Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176

Large-scale drainage behaviour of composite

geotextile and geogrid in residual soil
S.A. Tana,*, S.H. Chewa, C.C. Nga, S.L. Loha,
G.P. Karunaratnea, Ph. Delmasb, K.H. Lokec
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore
119260, Singapore
b
Polyfelt Ges.m.b.H, Austria
c
Polyfelt Asia Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
Received 7 January 2000; received in revised form 1 August 2000; accepted 13 August 2000

Abstract

The reinforcing capability of high strength geotextile and geogrid in residual soil has been
studied recently, using pullout tests and wide width tensile tests. However, the drainage
behaviour of these geosynthetics products in reinforcement applications has not been well
addressed so far. This paper presents experimental evaluation of the drainage performance of
a high strength composite permeable geotextile and a HDPE geogrid in a poorly draining
Singapore residual soil. The drainage behaviour of these geosynthetics products embedded in
poorly draining Singapore residual soil was evaluated with large-scale drainage behaviour
tests. Pore pressure transducers were installed at strategic locations in the soil mass to evaluate
the development and dissipation of excess pore pressure. The test results showed that with the
placement of permeable geosynthetics materials, the rate of pore pressure dissipation was
faster than without any geosynthetics product or with a non-permeable geosynthetics product.
# 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Large scale; Drainage behaviour; Pore pressure; Composite geotextile; Residual soil

1. Introduction

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls have gained popularity over the last
few decades. Most of these walls and embankments were constructed using freely

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-874-2278; fax: +65-874-2248.

E-mail address: cvetansa@nus.edu.sg (S.A. Tan).

0266-1144/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 6 - 1 1 4 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 0 5 - X
164 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176

draining soil, as drainage in the backfill material during and after heavy rain is of
primary importance. In Singapore, freely draining soil is not readily available
compared with poorly draining residual soil of granitic origin. Researches have been
conducted to evaluate the possibility of using poorly draining soil with the provision
of closely spaced horizontal internal drains (Bergado et al., 1992, Delmas et al., 1992,
Kamon et al., 1994, Tatsuoka and Yamauchi, 1986and Tatsuoka et al., 1986).
Savings in construction cost of the MSE walls can be as much as 6 to 10 times, if
locally available, and low quality and cohesive-frictional backfill soil materials were
utilized (Bergado et al., 1992). Hence, it is important to evaluate the role of
permeable geosynthetics products used as reinforcement for MSE walls in enhancing
the drainage in poorly draining soil. The drainage function of these geosynthetic
reinforcements has not been widely studied in connection to the design of the
reinforced walls and embankments (Kamon et al., 1994).
From a case study of an embankment constructed using poorly draining soil as fill
material, Tatsuoka and Yamauchi (1986) showed that it is necessary to have high
soil suction to maintain the stability of such slopes. The pore pressure within the
embankments should be prevented from building up excessively. Zornberg and
Mitchell (1994) also stated that as long as the pore pressure in the poorly draining
backfill can be drained off within a short time, there is no danger of poorly draining
backfill causing instability to the wall. Therefore, in reinforced soil walls with poorly
draining backfill material, stability can be greatly enhanced if the geosynthetics
products can satisfy the dual functions as reinforcement and drainage material.
Thus, there is a need to evaluate the efficiency of the drainage performance of
various geosynthetics products used for reinforcement applications.
The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the drainage performance of two
geosynthetics products in reinforced soil applications. In geosynthetics reinforced
soil walls, the reinforcements are in the form of continuous sheets. Therefore, a
large-scale testing apparatus for drainage behaviour was developed to study the
drainage performance of two geosynthetics materials in a poorly draining soil.

2. Large-scale drainage behaviour test

2.1. Properties of geosynthetics materials and residual soil

The geotextile used in the tests is a high strength non-woven composite geotextile
(Fig. 1(a)). It consists of a continuous fibre non-woven polypropylene sheet
reinforced with a grid network of polyester yarns. The polyester yarns provide the
required tensile strength and the polypropylene base provides the high in-plane
drainage capability for the low permeability residual soil used in the backfill, which is
essential for reinforcement applications in poorly draining residual soils (Chew et al.,
1998).
The geogrid used in the tests is manufactured from high-density polyethylene with
a minimum carbon black content of 2% (Fig. 1(b)). Table 1 shows the properties of
these two geosynthetics materials.
 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176 165

Fig. 1. Geosynthetics products used for the large-scale drainage tests: (a) composite geotextile, (b) HDPE
geogrid.

