Influence of Geogrid Reinforcement On Lateral Earth Pressures Against Model Retaining Walls

Technical Paper by Y. Tsukamoto, K. Ishihara, T.
Higuchi
and H. Aoki
INFLUENCE OF GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT ON
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AGAINST
MODEL RETAINING WALLS
ABSTRACT: Large-scale model retaining wall tests were carried out using reinforced and
unreinforced granular backfill and geogrid layers that were not attached to the wall facing.
The objective of this study was to observe the lateral earth pressures on the model retaining
walls under a range of surcharge pressures, which ranged from an at-rest to active-state con-
dition. In so doing, the effectiveness of unattached geogrid reinforcement layers in reducing
the lateral earth pressures was demonstrated. It was shown that unattached geogrid layers
effectively reduce the coefficient of active earth pressure. The coefficients of earth pressure
at rest, Ko , and at an active state, Ka , were examined, and the formulation of the coefficient
of earth pressure-displacement curve was proposed. Interface shear stresses induced along
the geogrid layers were also examined under different surcharge pressures. An apparent co-
efficient of lateral stress for the geogrid reinforcement was defined and compared with the
corresponding coefficient of earth pressure. In addition, by measuring lateral stresses at sev-
eral locations on the side walls of the model soil container, the changes in the out-of-plane
stresses were examined.
KEYWORDS: Active earth pressure, At-Rest earth pressure, Model test, Geogrid
reinforcement, Retaining wall.
AUTHORS: Y. Tsukamoto, Research Associate, and K. Ishihara, Professor, Department

of Civil Engineering , Science University of Tokyo, 2641, Yamazaki, Noda, Chiba 278-8510,
Japan, Telephone: 81/471-24-1501, Telefax: 81/471-23-9766, E-mail:
ytsoil@rs.noda.sut.ac.jp; T. Higuchi, US Consultants, Co., Ltd., 3-5-9, Higashi-Ueno,
Taito-ku, Tokyo 110, Japan, Telephone: 81/3-3837-3615, Telefax: 81/3-5818-6557; and H.
Aoki, Kajima Construction Co., Ltd., 6-3-2, Toyo, Koto-ku, Tokyo 135, Japan, Telephone:
81/3-5632-6611, Telefax: 81/3-5632-6681.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics

Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-4061,
USA, Telephone: 1/651-222-2508, Telefax: 1/651-631-9334. Geosynthetics International is
registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATES: Original manuscript received 18 December 1998, revised version received 17

April 1999, and accepted 10 May 1999. Discussion open until 1 January 2000.
REFERENCE: Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., Higuchi, T. and Aoki, H., 1999, “Influence of
Geogrid Reinforcement on Lateral Earth Pressures Against Model Retaining Walls”,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 195-218.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 195

TSUKAMOTO et al. D Influence of Geogrid-Reinforcement on Model Retaining Walls
1 INTRODUCTION
It has become widely known that the use of geogrid reinforcement in retaining wall
structures is useful to improve overall stability of earth structures and to reduce lateral
earth pressures on retaining walls. Several researchers (e.g. Juran and Christopher
1989; Murata et al. 1993) have conducted laboratory model studies using geosynthetic
reinforcement tied to a rigid retaining wall. Field measurements on instrumented geo-
grid-reinforced walls have been carried out by Fishman et al. (1993) among others. Re-
cently, it has been reported that the use of reinforcement not attached to a rigid wall is
also effective for the stability of earth structures and leads to economic benefits result-
ing from the elimination of the connections between the reinforcement and the wall (Sa-
ran et al. 1992). Terminology has also been suggested for distinguishing between
attached and unattached reinforcement, i.e. “the reinforced wall” and “the wall retain-
ing reinforced soil”, respectively. However, relatively few experimental results have
been reported for retaining walls with unattached reinforcement.
Studies of retaining walls with unreinforced backfills have identified several factors
affecting the lateral earth pressures developed against walls, including modes of wall
displacement, compaction or densification effects, and vertical and horizontal stress
transfer. The influence of the modes of wall displacement on lateral earth pressures was
reported by Fang and Ishibashi (1986) and Fang et al. (1994). They showed that the de-
veloped lateral earth pressure distributions were dependent on the modes of wall displa-
cement, such as translation, rotation about the top, and rotation about the heel. The
influence of backfill compaction on the performance of retaining walls was reported by
Ingold (1979), Sherif et al. (1982), Duncan and Seed (1986), and Duncan et al. (1991).
There has also been a discussion of the three-dimensional (3-D) effects of lateral earth
pressures acting on diaphragm walls (Ng et al. 1995). Ng et al. (1995) identified and
discussed the significance of vertical and horizontal load transfer on 3-D mechanisms.
In the current study, a series of experiments was carried out on model retaining walls
adjacent to backfills reinforced with geogrids that were not attached to the wall facing.
Different geogrid reinforcement patterns and granular backfills were used and sub-
jected to different surcharge pressures.
2 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
2.1 Experimental Apparatus and Material Properties
Figure 1 shows the experimental apparatus used in the current study. The entire sys-
tem consists of five parts: a model soil container, a mobile retaining wall, wall displace-
ment actuators, a surcharge loading unit (inflatable rubber mattress), and a data
acquisition system.
The soil container has dimensions of 1.5 m in width, 1.05 m in height, and 1.5 m in
length and was filled with geogrid-reinforced sand. One end of the container, which is
1.5 m in width and 1.0 m in height, is comprised of a motor-driven, mobile rigid retaining
wall. Four combinations of motor and actuator units attached to the model retaining wall
can be simultaneously activated to provide smooth horizontal displacements. There-
fore, this apparatus can represent a translational mode of wall displacement, where the
196 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

