Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 526

Sand-Woven Geotextile Interface Shear Strengths in Different Shearing Directions

Md. Wasif Zaman1 and Jie Han, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE2

1
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering,
Univ. of Kansas. Email: mdwasif.zaman@ku.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, Univ. of Kansas.
Email: jiehan@ku.edu
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT

Woven geotextiles have been commonly used to reinforce or stabilize slopes, walls, and
roads. Soil-geotextile interface shear strength is an important design parameter for these
applications. Under different geometrical and/or loading conditions, the geotextile may be
sheared in different directions. Therefore, it is important to understand how interface shear
strengths change with shearing directions. This study aimed to investigate and compare the
interface strengths between sand and woven geotextile by large interface shear tests performed in
three shearing directions: (1) 0o (machine), (2) 45° (diagonal), and (3) 90o (cross-machine) under
three normal stresses of 12.5, 25, and 50 kPa. The large interface shear test device consisted of
an upper shear box and a lower shear box in similar dimensions of 100 mm high, 300 mm wide,
and 300 mm long. One type of woven geotextile consisting of polypropylene fibers was
investigated. A river sand at a dry condition was used and compacted to a relative density of
75%. The interaction coefficient between the sand and the geotextile was calculated for each test.
The test results show that the shearing direction had obvious effects on the peak interface shear
strength and the volumetric change during shearing. The interface shear strength and the
volumetric change at the 45o shearing direction had a combined effect from those in the machine
and cross-machine directions.

INTRODUCTION

Geosynthetics have been used as a reinforcing element in soil to improve the stability and
bearing capacity of earth structures (Palmeira 1987; Nakamura et al. 1999). The reinforcing
mechanism mainly involves the interaction between soil and geosynthetics that mobilizes
shearing resistance (Bergado et al. 2006; Koerner 2012). Interface friction angle and apparent
cohesion are two important parameters to represent the shear strength of the soil and
geosynthetic interface. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the interaction of soil and
geosynthetics for better design and improved performance of the reinforced earth structures
(Bergado et al., 2006; Palmeira, 2009).
Laboratory tests such as interface shear tests, pullout tests, torsional ring shear tests, or tilt
table tests have been used to evaluate the behavior of soil-geosynthetic interfaces (Saxena and
Wong 1984; Dove et al. 1997; Bemben and Schulze 1998; Lee and Manjunath, 2000; Bergado et
al., 2006; Wu et al., 2008; Palmeira, 2009). Among them, the large interface shear test is the
most widely used method to characterize the interface behavior of soil and geosynthetic if the
failure happens due to the sliding of soils (Frost and Han 1999; Lee and Manjunath 2000; Abu-
Farsakh et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2009a; Anubhav and Basudhar 2010; Khoury et al. 2011). Lee and
Manjunath (2000) discussed the benefit of using large interface shear tests to evaluate soil-

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 527

geotextile interface shear resistance. Geotextile can provide the interface shear resistance through
the surface texture only while geogrid can provide more frictional resistance by developing an
interlock with soil particles (Liu et al. 2009a; Markou 2018; Soylemez and Arslan 2020; Xu et al.
2020).
When a geotextile (GTX) is placed between soils subjected to loading (especially localized
footing loading and traffic loading), tensile force or shear stress may not be in the same direction
as the machine or cross-machine direction of the geotextile. Dong et al. (2011) numerically
investigated tensile behavior of geogrids with rectangular and triangular apertures under different
loading directions. So far limited studies have reported the effect of shearing direction on the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

interface shear strength between soil and geosynthetic. Yi et al. (2019) studied the interface
characteristics of polypropylene woven geotextile in warp and weft shearing directions. They
observed higher peak shear strengths in the shearing direction parallel to the weft yarns (i.e.,
cross-machine direction) than the shearing direction parallel to the warp yarns (i.e., machine
direction). However, Anubhav and Basudhar (2013) did not observe a significant difference in
the friction coefficients in the machine and cross-machine shearing directions, mainly because a
small direct shear apparatus was used, therefore, they suggested further investigations be needed
for other types of geotextile interfaces in the large direct shear test box. This study investigated
the interaction coefficient of soil and woven geotextile through nine large interface shear tests.
Since geotextile may be sheared in different directions depending on the geomaterial used and/or
loading conditions, this research focused on the interface shear strengths in the machine direction
(MD, defined as 0o), the diagonal direction (45°), and the cross-machine direction (CD, 90o) of
the geotextile with dry sand.