Table 1
Properties of geosynthetics materialsa

Geotextile Geogrid

Tensile strength (kN/m) (MD/CD) 75/25 80/–

Elongation at break (%) (MD/CD) 13/13 11.5/–
3
Water permeability (m/s) Cross-plane 2.5  10 }
2
In-plane 2.0  10 }
Thickness (mm) 2.5 }
Mass per unit area (g/m2) 420 600
a
M.D.=Machine direction; C.D.=Cross machine direction.

Table 2

Properties of Singapore residual soil

Specific gravity of the soil 2.65

In-situ moisture content 24%
Liquid limit 67%
Plastic limit 26%
Plasticity index 41%
7
Coefficient of consolidation of compacted soil 1.9  10 m2/sec
9
Coefficient of permeability of compacted soil 1.6  10 m/sec

Singapore residual soil of granitic origin was used in these tests. This residual soil
has low permeability and is considered as poorly draining or even practically
impervious due to its fine fractions, which consist mainly of kaolinite, mica and
quartz (Poh et al., 1985; Yong et al., 1985). Several laboratory tests were conducted
according to BS 1377 (1990) to obtain relevant properties of the soil. These are
summarised in Table 2 and the particle size distribution of the soil is shown in Fig. 2.
166 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of residual soil in Singapore.

2.2. Test apparatus

Three large-scale drainage testing apparatuses were fabricated, a schematic

diagram of which is shown in Fig. 3. The apparatus consists of a hydraulic loading
frame fixed on a rigid tank with dimensions of 1 m (length)  0.5 m (width)  1 m
(height), which was made of two mild steel walls and two thick perspex walls. It was
made to withstand the high lateral pressures that occur during the compaction of soil
as well as large surface loading applied during the tests. The surface loading of the
soil mass in the tank is exerted via a hydraulic cylinder onto a thick steel plate with
many small perforations to allow the ponded water to seep into the soil during the
ponding and loading stages.
A hydraulic system was specially designed so that it is able to apply independent
loads to three tanks simultaneously. The hydraulic system included a hydraulic
powerpack-air-driven pump and hydraulic cylinders. A hydraulic powerpack-air-
driven pump was used to increase the compressed air supply of 700 to 20,700 kPa
needed to drive a hydraulic cylinder. Some salient specifications of the hydraulic
cylinder are as follows: Stroke length: 152.4 mm; Bore diameter: 127 mm; Working
pressure: 20,700 kPa. On a perspex wall side, provision was made for the
geosynthetics reinforcement in the soil to protrude out of the apparatus permitting
water to drain out. A picture of the completed test apparatus is shown in Fig. 4.

2.3. Test procedures

Three tests were conducted for comparing the drainage behaviour of composite
geotextile and geogrid. The control test, without drainage and reinforcement
 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176 167

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the large-scale drainage test apparatus (Drawings are not to scale and all
dimensions are in mm).

Fig. 4. View of complete large-scale drainage test apparatus.

material, is shown in Fig. 5, which also shows the locations of pore pressure
transducers (PPTs) at the centre of the tank. Miniature PPTs (length=59 and
diameter=21 mm) were used in the tests. The other two tests were conducted with
geogrid and geotextile as shown in Fig. 6.
168 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176

Fig. 5. Locations of PPTs in the control test (All dimensions in mm).

Fig. 6. Location of the geogrid/geotextile and PPTs (All dimensions in mm).