(a) Retaining wall Surcharge loading unit

(inflatable rubber mattress)
Wall displacement
actuators
0.1
1.50
Soil container
EPC4 EPC5 EPC6
1.15
1.00
0.45
Dial gauge
0.15 0.30 0.30

(b)
EPC4 EPC5 EPC6
EPC3
0.45
EPC2 EPC7 1.50

0.30
EPC1 EPC8
Dimensions in metres
Figure 1. Experimental model retaining wall and adjacent sand backfill: (a) cross-section
view; (b) plan view.
orientation of the model wall remains perpendicular to the wall base during wall dis-
placements. Earth pressure cells (EPCs) were installed at several locations on the walls
of the soil container at a height of 0.45 m from the base (Figure 1). EPCs 1, 2, and 3

measured lateral earth pressures on the mobile retaining wall. EPCs 4, 5, and 6 measured
lateral earth pressures on the side wall of the soil container at different distances from
the mobile retaining wall. EPCs 7 and 8 measured lateral earth pressures on the back
wall of the soil container. The EPCs were calibrated against an axial dead load. The earth
pressures were calculated by dividing the axial loads by the area of the EPCs. Therefore,
the EPCs corrected any obliquity and eccentricity of the applied loads.
One of the salient features of the apparatus is the ability to measure lateral earth pres-
sures on the mobile retaining wall and at the side and back walls of the soil container,
during controlled displacements of the retaining wall. The translational horizontal wall
displacement was measured using a dial gauge attached to the retaining wall. The volt-
age output from the EPCs and the dial gauge were recorded using a data acquisition sys-
tem and stored in ASCII-coded data files. Friction between the model soil specimen and
the soil container walls was eliminated using lubricant and vinyl sheets. Before each
test series, a silicon grease compound, KS63G, provided by Shinetsu Chemical Compa-
ny Ltd. in Japan, was first applied to the internal soil container walls. A vinyl sheet was
then placed on the silicon grease, followed by another layer of silicon grease and anoth-
er vinyl sheet.
Tatsuoka and Haibara (1985) examined the shear resistance between Toyoura sand
and smooth or lubricated surfaces. Tatsuoka and Haibara (1985) demonstrated that in-
terface layers comprising the sequence KS63G silicon grease, Teflon sheet, KS63G sili-
con grease, Teflon sheet, and Toyoura sand reduced the interface friction angle to
approximately 5° for a mean vertical stress of 0.5 kPa and 0.7° for a mean vertical stress
of 30 kPa. Therefore, for the purpose of the current study, the interface friction angle be-
tween Toyoura sand and the soil container walls was considered to be minimal with even
greater surcharge pressures of 100 to 300 kPa. Accordingly, the earth pressure loads car-
ried by side wall friction is assumed to be very small in the reported experiments.
After construction of a geogrid-reinforced model specimen, a surcharge load was ap-
plied to the top surface of the reinforced soil using an air-inflated rubber mattress and
a reaction frame fixed to the soil container.
The granular soil used in the current study was Toyoura sand, which is a poorly
graded, clean fine sand with no fines. This sand has been widely used in Japan for geo-
technical laboratory experiments, and the mechanical properties are well known and
given in Table 1. Various types of geogrid were used in the current study; the mechanical
properties of the geogrid reinforcement are shown in Table 2.
Table 1. Physical properties of backfill (Toyoura sand).
Property Value
Density of solid particles, ρs (kg/m3) 2.65
Mean particle diameter, D50 (mm) 0.19
Uniformity coefficient, Cu 1.70
Fines content (%) (< 0.074 mm) 0
Maximum void ratio, emax 0.988
Minimum void ratio, emin 0.616

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the geogrid reinforcement.
Geogrid
P
Property
t
Type A Type B
Polymer type Vinylon Vinylon
Mass / Unit area, MA (g/m2) 320 200
Aperture size, length (mm) × width (mm) 16 × 16 19 × 16
Secant stiffness, Jsec
at 0.5% strain (kN/m) 1.57 1.80
at 1.0% strain (kN/m) 4.12 --
Strain at failure, εf (%) (at 1%/minute) 9 10
Rupture strength (kN/m) 58.8 29.4
Note: Vinylon = polyvinyl alcohol fibre (PVAF).
Table 3. Summary of the model test conditions.
Test Relative density of sand backfill, ID (%) Geogrid Reinforcement pattern

A 75 No reinforcement --
B 60 No reinforcement --
C 45 No reinforcement --
D 75 Type A Pattern A
E 60 Type A Pattern A
F 75 Type A Pattern B
G 75 Type A Pattern C
H 75 Type A Pattern D
I 75 Type B Pattern A
2.2 Preparation of Specimens and Testing Procedures
A series of experiments was carried out to examine the effects of geogrid-reinforced

backfill on the active stress state behind a retaining wall, with no geogrid-wall connec-
tions. Table 3 summarizes the test conditions and Figure 2 is a schematic of the differ-
ent geogrid reinforcement patterns and spacings used within the sand backfill. The four
reinforcement patterns are labelled A, B, C, and D. Patterns A, B, and C use three geo-
grid layers, and Pattern D uses five geogrid layers. For Patterns A and B, the geogrid
layers are the full length of the soil container. However, for Pattern B, the geogrid lay-
ers are folded 0.5 m into the backfill. For Pattern C, the geogrid layers are half the
length of the soil container. For Pattern D, the five geogrid layers are the full length of
the soil container.
The sand backfill was air-pluviated to a specified height and the top surface tamped
uniformly using a rod to achieve a desired relative density. Soil density was measured

(a) (b)
Retaining wall Soil container 500
150 150
Toyoura sand 350 350
Geogrid 350 350

200 200
(c) 750 (d)

