces. The effect of increasing fines on adhesion depends on the

drainage condition and the geosynthetic. For the soaked interfaces, adhesion

decreases with increasing fines; for as-compacted geomembrane and geotextile

interfaces, there is a slight increase in adhesion for fines contents > 6.5. The as-

compacted geogrid interface showed the greatest increase in adhesion with

increasing fines, near that of the soil alone.

5.3 PULLOUT TESTS -

Pullout tests were performed in a large-scale pullout box on three foundry

sands with a woven geotextile and a geogrid. The pullout tests were conducted

using as-compacted foundry sands in undrained conditions. Results of these tests

 84

showed that the pullout force increased rapidly at low displacements (< 20 mm) and

then either increased steadily or became constant at higher displacements. At low

normal stresses, the pullout force became constant because the entire geosynthetic

was displaced and thus the shear strength was mobilized along the entire length of

the geosynthetic. At higher normal stresses, 'the pullout force continually increased

due to progressive failure.

Interac.tion coefficients for foundry sands ranged from 0.20 to 0.48 when

calculated with cohesion and from 0.30 to 1.7 when calculated without cohesion.

Calculating Ci without soil cohesion is more realistic for most foundry sands with clay

binder because soil cohesion is probably not transferred to the soil-geosynthetic

interface in a pullout test. Higher interaction coefficients were obtained for the

geogrid than the geotextile, probably due to shear strength being mobilized along a

greater length of the geogrids than occurred for the geotextiles. For both the

geotextile and geogrid, Ci generally decreases with increasing normal stress due to

increasing progressive failure.

5.4DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

5.4.1 MSE Walls

The geogrid interaction coefficienQ recommended for reinforced retaining

walls are 0.8 for base sand, 0.7 for Foundry Sand A, and 0.9 for Foundry Sands C

and D. These interaction coefficients compare favorably to those recommended by

the geogrid manufacturer for similar soils. For the geotextile, the recommended Ci
 85

was lower than the manufacturers' suggestion, possibly due to the stiffness of the

geotextile (Belton 113), which did not permit enough mobilization of shear strength.

5.4.2 Embankments

For lateral spreading analysis an interface friction angle of 30" can be used

for foundry sands with geotextiles and geogrids. Adhesion should be ignored since

it is generally small, and is likely to be negligible under fully drained conditions.

Interaction coefficients ranging from 0.5 to 0.7 are recommended for geosynthetic

pullout analysis of embankments. These recommendations are lower than for MSE

walls because of the higher normal stresses that will likely be exerted on the

geosynthetics.

5.4.3 Landfill Covers

The interface friction angle between the two foundry sands with low hydraulic

conductivity (C and D) and the textured geomembrane was 31". This friction angle

is higher than that typically found for clay-textured geomembrane interfaces, but is

suitable for use in preliminary design. Adhesion can be ignored in design for

interface sliding, because it will be low in the fully drained case.

 SECTION 6

REFERENCES

Abichou, T., Benson, C., and Edil, T. (1998a), "Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sands
in Construction of Hydraulic Barrier Layers." Environmental Geotechnics
Report 98-2, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.

Abichou, T., Benson, C., and Edil, T. (1998b), "Database on Beneficial Reuse of
Foundry By-Products." Environmental Geotechnics Report 98-2, Dept. of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Bemben, S. M. and Shulze, D. A., (1993), "The Influence of Selected Testing

Procedures on SoilIGeoniembrane Shear Strength Measurements,"
Proceedings of the Geosynthetics '93 Conference, Vancouver, Canada, pp.
61 9-631.

Bemben, S. M. and Shulze, D. A., (1995), "The Influence of Testing Procedures on

ClayIGeomembrane Shear Strength Measurements," Proceedings of the
Geosynthetics '95 Conference, Nashville, TN, pp. 1043-1056.

Bergado, D. T., Werner, G., Tien, M. H., and Zou, X. H., (1995), "Interaction
Between Geotextiles and Silty Sand by Large Direct Shear and Triaxial
Tests," Proceedings of the Geosynthetics '95 Conference, Nashville, TN , pp.
1097-1 109.

Bergado, D. T., Chai, J. C.,Abiera, H. O., Alfaro, M. C., and Balasubramaniam, A.