Residual soil with a water content of 22%, slightly wet of optimum, was
compacted into the tank in layers of 100 mm lift with 15 blows of the Proctor
hammer per print over the whole area. The dry density/moisture content relationship
of residual soil using CBR mould and 4.5 kg hammer is illustrated in Fig. 7. The
optimum moisture content and dry density of the residual soil are 18% and 17.5 Mg/
m3, respectively. It was observed that the degree of saturation of the residual soil was
very close to fully saturated condition. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the
residual soil is fully saturated during the experiment in order to correlate the
experiment results with Terzaghi’s 1-D solution. The dry density of the residual soil
was 16.5 Mg/m3 at moisture content of 22%.
 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176 169

Fig. 7. Dry density/moisture content relationship for residual soil.

Grease was applied on the inner surface of the tank before the residual soil was
placed and compacted in order to reduce the influence of side friction and to avoid
preferential water flow along that boundary. After all the residual soil was
compacted in the tank, the tank was ponded with water up to 100 mm height above
the soil surface. Infiltration of water into the soil was allowed to take place over a
24 h period. This was to ensure that the soil in the tank for all tests was subjected to
the same water ponding condition, simulating the heavy rainfall and ponding. Then,
a load of 50 kPa was applied to the soil and held constant for one week.

3. Results and discussions

The pore pressure response in the soil mass, measured by the pore pressure
transducers (PPTs) installed, was monitored and presented in this section for the
three tests. The pore pressure response of the three tests are compared with
Terzaghi’s one-dimensional (1-D) consolidation theory with uniform initial excess
pore pressure in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the geotextile as a horizontal
drain. This comparison is based on the assumption that the residual soil is fully
saturated. This assumption is valid because Fig. 7 shows that the residual soil is
almost fully saturated at moisture content of about 22%.
The measured pore pressure normalised with respect to the applied loading
(50 kPa) indicates the ratio of excess pore pressure to initial peak pore pressure (ue/
uo) for all the three different tests. The pore pressure response of the three different
tests for PPTs at locations M1, M2 and M3 are compared with the Terzaghi’s 1-D
solutions for single drainage system (Case 1 in the present study) and double
drainage system (Case 2 in the present study). Fig. 8 shows the conditions for
Terzaghi 1-D solutions of Cases 1 and 2. In Case 1, there is only one drainage
boundary at the top surface and the drainage path length is 0.88 m. This is because
170 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176

Fig. 8. Boundary conditions for Cases 1 and 2.

the maximum pore pressure occurs at the bottom of the impervious tank. The point
of interest for the study of pore pressure dissipation rate is at 0.44 m below the top
surface, where the PPTs are. In Case 2, there are two drainage boundaries, one at the
top surface and the other, internal drainage boundary, at 0.45 m below the top
surface. Hence, the maximum pore pressure occurs at mid-depth between the top
surface and the internal drainage boundary. Similarly, the point of interest for the
study of the pore pressure dissipation is at 0.44 m below the top surface (i.e. 0.01 m
above the internal drainage boundary), where the PPTs are. The coefficient of
consolidation, cv of the residual soil, determined in the consolidation test of the
compacted soil, was found to be 1.9  10 7 m2/sec.
Figs. 8–11 show the variation of the ratio of the excess pore pressure to the initial
peak pore pressure (ue =uo ) with the dimensionless time factor (Tv ) for all the three
tests for PPTs at M1, M2 and M3, respectively. The pore pressure based on
Terzaghi’s solutions for Cases 1 and 2 conditions were also plotted for comparison.
It is assumed that the pore pressure at M1, M2 and M3 are identical in 1-D solution
with ideal conditions.
From Figs. 8–10, it is observed that, at all locations, the dissipation of pore
pressure was much faster with geotextile reinforcement than with geogrid
reinforcement or without any reinforcement. The pore pressure dissipation at M1,
 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176 171

Fig. 9. Dissipation of pore pressure at M1 for the 3 different test conditions.

Fig. 10. Dissipation of pore pressure at M2 for the 3 different test conditions.

M2 and M3 of the soil with geogrid reinforcement or without any reinforcement,

respectively follows closely the dissipation curve of the 1-D solution for Case 1.
However, in the case of geotextile reinforcement, the trend follows the 1-D solution
for Case 2. This implies that the geogrid reinforcement provides no drainage
enhancement while the geotextile reinforcement functions effectively as an internal
172 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176

Fig. 11. Dissipation of pore pressure at M3 for the 3 different test conditions.