150 150
175
350
175
175
350
175
200 200
Dimensions in millimetres
Figure 2. Geogrid reinforcement patterns: (a) Pattern A; (b) Pattern B; (c) Pattern C;
(d) Pattern D.
at three locations in each soil layer. A geogrid layer was then placed, and the same pro-
cedures repeated until the entire model specimen was completed. Finally, the rubber
mattress was placed on top of the model specimen, and the soil container was closed
using a rigid lid.
For each test series, the following surcharge load and wall movement steps were
applied:
1. First, the surcharge pressure, qo = 100 kPa, was applied to the top surface of the mod-
el specimen at a loading rate of 10 kPa/minute.
2. Next, while maintaining a constant surcharge pressure, the model retaining wall was
moved away from the model specimen at a constant rate of 0.05 mm/minute until
the model specimen achieved an active stress state. This was typically achieved with
a wall displacement of 4 mm.
3. The surcharge pressure was then gradually released to ensure that the rubber mat-
tress would not puncture during the subsequent step (the retaining wall pushes
against the rubber mattress).
4. Finally, the retaining wall was moved back to the original position at a constant rate
of 0.15 mm/minute.
Steps 1 to 4 were repeated on the same model specimen using surcharge pressures
of 200 and 300 kPa.

3 STRESS PATHS
The loading history of the model specimens can be represented by p-q stress paths
(Figure 3), where the mean normal stress, p, and deviator stress, q, are defined as follows:
σv + σh σv − σh
p= q= (1)
2 2
and: σv = vertical overburden stress measured at a depth, h, corresponding to the EPCs

on the retaining wall; and σh = lateral earth pressures measured at a depth, h, correspond-
ing to the EPCs on the retaining wall (average reading of EPCs 1 and 2). The vertical
overburden stress, σv = qo + γh, where γ is the unit weight of the sand backfill. Figure
3 shows a typical p-q stress path measured using the EPCs. One loop of the stress path
represents one loading sequence history, i.e. Steps 1 to 4 described in Section 2.2. Dur-
ing surcharge loading, the p-q stress points move in directions that result in positive in-
crements of p, as well as q, after which all of the stress points appear to lie on the same
Ko line (where Ko is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest measured at the mobile re-
taining wall) (Figure 3). The stress points then move in directions that result in negative
increments of p and positive increments of q, during retaining wall displacements away
from the model specimen, and eventually appear to reach active-state conditions and
lie on the Ka line (where Ka is the coefficient of active earth pressure measured at the
mobile retaining wall). Therefore, during these events, the stress points effectively
move from the Ko to the Ka line. The stress points then move toward the origin due to
surcharge unloading. Finally, the stress points move in directions that result in positive
150
K Line
a
Deviator stress, q (kPa)
(3) Surcharge (2) Wall

100 unloading movement
K Line
o
50
(1) Surcharge
loading
0
Test D
(4) Wall movement toward soil
-50
0 50 100 150 200 250
Mean normal stress, p (kPa)
Figure 3. Typical stress path during surcharge loading of a model retaining wall
measured using earth pressure cells (EPCs) 1 and 2.

increments of p and negative increments of q, due to retaining wall displacement toward

the model specimen.
In the current study, the EPCs were installed at a depth of 0.45 m from the base;
therefore, the earth pressure distribution with depth was not measured. McGown et al.
(1992) conducted similar tests with 2 m-high retaining walls constructed using both un-
reinforced and reinforced backfills, and monitored the distribution of the earth pres-
sures against the walls with depth. McGown et al. (1992) used a uniformly graded sand
compacted in several layers, separated by geogrid reinforcement embedded against a
rigid (but movable) steel wall, but not attached to the wall. McGown et al. (1992) de-
monstrated that, due to an outward rotation induced about the base of the steel wall, the
earth pressures were generally reduced to values approximately corresponding to the
Coulomb active-state condition. Karpurapu and Bathurst (1992) performed a finite ele-
ment method (FEM) numerical analyses of rigid retaining walls. Compressible geosyn-
thetic media (i.e. geofoam) were placed against the back of the rigid wall face and used
to induce controlled yielding of the compacted sand backfill. Karpurapu and Bathurst
(1992) demonstrated that the active-state condition can be achieved when a sufficient
amount of deformation is allowed to occur within the soil backfill. Based on the studies
performed by McGown et al. (1992) and Karpurapu and Bathurst (1992), the authors
of the current study assumed that, due to the translational displacement of the wall, ac-
tive-state conditions were achieved.
4 COEFFICIENTS OF EARTH PRESSURE
Jaky (1944) suggested an empirical formula for the determination of the coefficient
of earth pressure at rest, Ko : Ko = 1-sinφi, where φi is the effective internal friction angle
of the soil. The validity of the Jaky equation was extensively examined by Mayne and
Kulhawy (1982), using over 100 different published sources. Mayne and Kulhawy
(1982) concluded that the Jaky equation proved to be moderately valid for cohesionless
soils. Sherif et al. (1984) conducted 1g experiments on retaining walls and suggested
the at-rest lateral stress, used in the design of retaining walls, is the sum of the lateral
stress due to gravity (calculated using the Jaky equation) and the lateral stress caused
by overcompression or overstressing of the backfill.
It was shown in Section 3 that Ko and Ka lines can be drawn in a p-q plot, and, there-
fore, a set of Ko and Ka values can be determined using the following equation:
q 1−K
p=1+K (2)
where K is the coefficient of earth pressure and is equal to σh / σv . Table 4 summarizes

the Ko and Ka values determined from p-q plots for all of the tests performed in the cur-
rent study. It can be seen that the Ko values remain within the range of 0.395 to 0.435
for a relative sand density, ID = 75%. On the other hand, the Ka values appear to vary
with geogrid reinforcement patterns, as well as the sand backfill density. The increased
number of geogrid layers generally reduces the magnitude of Ka values.

