See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343542446

Stability analysis method of geogrid reinforced expansive soil slopes and its
engineering application

Article in Journal of Central South University · July 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s11771-020-4423-x

CITATIONS READS

26 439

5 authors, including:

Rui Zhang Kuo Chieh Chao

Changsha University of Science and Technology Asian Institute of Technology
29 PUBLICATIONS 332 CITATIONS 94 PUBLICATIONS 536 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rui Zhang on 10 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-020-4423-x

Stability analysis method of geogrid reinforced expansive soil slopes

and its engineering application

ZHANG Rui(张锐)1, 2, LONG Ming-xu(龙明旭)2, LAN Tian(兰天)2,

ZHENG Jian-long(郑健龙)1, 2, GEOFF Chao3

1. National Engineering Laboratory of Highway Maintenance Technology, Changsha University of Science

& Technology, Changsha 410114, China;
2. School of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, Changsha University of Science & Technology,
Changsha 410114, China;
3. Department of Geotechnical and Earth Resources Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, Klong
Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
© Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract: The traditional stability analysis method of geogrid reinforced slopes does not consider the effect of lateral
swelling, so it is not applicable to reinforced expansive soil slopes. This paper reports a new stability analysis method
for geogrid reinforced expansive soil slopes. The additional pullout force of the free zone due to the lateral swelling and
the anti-pullout safety factor of each geogrid layer were obtained by ensuring the overall stability of the reinforced slope.
The optimum design was carried out to treat an expansive soil cut slope in Hubei Province, China, by changing the
spacing and length of geogrid reinforcement. Calculation results show that the additional pullout force caused by lateral
swelling has a great influence on the anti-pullout stability of geogrids, and the local stability of the reinforced slope will
be overestimated if the swelling effect of soil in the free zone is not considered.

Key words: expansive soil; lateral swelling pressure; geogrid-soil interaction; stability analysis; engineering application

Cite this article as: ZHANG Rui, LONG Ming-xu, LAN Tian, ZHENG Jian-long, GEOFF Chao. Stability analysis
method of geogrid reinforced expansive soil slopes and its engineering application [J]. Journal of Central South
University, 2020, 27(7): 1965−1980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-020-4423-x

resulting in progressive shallow slope failures [1−4].