TEST MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sand

In this study, dry Kansas River sand was selected as a soil material to investigate the
interface behavior with a woven geotextile in the large interface shear tests. Table 1 lists the
physical properties of the river sand, while Fig. 1 shows its grain size distribution. This river
sand had round to sub-round particles and was classified as poorly graded sand (SP) according to
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Sand was carefully placedinto the lower shear
box manually using a spoon and then compacted to 75% relative density using a hand compactor
that consists of a square metal plate attached to a metal rod. More sand was placed into the upper
shear box and then compacted to the same density. The sand density was controlled by the mass-
volume method. The compacted sand at this density had a unit weight of 18.04 kN/m3, which is
equivalent to its void ratio of sand, e = 0.44. This sand had the minimum void ratio, emin = 0.38
and the maximum void ratio, emax = 0.62.

Table 1. Physical properties of river sand

D10 D30 D50 D60 γd,max γd,min

Soil type Cu Cc Gs
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)
Sand 0.32 0.6 0.85 1 3.13 1.13 2.65 18.85 16.02
Note: D10=10% of particles finer than this size (effective particle size); D30=30% of particles finer than
this size; D50=50% of particles finer than this size (mean particle size); D60=60% of particles finer than
this size; Cu=uniformity coefficient; Cc=coefficient of curvature; Gs=specific gravity; γd,max=maximum
dry unit weight; and γd,min=minimum dry unit weight

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 528
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1. Grain size distribution of river sand.

Geotextile

One type of woven geotextile (polypropylene) was used in the present study. Table 2
provides the properties of the woven geotextile provided by the manufacturer. The unit mass of
the geotextile specimen used in this study was measured according to the ASTM D5261
standard.

Table 2. Properties of geotextile (provided by the manufacturer)

Geotextile type Property Unit Value

Apparent opening size mm 0.60
Permittivity sec-1 0.4
Flow rate l/min/m2 1222
Thickness mm 1.22
Unit mass g/m2 385
Woven
Specific gravity of fibers - 0.91
Porosity % 65.3
Tensile strength (2% strain, MD) kN/m 14
Tensile strength (2% strain, CD) kN/m 19.3
Tensile Strength (ultimate) kN/m 70
Note: MD=machine direction, CD=cross-machine direction

Large Interface Shear Box Test Machine

A fully-automated large interface shear box test device was used in this study to perform a
shear test on a soil/geotextile interface following ASTM D5321. The shear box has an upper half
of 100 mm high, 300 mm wide, and 300 mm long, and the lower half of 100 mm high, 300 mm
wide, and 400 mm long. A rigid block was kept at one side (opposite side to the clamping of the
geotextile) of the lower half to create a 300 mm x 300 mm shear area. The device has two high-
speed precision micro stepper motors that control the loading mechanisms for the horizontal and
vertical loads. Linear variable displacement transformers (LVDT) were used to measure the
displacements of the box. Four vertical LVDTs and one horizontal LVDT were installed in the
device. Fig. 2 shows the illustration of the test setup.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 529
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. Illustration of the large direct shear box test setup.

For the reinforced tests, the lower half of the shear box was filled first with the river sand and
compacted by tamping to achieve the desired relative density of 75%. Then the pre-cut geotextile
sheet was clamped at the end side with the lower box using five screws. The upper half of the
shear box was then placed, filled with the river sand, and compacted to a specified height by
tamping to achieve the desired relative density of 75%. Finally, a steel loading cap was placed on
the top of the compacted sand. For each case, three samples were tested under three different
normal stresses: 12.5, 25, and 50 kPa, which simulate typical vertical stresses in the field for road
applications. All the samples were tested at a shear rate of 0.5 mm/min following the ASTM
Standard D5321.