Table 4. Summary of parameters inferred from test results.
Test qo (kPa) Ko Ka Ka / Ko α
A 100 3.54
200 0.395 0.114 0.289 0.90
300 0.61
B 100 2.88
200 0.401 0.193 0.481 0.92
300 0.66
C 100 0.90
200 0.433 0.232 0.536 0.48
300 0.80
D 100 2.93
200 0.411 0.048 0.117 0.68
300 0.45
E 100 0.79
200 0.421 0.161 0.382 0.40
300 0.39
F 100 2.39
200 0.435 0.071 0.163 0.83
300 0.50
G 100 1.79
200 0.401 0.045 0.112 0.75
300 0.48
H 100 1.74
200 0.416 0.024 0.058 0.67
300 0.44
I 100 1.58
200 0.403 0.076 0.189 0.95
300 0.67
Note: α = parameter used in Equation 3.
5 COEFFICIENTS OF EARTH PRESSURE-WALL DISPLACEMENT,

K-d , CURVES
Figures 4 and 5 show a comparison of coefficients of earth pressures, K, and transla-

tional retaining wall displacement, d, away from the backfill for unreinforced (Figure
4) and geogrid-reinforced (Figure 5) model specimens subjected to different surcharge

0.5
Coefficient of earth pressure, K
K Line Test A
o
0.4
q = 100 (kPa)
o
0.3 q = 200 (kPa)
o
q = 300 (kPa)
o
0.2
0.1
K Line
a
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Horizontal displacement of wall, d (mm)
Figure 4. The coefficient of earth pressure, K, versus the horizontal displacement of the
retaining wall, d, for unreinforced sand backfill (Test A).
0.5
K Line Test D
o
0.4
q = 100 (kPa)
o
0.3 q = 200 (kPa)
o
q = 300 (kPa)
o
0.2
0.1 K Line
a
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 5. The coefficient of earth pressure, K, versus the horizontal displacement, d, of the
retaining wall for the geogrid-reinforced sand backfill (Test D, Pattern A with Type A
geogrid).

pressures. The average reading of EPCs 1 and 2 was used to calculate the earth pressure
on the retaining wall; the difference between these two readings was not significant. In
Figures 4 and 5, the retaining wall moves until the backfill reaches an active-state con-
dition. At first glance, it appears that as the surcharge pressure, qo , increases, the hori-
zontal displacement necessary to reach an active state increases. In Figure 4, the K value
for the unreinforced backfill reduces and remains at an approximate value of K = 0.11.
On the other hand, in Figure 5, the K value for the geogrid-reinforced backfill reduces
to a value lower than that for the unreinforced backfill. The different K values for geo-
grid-reinforced and unreinforced soil may be due to several factors, including geogrid
tension mobilized in the soil resistant zone and load transfer between the soil and geo-
grid. Ehrlich and Mitchell (1994) demonstrated that soil shear strength, unit weight,
depth, relative soil-reinforcement stiffness, and compaction are the major contributors
to reinforcement tension. Compaction, in particular, may be the major reinforcement
tension contributor at shallow depths.
Herein, the following expression is proposed for calculating K-d curves during wall
displacement from an at-rest to active-state condition:
K (d )
Ko
=
Ka
Ko
K
+ 1− a
Ko
 e −αd
(3)
where d is expressed in mm, and the parameter α represents the influence of the sur-
charge pressure on the K-d curves. Figure 6 shows approximations to the measured K-d
curves using regression analyses to find the value of the parameter α in Equation 3.
Best-fit values for α are summarized in Table 4. Curve fitting was carried out to deter-
mine the parameter α using the Ko and Ka values obtained from the p-q plots.
0.5
K Line Test H
o
0.4
q = 100 (kPa)
o Dashed curves show
q = 200 (kPa) best-fit results
0.3 o
q = 300 (kPa)
o
0.2
0.1
K Line
a
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 6. Comparison of measured and approximate K-d curves from regression analyses
for Test H (Pattern D with Type A geogrid reinforcement).

6 GEOGRID INTERFACE SHEAR STRESS
In order to measure the tensile strains induced along the geogrid reinforcement, the
geogrid was instrumented at five equally spaced points using electrical resistance strain
gauges. Perkins and Lapeyre (1997) demonstrated the difference between the strain
measured using gauges and the true (global) geosynthetic strain, and pointed out that
the measured strain is a local value, where the global strain represents the average strain
over a much larger specimen length. Therefore, in the current study, tensile strength
tests were conducted separately on strain-gauged geogrid strips. Measured tensile force
and global tensile strain (average strain measured between specimen clamps) were re-
corded, and the strain-gauge outputs calibrated against tensile force and global tensile
strain. In the current study, the strains measured using the gauges were converted to the
global strains using the calibration test results. Figure 7 shows a typical tensile strain
distribution along a geogrid layer; zero tensile strains are assumed at the free ends of
the geogrids. In Figure 7, as well as Figures 8 to 10, the strains induced along the geogrid
layer at a height of 0.55 m from the base of the soil container, i.e. at midheight, are
shown. As soon as the retaining wall moves, strains begin to develop in the geogrid lay-
ers. Figures 8 to 10 show comparisons of geogrid tensile strains induced at fully mobi-
lized active states, under different test conditions. Figure 8 shows the effect of the
relative sand density, ID , on the geogrid tensile strain distributions. The lower sand den-
sity (ID = 60%) induces greater geogrid tensile strains and a greater strain distribution,
most likely because greater soil displacements are necessary to reach active states. Fi-
gure 9 shows the effects of overburden stress on the geogrid tensile strain distribution.
The increased overburden stress induces greater geogrid tensile strains. Figure 10 shows
the effects of geogrid reinforcement pattern on geogrid tensile strain distributions.
The distribution of interface shear stresses, induced along a geogrid layer, τi , can
be calculated as follows:
Ti+1 − Ti
τi = (4)
2 l i , i+1
where: Ti = geogrid tensile force per unit width at point i from the wall; τi = interface
shear stress at the midpoint between points i and i+1; and li,i+1 = geogrid length between
adjacent strain-gauged points i and i+1. The interface shear stresses are assumed to be
induced on both sides of the geogrid. Figure 11 shows typical interface shear stress dis-
tributions along geogrid layers. A transition point exists where the interface shear stress
changes from positive to negative, which is equivalent to the point of maximum tensile
force. This implies that, between the mobile retaining wall and the transition point, the
interface shear stress acts toward the wall; however, the interface shear stress acts away
from the wall behind the transition point. One of the major contributing factors to the
reduced earth pressure on the mobile retaining wall may be the geogrid-sand interface
shear stress mobilization along the geogrid layers that effectively pulls the sand backfill
away from the wall within its frictional capacity. In addition, at these transition points,
a potential sliding surface may develop within the backfill. Under these conditions, the
following equation holds true:

1.0
Test D q = 100 kPa
Geogrid tensile strain (%)
o
d = 0.0 mm
0.8 I = 75% d = 0.5 mm
D
d = 1.0 mm
0.6 d = 1.5 mm
d = 2.0 mm
d = 3.0 mm
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Distance from the wall (m)
Figure 7. Distributions of geogrid tensile strain at different retaining wall displacements

for Test D (Type A geogrid, Pattern A).
1.0
Test D ( ID = 75%)
0.8
Test E ( ID = 60%)
0.6
qo = 100 kPa
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Figure 8. Effect of sand backfill density on geogrid tensile strain distributions (Type A
geogrid, Pattern A).

1.5
Test D ( qo = 100 kPa)

Test D ( qo = 200 kPa)
1.0 Test D ( qo = 300 kPa)
ID = 75%
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Figure 9. Influence of surcharge pressure on geogrid tensile strain distributions for Test D
(Type A geogrid, Pattern A).
1.0
qo = 100 kPa
Test D (Pattern A)
0.8 ID = 75% Test F (Pattern B)
Test G (Pattern C)
0.6 Test H (Pattern D)
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Figure 10. Influence of geogrid reinforcement pattern on tensile strain distributions

(Type A geogrid).

10
Interface shear stress (kN/m2)
8 d = 0.0 mm d = 2.0 mm
d = 0.5 mm d = 2.5 mm
6 = 1.0 mm
d d = 3.0 mm
d = 1.5 mm
4
Test D I = 75% q = 100 kPa
2 D o
-2
-4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Figure 11. Distributions of geogrid-sand interface shear stress for different horizontal
displacements, d , of the retaining wall (Test D, Type A geogrid, Pattern A).
T max = −  τ dl (5)
lTP
where: Tmax = measured maximum geogrid tensile force (per unit width); τ = interface
shear stress distributed along a geogrid layer; lTP = transition point along the geogrid
with respect to the l coordinate, which starts at the wall; and L = geogrid length. The
apparent lateral stress sustained by the geogrid, σhg , can then be defined as follows:
N
T j , max B
j=1 (6)
σ hg =
HB
where: Tj, max = maximum tensile force induced at geogrid layer j; N = number of geogrid
layers in the model specimen; and B and H = width and height of the model retaining
wall, respectively. Figure 12 shows a plot of typical σhg versus d values. It is interesting
to note that the effects of overburden stress on the mobilization of geogrid-sand inter-
face shear stress are apparent at active states; as the overburden stress increases, the ap-
parent σhg value increases. However, with respect to the initial sections of the σhg versus
d curves, the influence of magnitude of overburden stress appears to be less prominent.
Figure 13 summarizes σhg versus d data obtained during active states for the different
reinforcement patterns for the four test series, D, F, G, and H. There are three data points

20
Apparent lateral stress, σhg (kPa)
Test D ID = 75%
15
10
q = 100 kPa
o
5 q = 200 kPa
o
q = 300 kPa
o
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 12. Apparent lateral stress, σhg , versus horizontal displacement, d, of the retaining
wall for different surcharge pressures (Test D, Type A geogrid, Pattern A).
25
Apparent lateral stress, σhg (kPa)
Test D (Pattern A) 5 geogrid sheets

20 Test F (Pattern B)
Test G (Pattern C)
15 Test H (Pattern D)
10
3 geogrid sheets
5
0
0 2 4 6 8
Figure 13. Apparent lateral stress, σhg , versus horizontal displacement, d, of the retaining
wall at active states for different test series (Type A geogrid, ID = 75%).