S., (1993), "Interaction between Cohesive-Frictional Soil and Various Grid
Reinforcements," Geotextiles and Geomembranes , Vol. 12, pp,. 327-349.

Casagrande, A. (1936), "Characteristics of Cohesionless Soils Affecting the

Stability of Slopes and Earth Fills," Journal of the Boston Society of Civil
Engineers, January; reprinted in C~ntributionsto soil Mechanics 1925-1940,
BSCE, pp. 257-276.

Christopher, B. R. and Holtz R. D. (1989), "Geotextile Construction and Design

Guidelines," Report No. HI-89-050, prepared for Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.
Druschel, S. J. and O'Rourke, T. D., (1991), "Shear Strength of Sand-
Geomembrane Interfaces for Cover System and Lining Design, Proceedings
of the Geosynthetics '91 Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 159-173.

Farrag, K., (1993), "Evaluation of the Effect of Moisture Content on the Interface
properties of Geosynthetics," Proceedings of the Geosynthetics '93
Conference, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1031-1 041.

Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H. (1993), Soil Mechanics for Unsaturated Soils,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Head, K. H., (1982), Manual of Soil Laboratoty Testing, Volume 2: Permeability,

Shear Strength and Compressibility, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Ingold, T. S., (1982), "Some Observations on the Laboratory Measurement of Soil-

Geotextle Bond," Geotechnical Testing Journal, GTJODJ, Vol. 5, No. 314,
Sept.lDec., pp. 57-67.

Javed, S. (1994), "Use of Waste Foundry Sand in Highway Construction," Report

JHRP-9412, Final Report. West Lafayette: Purdue School of Engineering.

Kleven, J. R. (1998), "Mechanical Properties of Excess Foundry System Sand and

Evaluation of its Use in Roadway Structural Fill." M. Sc. 'Thesis, University of
W isconsin-Madison. Madison, W I.

Lee, K. L., and Seed, H. K., (1967), "Drained Strength Characteristics of Sands,"
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No.
SM6, pp. 1 1 7 - 141.

Leshchinsky, D., and Perry, E. B. (1987), "A Design Procedure for Geotextile-
Reinforced Walls," Geosynthetics '87, IFAI, St. Paul, MN, pp. 95 - 107.

Lopes, M. L., and Ladeira, M., (1996), "Role of Specimen geometry. Soil Height, and
Sleeve Length on the Pull-Out Behaviour of Geogrids," Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 3, , No. 6, pp. 701-719.

Lupini, J. F., Skinner, A. E., and Vaughan, P. R. (1981), "The Drained Residual
-
Strength of Cohesive Soils," Gebtechnique, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 181 - 213.

Mallick, S. B., Shai, H., Adanur, S., and Elton, D. J., (1996), "Pullout and Direct
Shear Testing of Geosynthetic Reinforcement: State-of-the-Art Report,"
Transportation Research Record, No. 1534, pp. 80-90.
Mast, D. G. (1997), "Field Demonstration of a Highway Embankment Using Waste
Foundry Sand," Master's Thesis, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
1997.

Mirafi (1990) "Design Methodology for Miragrid Reinforced Retaining Walls," Mirafi,
Inc. Charlotte, NC.

Mitchell, J. K. (1993) Fundamentals of Soil Behavior, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.

Nataraj, M. S., Maganti, R. S., and McManis, K. L., (1995) "lnterface Frictional
Characteristics of Geosynthetics," Proceedings of the Geosynthetics '95
Conference, Nashville, 'TN, pp. 1057-1069.

Sabatini, P. J., Schmertmann, G. R., and Swan, R. H. Jr., (1998) "Issues in

Clayfrextured Geomembrane lnterface Testing," Sixth International
conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta.

Srinivasa, Murthy, B. R., Sridharan, A., and Bindumadhava, (1993), "Evaluation of

Interfacial .Resistance," Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 12, pp. 235-
253.