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of Shearing Direction

To evaluate the effect of shearing direction on the interface behavior between sand and
woven geotextile, large interface shear box tests were performed with dry sand and geotextile
subjected to a shear load in 0°, 45°, and 90° to the MD direction. Fig. 3 shows the sampling of
the geotextile specimens and the shearing directions and fiber (warp and weft) orientations in the
woven geotextile used in this study. Please note: due to the manufacturing process of this
geotextile product, the photo in Fig. 3(b) may give a misleading illusion of fiber orientations;
therefore, the directions of the warp and weft fibers are marked.
Fig. 4 shows the shear stress versus horizontal displacement and the vertical displacement
versus horizontal displacement results. In the cross-machine direction (CD), the peak shear
strength for the sand/geotextile interface was found highest among all the cases. This result is
mainly because the geotextile in the CD had the highest surface roughness due to the weaving
pattern of fibers. Due to the high roughness, sand particles close to the interface rotated over
fibers, inducing more volumetric change (i.e., dilation). Also, the interlocking between sand
particles and weft yarns took place during shearing. For these reasons, shearing in the CD
produced the highest peak shear stress. Yi et al. (2019) also reported similar findings in their

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 530

study. In their numerical study, Feng et al. (2020) analyzed the sand-woven geotextile interface
shear behavior and concluded that soil particles near the interface had larger displacement and
relative sliding, resulting in dilation and localization of shear strain.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) geotextile sampling (b) 45° (diagonal) shear

Figure 3. Sampling and shearing directions relative to warps and wefts of the woven
geotextile

In the MD, the peak shear strength for the sand/geotextile interface was found lowest among
all the cases. This phenomenon happened because the warp yarns in the MD provided less
interlocking with sand particles than the weft yarns in the CD. Also, the geotextile surface was
much smoother in the MD. The volumetric change (i.e., dilation) was also small in this case. On
the other hand, the geotextile surface at 45° to the MD provided more friction than that in the
MD because of the combined effect from the weft and warp yarns. In this shearing direction, the
peak shear strength for the sand/geotextile interface was higher than that found in the MD but
was lower than that found in the CD. The dilation of the sand was also seen between the MD and
CD results. Shear strengths of sand or sand/geotextile at different normal stresses can be
expressed in terms of zero cohesion and varying friction angles or apparent cohesion and
constant friction angle. If the approach for apparent cohesion is adopted, the apparent cohesion
could be found through the linear regression of the shear stress versus normal stress relationship
as shown in Fig. 5. Liu et al. (2009a) also found an apparent cohesion in the peak shear strengths
for granular materials (sands and gravels). Khunt et al. (2020) performed large interface shear
box tests to study the different types of sand-geosynthetics interface behavior. They concluded
that the interface shear box test results exhibited a significant amount of cohesion value.

Peak Interaction Coefficient

Many researchers have discussed the importance of interaction coefficient in the design of
reinforced soil structures (Lee and Manjunath 2000; Goodhue et al. 2001; Jones and Dixon 2005;
Bergado et al. 2006; Abu-Farsakh et al. 2007; Koerner 2012). It is defined as the ratio of the
interface shear strength to the internal shear strength of the soil at the same normal stress (Cowell
1993):
ca +σn tan δa
ci = (1)
c+σn tan φ

where ca = the apparent cohesion of the soil/geotextile interface, δa = the interface friction angle,
c = the apparent cohesion of the soil, φ = the internal friction angle of soil, and σn = the applied
normal stress.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 531
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4. Large direct/interface shear test results: (a) Sand-sand; (b) Sand-GTX (0°, MD);
(c) Sand-GTX (45°, diagonal); and (d) Sand-GTX (90°, CD)

Fig. 6 shows the peak and residual interaction coefficients under three normal stresses under
the dry sand condition. The maximum interaction coefficient was found approximately 1.2 for
the shearing in the CD of the woven geotextile, which was the most efficient in terms of
mobilizing interface shear resistance. The coefficient greater than 1.0 is often attributed to the
interlocking behavior resulting from the trapping of sand articles into the geotextile surface
textures. The minimum peak interaction coefficient was found in the MD ranging from 0.65 to

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 532

0.76 under three normal stresses. The interaction coefficients were in the range of 0.92-0.97 in
the direction of 45°. Liu et al. (2009b) also reported that the interaction coefficient of sand-
geotextile ranged from 0.7 to 0.8. Infante et al. (2016) performed small-scale interface shear tests
with poorly graded sand and woven geotextile. They reported that the peak interaction
coefficients varied from 1.4 to 1.5 at 90% relative density of sand. Xu et al. (2020) performed
large interface shear tests to determine the subgrade-woven geotextile interaction coefficients
that varied between 0.78 and 0.89. Namjoo et al. (2020) concluded the interaction coefficients
for the sand-geotextile interface ranged from 0.79 and 1.01. They also found the interlocking
behavior resulting from the trapping of sand particles into the geotextile surface textures.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Sand-sand (b) Sand-GTX (0°, MD)