for each test series, representing tests conducted under the three different surcharge
pressures of 100, 200, and 300 kPa. The σhg values for Test H, reinforced with five geo-
grid layers, are clearly greater than the σhg values from tests using three geogrid layers.
However, there appears to be no difference between the test results for model specimens
with three geogrid layers.
The apparent coefficient of lateral stress, Kg , sustained by a geogrid layer can be
defined as follows:
σhg
Kg = (7)
σv
The apparent lateral stress value, σhg , defined by Equation 6 does not represent the
horizontal stress on the retaining wall, but the horizontal stress that should be defined
at the transition points along the geogrid reinforcement, at which the maximum tensile
forces occur. It was previously noted that the coefficients of active earth pressure for
the geogrid-reinforced model specimens reduce to values less than those for the unrein-
forced model specimens. This may be partly explained by the development of σhg sus-
tained by the geogrid reinforcement. In order to examine the role of geogrid-sand
interface shear stresses in the reduction of the coefficients of active earth pressure, Ka ,
the parameter ∆K is defined as follows:
ΔK = K u − K r (8)
where Ku and Kr denote the coefficients of earth pressures for the unreinforced and the
reinforced backfill, having the same density, respectively. The Ku and Kr values were
measured using EPCs installed on the model retaining wall. The ∆K value is based on
earth pressure measurements at a height of 0.45 m from the base, and the Kg value
introduced in Equation 7 is derived from the geogrid tensile strains measured along the
geogrid layers embedded at several different heights from the base. Although the posi-
tions at which the ∆K and Kg values were measured are different, it is of interest to
compare these two values. Figures 14 and 15 show comparisons of Kg and ∆K values
during wall displacement from the at-rest to the active-state conditions, for dense and
medium-dense sand backfills, respectively. It is interesting to note that for the dense
sand backfill (Figure 14), the Kg value sustained by the geogrid develops at a lower dis-
placement rate than the ∆K value. This implies that, when compared to the unreinforced
dense sand backfill, the geogrid-sand interface shear stress only partly contributes to the
difference between the earth pressures of the unreinforced and reinforced backfills.
Therefore, there may be additional factors contributing to the reduction in earth pres-
sures on the model retaining walls, such as the in-plane and out-of-plane stresses, i.e. the
3-D effects. On the other hand, for the medium-dense sand backfill (Figure 15), Kg de-
velops at a greater rate with respect to displacement than ∆K. This implies that, although
the geogrid-sand interface shear stress is mobilized, the earth pressure on the retaining
wall would not be reduced as much as the geogrid-sand interface shear stress. Further
examination of the in-plane and out-of-plane stresses may provide insight into the dif-
ference in the reinforcement mechanisms for medium-dense and dense backfills.

(a)
0.10
0.08 K
g
∆K
0.06
Kg , ∆K
0.04
Test D
0.02
ID = 75% qo = 100 kPa
0.00
0 1 2 3 4
(b)
0.10
K
0.08 g
∆K
Kg , ∆K
0.06
0.04
Test D
0.02
ID = 75% qo = 200 kPa
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 14. Comparison of Kg and ∆K values versus the horizontal displacement, d, of the
retaining wall during displacements from the at-rest to active-state conditions for a dense
geogrid-reinforced sand backfill (ID = 75%, Test D, Pattern A): (a) qo = 100 kPa; (b) qo =
200 kPa.

(a)
0.10
K
g
∆K
0.05
Kg , ∆K
Test E
ID = 60% qo = 100 kPa

0.00
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5
(b)
0.10
K Test E
g
∆K ID = 60% qo = 200 kPa

0.05
Kg , ∆K
0.00
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 15. Comparison of Kg and ∆K values versus the horizontal displacement, d, of

the retaining wall during displacements from the at-rest to active-state conditions for a
medium-dense geogrid-reinforced sand backfill (Test E, Type A geogrid, Pattern A): (a)
qo = 100 kPa; (b) qo = 200 kPa.

7 IN-PLANE AND OUT-OF-PLANE STRESSES
Earth pressure measurements were taken at three locations along the side wall of the
soil container, namely, EPCs 4, 5, and 6 (Figure 1). EPC4 is located immediately adja-
cent to and 0.15 m away from the retaining wall and measured the lateral earth pressure
value, σhs1 . EPCs 5 and 6 are located 0.45 and 0.75 m away from the wall and measure
σhs2 and σhs3 , respectively. These EPCs provided measurements of the in-plane and out-
of-plane stresses during displacement of the retaining wall. Figure 16 shows the earth
pressures measured on the side wall of the soil container, during retaining wall displace-
ment, for the dense and medium-dense reinforced backfills, for which the side wall co-
efficient of earth pressure, Ksi = σhsi / σv (i = 1,2,3). The Ksi values for the dense reinforced
backfill are constant or increase with wall displacement because the backfill dilates or
expands during shear. However, for the medium-dense reinforced backfill, the Ksi val-
ues reduce as the retaining wall moves outward (Figure 16), which is likely caused by
contraction of the looser granular backfill. This reduction, of the in-plane and out-of-
plane stresses close to the retaining wall in loose granular backfill, should be associated
with the collapse state of the soil mass immediately behind the retaining wall.
8 CONCLUSIONS
Tests were carried out on model retaining walls supporting reinforced or unrein-
forced granular backfill with unattached geogrid layers. A series of experiments were
carried out on dense and medium-dense granular (sand) backfills prepared with differ-
ent geogrid-reinforcement patterns and subjected to a range of surcharge pressures. It
was shown that geogrid reinforcement, not attached to the wall facing, effectively re-
duces the coefficient of active earth pressure. The at-rest, Ko , and the active, Ka , coeffi-
cients of earth pressure were calculated, and a coefficient of earth
pressure-displacement, K-d, curve was proposed. Strain gauges attached to the geogrid
were used to measure the geogrid-sand interface shear stresses under a range of sur-
charge pressures. The apparent lateral stress coefficient applicable to each geogrid layer
was defined and compared with the corresponding coefficient of earth pressure. In addi-
tion, using the lateral pressures measured at several locations on the side wall of the
model soil container, the in-plane and out-of-plane stresses, i.e. the three-dimensional
effects, were examined to determine how these stresses are associated with reinforce-
ment mechanisms. As a result, physical implications and useful insights, into the mech-
anisms of geogrid reinforcement and in-plane and out-of-plane stresses, were obtained.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study represents the results of three years of research by the Soil Mechanics
Group at the Science University of Tokyo. The authors would like to acknowledge the
following undergraduate students, K. Irie, Y. Ogura, R. Hashimoto, S. Furuta, Y. Okada,
and R. Yamazaki for their support in carrying out the reported experiments and analy-
ses. Thanks are also extended to T. Saitoh of the Geotechnical Engineering Research
Ltd., for his generous support. The first author would also like to acknowledge the fi-