Fig. 12. Dissipation of pore pressure with geotextile reinforcement.

drainage boundary. The rapid pore pressure dissipation with the geotextile is
evidently due to its high in-plane drainage capability.
Considering the case of geotextile reinforcement, it is observed in Fig. 12 that the
pore pressure dissipation curve for M3 is very close to the 1-D solution for Case 2
 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176 173

Fig. 13. Comparisons of ue =uo ratio for the three different tests after 80 h.

condition while that of M1 and M2 deviate slightly from the Case 2 condition even at
the early stage. This was due to the slight deviation of the boundary conditions at
M1, M2 and M3 from the ideal case of perfect drainage at the geotextile.
Fig. 13 shows the ratio ue =uo after 80 h at locations M1, M2 and M3, respectively,
for all the tests. With the geotextile reinforcement, ue =uo at M1, M2 and M3 after
80 h, (Tv =0.08) was approximately equal to 0.58, 0.5 and 0.42, respectively.
However, the corresponding values were approximately equal to 0.84, 0.8 and 0.68
with geogrid reinforcement; and 0.8, 0.79, and 0.78 without any reinforcement. It can
be seen that with geotextile reinforcement, the amount of pore pressure dissipation
was significantly higher than with geogrid reinforcement or without any reinforce-
ment. Hence, it is clear that the geotextile reinforcement serves also as an internal
drainage medium for the system in addition to its primary function as reinforcement.
In addition, it is also observed in Fig. 13 that for the tests with geotextile and
geogrid reinforcement, ue =uo at 80 h was highest at M1 and decreased towards M3.
However, ue/uo at 80 hours was almost constant at all PPTs locations for the control
test. This implies that for the tests with geogrid and geotextile, there was a higher
built-up excess pore pressure at M1, followed by M2 and M3, as shown by the
proposed isochrones of ue distribution with depths at M1, M2 and M3 in Fig. 13.
The decrease of ue =uo at 80 h for the tests with geogrid and geotextile was probably
due to the hydraulic gradient necessary for creating a flow through the geogrid and
geotextile towards the discharge point. The resulting hydraulic gradient for the
geotextile reinforcement is much greater than in the case of geogrid reinforcement or
without any reinforcement. This suggests that the flow rate with the geotextile
reinforcement was larger than that with geogrid reinforcement or without any
174 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176

Fig. 14. Pore pressure recorded in the Rouen Reinforced Retaining Wall (after Delmas et al., 1992).

reinforcement. This implies that although geogrid is a suitable material for

reinforcement, it is not good for providing drainage. On the other hand, the
geotextile, which is not only suitable as reinforcement but also good as drainage
material, can be used in walls and slopes with poorly draining soils as backfill
material.
The trend of pore pressure dissipation with time observed for the case of geotextile
reinforcement in the large scale drainage behaviour test is generally consistent with
the field data observed in the Rouen Reinforced Retaining Wall (Delmas et al.,
1992), as shown in Fig. 14. All the PPTs recorded negative pore pressure with respect
to atmospheric pressure. This is because unsaturated compacted clayey soil was used
as the backfill. The pore pressure registered in the large-scale drainage behaviour test
with geotextile reinforcement did not show any suction because the soil mass was
fully saturated upon completion of the compaction. Although the situation of the
Rouen Reinforced Retaining Wall is different from the tests and much more complex
because of partial saturation, it is worth comparing the trend of the pore pressure
dissipation between the field and laboratory tests. It is observed that both field data,
except for PPT A, and the present large scale drainage behaviour test showed that
effective and rapid dissipation of excess pore pressure was realised when permeable
geotextile reinforcement was used.
The rapid reduction of excess pore pressure resulted in high effective stresses at the
soil-geotextile interface, which provides good interface shear stress transfer between
geotextile and poorly draining soil, and hence ensured good stability. In addition, the
large scale drainage behaviour test results are also consistent with the field results
obtained by Bergado et al. (1992), Tatsuoka et al. (1986), Tatsuoka and Yamauchi
(1986) and Itoh et al. (1994).
 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176 175