(c) Sand-GTX (45°, diagonal) (d) Sand-GTX (90°, CD)

Figure 5. Shear stress versus normal stress envelopes

(a) peak (b) residual

Figure 6. Interaction coefficients of the sand-woven geotextile at different normal stresses.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 533

Fig. 7 shows the peak and residual interaction coefficients increased with the shearing
directions from the MD (0°) to the CD (90°). The test results show that the peak interaction
coefficients varied from 0.65 to 0.76, 0.93 to 0.98, and 1.20-1.22 in the 0°, 45°, and 90° shearing
directions, respectively at different normal stresses. Similar trends are observed for the residual
interaction coefficients in different shearing directions at different normal stresses.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) peak (b) residual

Figure 7. Variation of the interaction coefficient with the shearing direction.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study, the influence of shearing direction on the interaction coefficient of sand-
woven geotextile was investigated under a dry sand condition using a large interface shear box
test device. The following conclusions can be made from this study:
(1) The cross-machine direction (CD, 90o) of the woven geotextile provided the highest peak
shear strength due to the roughest geotextile surface that generated the highest frictional
resistance in this direction. The machine direction (MD, 0o) of the woven geotextile
provided the lowest peak shear strength due to the smooth texture of the geotextile
surface. The shearing direction of 45° showed a combined effect of the CD and MD.
(2) The CD shearing resulted in the highest soil dilation due to the rough interface while the
MD shearing had the lowest soil dilation due to the smooth interface.
(3) The peak interaction coefficients ranged from approximately 1.2 in the CD to 0.65 in the
MD.
(4) The interaction coefficient increased with the shearing angle from 0 to 90 o to the MD.
However, the interaction coefficients varied most with the normal stress in the MD.
This study demonstrates that a geotextile may have anisotropic interface behavior with
soil.
(5) The above findings are limited to one type of poorly-graded river sand and one specific
woven geotextile tested at the normal stresses from 12.5 to 50 kPa. Several factors, such
as soil type, particle size, shape, gradation, geosynthetic type, surface roughness, weaving
pattern, and normal stress, may influence the interface shear response between a soil and
a geosynthetic. Interface shear tests should be performed for evaluating different
geosynthetic products under different conditions.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 534