(a)
0.5
0.4
0.3
Ks1,2,3
0.2 K
S1
Test D
K
S2
0.1 ID = 75% qo = 100 kPa K
S3
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
(b)
0.5
0.4
0.3
Ks1,2,3
K decreases
s1
K
0.2 S1
Test E K
S2
0.1 ID = 60% qo = 200 kPa
K
S3
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 16. Coefficient of earth pressure measured against the wall, Ksi , versus the
horizontal displacement, d, of the retaining wall demonstrating changes in the in-plane
(Ks1 and Ks2 ) and out-of-plane (Ks3 ) stresses for different sand densities (Type A geogrid,
Pattern A): (a) dense sand backfill (Test D); (b) medium-dense sand backfill (Test E).

nancial assistance provided by the Ogawa Foundation. Thanks are also extended to T.
Masuo and K. Hara of Taiyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.
REFERENCES
Duncan, J.M. and Seed, R.B., 1986, “Compaction-Induced Earth Pressures under Ko -
Conditions”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Duncan, J.M., William, G.W., Sehn, A.L. and Seed, R.B., 1991, “Estimation of Earth
Pressures due to Compaction”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 117, No.
12, pp. 1833-1847.
Ehrlich, M. and Mitchell, J.K., 1994, “Working Stress Design Method for Reinforced
Soil Walls”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 4, pp. 625-645.
Fang, Y-S. and Ishibashi, I., 1986, “Static Earth Pressures with Various Wall Move-
ments”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 317-333.
Fang, Y-S., Chen, T-J. and Wu, B-F., 1994, “Passive Earth Pressures with Various Wall
Movements”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120, No. 8, pp. 1307-1323.
Fishman, K.L., Desai, C.S. and Sogge, R.L., 1993, “Field Behavior of an Instrumented
Geogrid Soil Reinforced Wall”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 119, No.
8, pp. 1293-1307.
Ingold, T.S., 1979, “Retaining Wall Performance during Backfilling”, Journal of Geo-
technical Engineering, Vol. 105, No. GT5, pp. 613-626.
Jaky, J., 1944, “The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest”, Journal of the Society of
Hungarian Architects and Engineers, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 355-358.
Juran, I. and Christopher, B., 1989, “Laboratory Model Study on Geosynthetic Rein-
forced Soil Retaining Walls”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 7,
pp. 905-926.
Karpurapu, R. and Bathurst, R.J., 1992, “Numerical Investigation of Controlled Yield-
ing of Soil-Retaining Wall Structures”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, pp.
115-131.
Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1982, “Ko -OCR Relationships in Soil”, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 108, No. GT6, pp. 851-872.
McGown, A., Loke, K.H. and Murray, R.T., 1992, “The Behaviour of Reinforced Soil
Walls Constructed by Different Techniques”, Grouting, Soil Improvement and Geo-
synthetics, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 30, Borden, R.H., Holtz, R.D and
Juran, I., Editors, ASCE, 1992, Vol. 2, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 1992,
pp. 1237-1248.
Murata, O., Tateyama, M. and Tatsuoka, F., 1993, “Loading Tests of Geosynthetic-Re-
inforced Soil Retaining Walls and Their Stability Analyses”, Earth Reinforcement
Practice, Ochiai, H., Hayashi, S. and Otani, J., Editors, Balkema, 1993, Proceedings
of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement Practice, Vol. 1, Kyushu
University, Fukuoka, Japan, November 1992, pp. 385-390.

Ng, C.W.W., Lings, M.L., Simpson, B. and Nash, D.F.T., 1995, “An Approximate Anal-
ysis of the Three-Dimensional Effects of Diaphragm Wall Installation”, Geotechni-
que, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 497-507.
Perkins, S.W. and Lapeyre, J.A., 1997, “In-Isolation Strain Measurement of Geosyn-
thetics in Wide-Width Strip Tension Test”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, No.
1, pp. 11-32.
Saran, S., Garg, K.G. and Bhandari, R.K., 1992, “Retaining Wall with Reinforced Co-
hesionless Backfill”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 12, pp.
1869-1888.
Sherif, M.A., Ishibashi, I. and Lee, C.D., 1982, “Earth Pressures against Rigid Retain-
ing Walls”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 108, No. GT5, pp. 679-695.
Sherif, M.A., Fang, Y-S. and Sherif, R.I., 1984, “Ka and Ko behind Rotating and Non-
Yielding Walls”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Tatsuoka, F. and Haibara, O., 1985, “Shear Resistance between Sand and Smooth or
Lubricated Surfaces”, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 89-98.
NOTATION
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
B = width of model retaining wall (m)

Cu = uniformity coefficient of soil (dimensionless)
d = translational horizontal displacement of model retaining wall (m)
D50 = mean particle diameter of soil (m)
emax , emin = maximum and minimum void ratios of soil (dimensionless)
H = height of model retaining wall (m)
h = depth of earth pressure cells (EPCs) with respect to top surface of model
specimen (m)
ID = relative density of soil (dimensionless)
Jsec = secant stiffness of geogrid reinforcement (N/m)
K = coefficient of earth pressure measured at model retaining wall
(dimensionless)
Ka = coefficient of active earth pressure measured at model retaining
wall (dimensionless)
Kg = apparent coefficient of lateral stress at geogrid layer
(dimensionless)
Ko = coefficient of earth pressure at rest measured at mobile retaining wall
(dimensionless)
Kr = coefficient of earth pressure for reinforced backfill (dimensionless)
Ksi = coefficient of earth pressure measured at the side wall of soil container
( = σhsi / σv , where i = 1,2, and 3) (dimensionless)

Ku = coefficient of earth pressure for unreinforced backfill (dimensionless)