4. Conclusion

Large scale drainage behaviour test results revealed that pore pressure dissipates
very slowly with poorly draining residual soil in the tests with geogrid reinforcement
or without any reinforcement, as compared with the test with permeable geotextile
reinforcement. The results show that geotextile reinforcement functioned effectively
as an internal drainage medium. On the other hand, geogrid reinforcement did not
provide adequate internal drainage capacity, which is necessary for poorly draining
soil when used as backfill.
The observation on the pore pressure dissipation from the large scale drainage
behaviour test for the residual soil with geotextile reinforcement is generally in
agreement with the field data observed in the field. It can be concluded that, rapid
pore pressure dissipation took place at the interface between the geotextile and
poorly draining soil. This will result in higher effective stresses, which can provide
good interface shear stress transfer between geotextile and poorly draining soil.
The test results showed that with the placement of permeable geosynthetics
materials, the rate of pore pressure dissipation was faster than without any
geosynthetics product or with a non-permeable geosynthetics product. Geogrid,
which is a non-permeable geosynthetics product, does not contribute to the drainage
in residual soil. Permeable geotextile was shown to have an excellent performance in
dissipating the pore pressure when poorly draining soil is used as the backfill. This
implies that permeable geotextile reinforcement can also function as horizontal drain
in poorly draining soil, thus enhancing its stability.

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate the support provided by Polyfelt Ges.m.b.H.,

Austria. This project was funded partly by the National University of Singapore
(NUS) and partly by Polyfelt under NUS-Polyfelt joint research collaboration
project GR6433.

References

Bergado, D.T., Chai, J.C., Alfarao, M.M., Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1992. Mechanically Stabilized Earth
(MSE) Embankments/walls. Improvements Techniques of Soft Ground in Subsiding and Lowland
Environment. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherland, 220pp.
BS 1377, 1990. British Standard Method of Test for Soil for Civil Engineering Purposes, British Standard
Institution.
Chew, S.H., Tan, S.A., Loke, K.H., Delmas, Ph., Ho, C.T., 1998. Large scale pullout tests of geotextiles in
poorly draining soils. Proceedings of Sixth International Geosynthetics Conference, Atlanta, USA, Vol.
2, pp. 821–824.
Delmas, Ph., Gotteland, Ph., Gourc, J.P., Haidar, 1992. Soil reinforced by geotextiles: study of
deformations on two full size structures. Proceedings of ASCE Conference on Ground Improvement,
pp. 223–229.
176 S.A. Tan et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 163–176

Itoh, M., Shirasawa, M., Itoh, A., Kumagai, K., Fukuoka, M., 1994. Well documented case study of a
reinforced wall. Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Geotextile, Geomembranes and
related products, Singapore, Vol. 1, pp. 49–52.
Kamon, M., Akai, T., Fukuda, M., Yaida, O., 1994. Reinforced embankment using geosynthetics
horizontal drains. Proceedings of Fifth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and
Related Products, Singapore, Vol. 2, pp. 641–645.
Poh, K.B., Chuah, H.L., Tan, S.B., 1985. Residual granite soil of Singapore. Proceedings of Eighth
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Vol. 1, 11–15 March, pp.
362–366.
Tatsuoka, F., Yamauchi, H., 1986. A reinforcing method for steep clay slopes using a non-woven
geotextile. Geotextiles Geomembranes 4, 241–268.
Tatsuoka, F., Ando, H., Iwasaki, K., Nakamura, K., 1986. Performance of clay test embankment
reinforced with a non-woven geotextile. Proceedings of Third International Conference on Geotextiles,
Vienna, Austria, Vol. 2, pp. 261–265.
Yong, R.N., Chen, C.K., Sellappah, J., Chong, T.S., 1985. The characterization of residual soil in
Singapore. Proceedings of Eighth Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
Vol. 1, 11–15 March, pp. 134–139.
Zornberg, J.G., Mitchell, J.K., 1994. Reinforced soil structures with poorly draining backfills. Part I:
reinforcement interactions and functions. Geosynthetics Int. 1, 103–148.