REFERENCES

Abu-Farsakh, M., Coronel, J., and Tao, M. (2007). “Effect of soil moisture content and dry
density on cohesive soil–geosynthetic interactions using large direct shear tests.” J. of
Materials in Civil Eng., 19(7), 540-549.
Anubhav, and Basudhar, P. K. (2010). “Modeling of soil–woven geotextile interface behavior
from direct shear test results.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(4), 403-408.
Anubhav, and Basudhar, P. K. (2013). “Interface behavior of woven geotextile with rounded and
angular particle sand.” J. of Materials in Civil Eng., 25(12), 1970-1974.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bemben, S. M., and Schulze, D. A. (1998). “The influence of equipment style and setup
dimensions on sand/geomembrane direct shear test measurements.” In Proc. of the sixth int.
conf. on geosynthetics, 1, 453-458.
Bergado, D. T., Ramana, G. V., and Sia, H. I. (2006). “Evaluation of interface shear strength of
composite liner system and stability analysis for a landfill lining system in Thailand.”
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24(6), 371-393.
Cowell, M. J. (1993). “Comparison of pull-out performance of geogrids and geotextiles.” In
Proc. of Geosynthetics’ 93 Conference, 2, 579-592.
Dong, Y.-L., Han, J., and Bai, X.-H. (2011). “Numerical analysis of tensile behavior of geogrids
with rectangular and triangular apertures.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29(2), 83-91.
Dove, J. E., Frost, J. D., Han, J., and Bachus, R. C. (1997). “The influence of geomembrane
surface roughness on interface strength.” In Proc. Geosynthetics. 97(1), 863-876.
Feng, S. J., Chen, J. N., Chen, H. X., Liu, X., Zhao, T., and Zhou, A. (2020). “Analysis of sand–
woven geotextile interface shear behavior using discrete element method (DEM).” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 57(3), 433-447.
Frost, J. D., and Han, J. (1999). “Behavior of interfaces between fiber-reinforced polymers and
sands.” J. of geotechnical and geoenvironmental eng., 125(8), 633-640.
Goodhue, M. J., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2001). “Interaction of foundry sands with
geosynthetics.” J. of geotech. and geoenv. eng., 127(4), 353-362.
Infante, D. J. U., Martinez, G. M. A., Arrua, P. A., and Eberhardt, M. (2016). “Shear strength
behavior of different geosynthetic reinforced soil structure from direct shear test.” Int. J. of
Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 2(2), 1-16.
Jones, D. R. V., and Dixon, N. (2005). “Landfill lining stability and integrity: the role of waste
settlement.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23(1), 27-53.
Khoury, C. N., Miller, G. A., and Hatami, K. (2011). “Unsaturated soil–geotextile interface
behavior.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29(1), 17-28.
Koerner, R. M. (2012). Designing with Geosynthetics-; Vol2 (Vol. 2). Xlibris Corporation.
Khunt, S., Kantesaria, N., and Sachan, A. (2020, February). “Interface shear strength behaviour
of marginal soils with geotextiles and geogrids.” In Geo-Congress 2020: Engineering,
Monitoring, and Management of Geotechnical Infrastructure, 607-618.
Lee, K. M., and Manjunath, V. R. (2000). “Soil-geotextile interface friction by direct shear
tests.” Canadian geotechnical journal, 37(1), 238-252.
Liu, C. N., Zornberg, J. G., Chen, T. C., Ho, Y. H., and Lin, B. H. (2009a). “Behavior of
geogrid-sand interface in direct shear mode.” J. of Geotech. and Geoenv. Eng., 135(12),
1863-1871.
Liu, C. N., Ho, Y. H., and Huang, J. W. (2009b). Large scale direct shear tests of soil/PET-yarn
geogrid interfaces. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(1), 19-30.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023
 Geo-Congress 2023 GSP 341 535

Markou, I. N. (2018). “A study on geotextile—sand interface behavior based on direct shear and
triaxial compression tests.” Int. J. of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 4(1), 1-15.
Nakamura, T. S. U. T. O. M. U., Mitachi, T., and Ikeura, I. S. A. O. (1999). “Direct shear testing
method as a means for estimating geogrid-sand interface shear-displacement behavior.” Soils
and foundations, 39(4), 1-8.
Namjoo, A. M., Jafari, K., and Toufigh, V. (2020). “Effect of particle size of sand and surface
properties of reinforcement on sand-geosynthetics and sand–carbon fiber polymer interface
shear behavior.” Transportation Geotechnics, 24, 100403.
Palmeira, E. M. (1987). The study of soil-reinforcement interaction by means of large scale
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Md. Wasif Zaman on 04/26/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

laboratory tests. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Oxford.

Palmeira, E. M. (2009). “Soil–geosynthetic interaction: Modelling and analysis.” Geotextiles and
geomembranes, 27(5), 368-390.
Saxena, S. K., and Wong, Y. T. (1984). “Friction characteristics of a geomembrane.” In Proc. of
the Int. Conf. on Geomembranes. pp. 187-190.
Söylemez, M., and Arslan, S. (2020). “Experimental investigation of influence of clay in soil on
interface friction between geotextile and clayey soil.” Arabian Journal of Geosciences,
13(10), 1-8.
Wu, W., Wick, H., Ferstl, F., and Aschauer, F. (2008). “A tilt table device for testing
geosynthetic interfaces in centrifuge.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 26(1), 31-38.
Xu, Y., Williams, D. J., and Serati, M. (2020). “Investigation of shear strength of interface
between roadbase and geosynthetics using large-scale single-stage and multi-stage direct
shear test.” Road Materials and Pavement Design, 21(6), 1588-1611.
Yi, F., Li, H., Zhang, J., Jiang, X., and Guan, M. (2019). “Experimental Studies on Interfacial
Shear Characteristics between Polypropylene Woven Fabrics.” Materials, 12(22), 3649.

© ASCE

Geo-Congress 2023