L = length of geogrid (m)
li,i+1 = geogrid length between adjacent strain-gauged points i and i+1 (m)
lTP = transition point along geogrid with respect to l coordinate
(dimensionless)
Ma = geogrid mass per unit area (Table 2) (dimensionless)
N = number of geogrid layers embedded in backfill (dimensionless)
p = mean normal stress ( = ( σv + σh )/ 2 ) (N/m2)
q = deviator stress ( = ( σv - σh )/ 2 ) (N/m2)
qo = surcharge pressure applied on top surface of model specimen (N/m2)
qsi = deviator stresses measured at different locations on side wall
( = (σv - σhsi ) / 2, (i = 1,2,3)) (N/m2)
Ti = geogrid tensile force per unit width at point i from retaining wall
(N/m)
Tj , max = maximum geogrid tensile force per unit width at geogrid layer j (N/m)
Tmax = maximum geogrid tensile force per unit width (N/m)
α = parameter in Equation 3 (dimensionless)
∆K = Ku - Kr (dimensionless)
εf = geogrid strain at failure (Table 2) (dimensionless)
γ = unit weight of soil backfill (N/m3)
φi = effective internal friction angle of soil (_)
ρs = density of soil particles (kg/m3)
σh = lateral earth pressure measured at depth of earth pressure cells on model
retaining wall (N/m2)
σhg = apparent lateral stress at geogrid layer (N/m2)
σhsi = measured lateral earth pressure at side wall (i = 1, 2, and 3) (N/m2)
σv = vertical overburden stress on model retaining wall at depth of earth
pressure cells (N/m2)
τ = interface shear stress induced along geogrid (N/m2)

Errata
INFLUENCE OF GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT ON

LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AGAINST
MODEL RETAINING WALLS
TECHNICAL PAPER FOR ERRATA: Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., Higuchi, T. and
Aoki, H., 1999, “Influence of Geogrid Reinforcement on Lateral Earth Pressures
Against Model Retaining Walls”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.
195-218.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics

Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota
55113-4061, USA, Telephone: 1/651-222-2508, Telefax: 1/651-631-9334.
Geosynthetics International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
REFERENCE FOR ERRATA: Tsukamoto, Y., Ishihara, K., Higuchi, T. and Aoki,
H., 1999, “Errata for ‘Influence of Geogrid Reinforcement on Lateral Earth Pressures
Against Model Retaining Walls’”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 523.
The Editors regret the error incurred in Table 1, Section 2.1, p. 198, during type-set-
ting, and the authors would like to correct Equation 5, Section 6, p. 209. Both errors
appeared in Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6, No. 3.
ERRATUM FOR SECTION: 2.1 Experimental Apparatus and Material

Properties
In Table 1, p. 198 :
The value of the density of solid particles should be 2.65 × 103 kg/m3.
ERRATUM FOR SECTION: 6 GEOGRID INTERFACE SHEAR STRESS
Equation 5, p. 209, should be :

L
T max = − 2  τ dl (5)
lTP

Influence of Geogrid Reinforcement On Lateral Earth Pressures Against Model Retaining Walls

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of Geogrid Reinforcement On Lateral Earth Pressures Against Model Retaining Walls

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Paper by Y. Tsukamoto, K. Ishihara, T.

AUTHORS: Y. Tsukamoto, Research Associate, and K. Ishihara, Professor, Department

PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics

DATES: Original manuscript received 18 December 1998, revised version received 17

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 195

2.1 Experimental Apparatus and Material Properties

196 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

(a) Retaining wall Surcharge loading unit

0.15 0.30 0.30

EPC2 EPC7 1.50

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 197

Table 1. Physical properties of backfill (Toyoura sand).

198 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

Table 2. Mechanical properties of the geogrid reinforcement.

Note: Vinylon = polyvinyl alcohol fibre (PVAF).

Table 3. Summary of the model test conditions.

Test Relative density of sand backfill, ID (%) Geogrid Reinforcement pattern

2.2 Preparation of Specimens and Testing Procedures

A series of experiments was carried out to examine the effects of geogrid-reinforced

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 199

Geogrid 350 350

(c) 750 (d)

200 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

and: σv = vertical overburden stress measured at a depth, h, corresponding to the EPCs

(3) Surcharge (2) Wall

Mean normal stress, p (kPa)

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 201

increments of p and negative increments of q, due to retaining wall displacement toward

4 COEFFICIENTS OF EARTH PRESSURE

where K is the coefficient of earth pressure and is equal to σh / σv . Table 4 summarizes

202 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

Table 4. Summary of parameters inferred from test results.

Note: α = parameter used in Equation 3.

5 COEFFICIENTS OF EARTH PRESSURE-WALL DISPLACEMENT,

Figures 4 and 5 show a comparison of coefficients of earth pressures, K, and transla-

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 203

Horizontal displacement of wall, d (mm)

204 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

Horizontal displacement of wall, d (mm)

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 205

6 GEOGRID INTERFACE SHEAR STRESS

206 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

Figure 7. Distributions of geogrid tensile strain at different retaining wall displacements

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 207

Test D ( qo = 100 kPa)

Figure 10. Influence of geogrid reinforcement pattern on tensile strain distributions

208 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 209

Test D (Pattern A) 5 geogrid sheets

Horizontal displacement of wall, d (mm)

210 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 211

Horizontal displacement of wall, d (mm)

212 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

ID = 60% qo = 100 kPa

∆K ID = 60% qo = 200 kPa

Horizontal displacement of wall, d (mm)

Figure 15. Comparison of Kg and ∆K values versus the horizontal displacement, d, of

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 213

7 IN-PLANE AND OUT-OF-PLANE STRESSES

214 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3

Horizontal displacement of wall, d (mm)

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 3 215