Takasumi, D. L., Green, K.R., and Holtz, R.D., (1991) "Soil-Geosynthetics lnterface
Strength Characteristics: A Review of State-of-the-Art Testing Procedures"
Proceedings of the Geosynthetics '9 1 Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 87-
100.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (1998), Wisconsin Administrative

Code, Chapter NR 538: Beneficial Use of Industrial Byproducts, pp. 164-1 -
164-13.
APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A

MOHR-COULOMB FAILURE ENVELOPES FROM LARGE-SCALE DIRECT

SHEAR MACHINE
 +Base Sand (38" - -= - - Portage Sand (38')

C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-
-
L
1 l 1 1 l 1 l l l l ! l l I l i l l l ! l l l l l l I -

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Normal Stress (kPa)

Fig. A-1. Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelopes for Reference Sands in Large-Scale

Direct Shear Box.
 APPENDIX B

SHEAR STRESS VERSUS HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT FOR INTERFACE

DIRECT SHEAR TESTS
 Displacement (rnrn)
63 on = 30 kPa o on= 50 kPa
on = 30 kPa on = 100 kPa

Displacement (rnrn)
Fig. B-1. Shear Stresr-Displacement Curves for (a) Base Sand-Geogrid and (b)
Base Sand-Geomembrane.
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement (mm)

Fig. B-2.Shear Stresr-Displacement Curves for Base Sand-Geotextile.

 10 20 30 40 50
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
Fig. B-3. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand B-Geogrid: (a) As-
compacted and (b) Soaked.
 . Displacement (mm)
on= 30 kPa 0 o n =50 kPa

Displacement (mm)
Fig. 8-4. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand 6-Geomembrane:
(a) As-compacted and (b) Soaked.
 Displacement (mm)
03 on= 30 kPa o on= 50 kPa

Displacement (mm)
Fig B-5. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand B-Geotextile: (a) As-
compacted and (b) Soaked.
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)

'Displacement (mm)
Fig. B-6. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand C-Geogrid: (a) As-
compacted and (b) Soaked.
 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
Fig. B-7. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand C-Geomembrane:
(a) As-compacted and (b) Soaked.
 Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
Fig. 6-8. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand C-Geotextile: (a) As-
compacted and (b) Soaked.
 I i i l l 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 i I ~ 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
Fig. B-9. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand D-Geogrid: (a) As-
compacted and (b) Soaked.
 0 10 20 30 40

Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
Fig. B-10. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand D-Geomembrane:
(a) As-compacted and (b) Soaked.
 Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)
Fig. B-11. Shear Stress-Displacement Curves for Foundry Sand D-Geotextile: (a)
As-compacted and (b) Soaked.
 APPENDIX C

CONSOLIDATION GRAPHS FROM INTERFACE SHEAR TESTS

 Square Root Time (min)

Fig. C-1. Consolidation Graph for Foundry Sand B (30 kPa).

 Square Root Time (min)

Fig. C-2. Consolidation Graph for Foundry Sand C (30 kPa).

 l l l ' l l l ' l l l i l l l ' l l l l l l l l l l l ' l l l l l l l ' l l l
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Square Root Time (min)

Fig. C-3. Consolidation Graph for Foundry Sand D (30 kPa).

 APPENDIX D

PLlLLOUT TEST DATA

 Table D-1. Maximum Pullout Force per Unit Width (kNlm) for Each ~ e s t . '

Geogrid Geotextile
Soil % Fines
10k~a130k~a150k~
10kPa
a 1 3 0 k P a 50kPa

Foundry
6.5 34 522 642 20 38 43
Sand A
Foundry
11.3 36 50 61 29 41 442
Sand C
Foundry
19.2 39 70 822 27 41 41
Sand D

Geosynthetic broke
3~stimatedfor 50 kPa by extrapolating data
 Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. D-1. Pullout Force per Unit Width versus displacement for (a) Base Sand-
Geogrid and (b) Base Sand-Geotextile.
 Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. D-2. Pullout Force per Unit Width versus displacement for (a) Foundry Sand A-
Geogrid and (b) Foundry Sand A-Geotextile.
 l l I l I l l I l l l l i l l l l l l l l 1 1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Displacement (mmj

Displacement (mm)

Fig. D-3. Pullout Force per Unit Width versus displacement for (a) Foundry Sand C-
Geogrid and (b) Foundry Sand C-Geotextile.
 Displacement (mm)

Displacement (mm)

Fig. D-4. Pullout Force per Unit Width versus displacement for (a) Foundry Sand D-
Geogrid and (b) Foundry Sand D-Geotextile.