1 Introduction When a rigid retaining structure is adopted, the
swelling deformation of the slope is completely
Expansive soil is rich in hydrophilic minerals, limited. In this case, expansive soil produces great
such as montmorillonite, and its volume changes lateral swelling pressures on the retaining structure,
after water absorption or loss. In the natural state, which eventually leads to structural damages.
an expansive soil slope swells and shrinks Therefore, it is necessary to take into account the
continuously under cyclic wetting and drying, effect of lateral swelling pressure in the design of
which brings out numerous cracks. Further rainfall retaining structures [5, 6]. For geosynthetic
infiltration causes the soil strength to decline, reinforced soil retaining walls, non-cohesive soil is
Foundation item: Project(51978085) supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China; Project(201808430102) supported
by the China Scholarship Council; Project(JTG-201507) supported by the Highway Industry Standard Compilation
Project of Ministry of Transportation, China; Project(kfj180102) supported by the Open Fund of Changsha University
of Science & Technology, China
Received date: 2020-03-13; Accepted date: 2020-04-03
Corresponding author: ZHANG Rui, PhD, Associate Professor; Tel: +86-18508428180; Email: zr@csust.edu.cn; ORCID:
0000-0003-2451-7103
1966
generally recommended as backfill material.
However, expansive soil is also considered in some
areas to avoid too much abandoned soil. When
expansive soil is used as backfill material, it is often
reinforced by geosynthetics and a special
waterproofing and drainage design is incorporated
[7−9]. When geogrids is used to reinforce expansive
soil slopes, the lateral swelling pressure of
expansive soil can be effectively reduced due to the
tensile deformation of geogrids, and the pullout
force caused by soil sliding is resisted at the same
time. Therefore, the large deformation of expansive
soil can be avoided and the shallow failure of the
expansive soil slope can be prevented. This
technique, which is of high economic and
environmental benefits, has been widely used in
expansive soil slopes along highways, railways and
water conservancy facilities [10, 11]. Nevertheless,
when expansive soil and other cohesive soils are
used as fillers, the infiltration of rainwater through
cracks on the slope surface can reduce the stability
of the reinforced body. Moreover, the heterogeneity
of backfill materials has a great influence on the
stability of the reinforced body in practice [12].
Thus, there remains a need to study the interaction
mechanism between expansive soil and geogrids.
To date, related previous researches have
focused mainly on the interface friction by
laboratory tests and numerical analyses. The
interface parameters of reinforced soil are often
obtained by direct shear tests and pullout tests.
Boundary conditions of these two test methods have
great influences on test results. Increasing the test
scale can reduce the boundary effect, but it is
difficult to implement the field test because of its
complexity and high cost. Alternatively, numerical
analysis methods, such as the finite element method
and discrete element methods, are effective to study
the interaction between soil and geogrids [13, 14].
Because the interaction mechanism between soil
and geogrids is complex, some limitations exist in
the establishment of numerical models, and the
accuracy of results is difficult to guarantee.
Although there are many test methods for the study
of the interaction between soil and geogrids, test
results vary a lot due to different test mechanisms
and influencing factors. Currently, the available test
technique is still an approximate simulation of the
behavior of geomaterials in the field [15].
There are few application cases of geogrid
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
reinforcement in expansive soil slopes. In relevant
cases, the workability and failure modes of
expansive soil slopes were mainly studied by the
model test, and the slope stability was analyzed by
the limit equilibrium method. The deformation and
failure mechanisms are examined by the finite
element method or finite difference method [16−18].
The service limit-state design of geosynthetic
reinforced soil retaining walls requires an accurate
estimation of short-term and long-term lateral
displacements [19]. Existing numerical methods
focused on the study of swelling deformation of
expansive soils based on assumed input parameters.
Especially, expansive soils are often regarded as
isotropic and linear elastic in the calculation.
However, experimental studies have shown that
expansive soils is of significant anisotropy; and the
swelling pressure presents a highly non-linear
characteristic with the change of swelling strain.
The assumption is inconsistent with the actual
situation of expansive soil slope [20]. At present,
there is no commonly agreed simulation method for
the deformation behavior of reinforced areas [21].
When the expansive soil is used as filler, the
deformation behavior of the reinforced area is more
complex. There is no special correlation for
expansive soil in the current design and calculation
method of reinforced soil slopes in the United
States [22]. In order to ensure the stability of
reinforced retaining wall in expansive soil areas, the
additional pullout force caused by soil swelling
should be considered in the designing phase.
For this reason, a stability analysis method of
geogrid reinforced expansive soil slopes was
developed considering actual working conditions in
this study. Then, an engineering case of geogrid
reinforced expansive soil slope was taken to verify
the rationality of the analysis method. Based on the
engineering data, the reinforcement scheme was
proposed. By means of lateral swelling pressure test
and tensile test, the lateral swelling property of the
local expansive soil and the tensile property of
geogrids were determined, respectively. According
to the deformation compatibility between reinforced
expansive soil and geogrids, the pullout force of
geogrids in the equilibrium state was obtained, and
the anti-pullout stability of each layer of geogrids
was analyzed. The optimum design scheme was
identified by changing the reinforcement spacing
and length, and the relevant construction process
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
was introduced.
2 Geogrid reinforced structure and
calculation hypothesis
The geogrid reinforced soil retaining wall is
often used to reinforce the cut or embankment slope.
It is basically composed of filling and
reinforcement materials. Horizontal reinforcement
layers are formed by layering the reinforcement
materials into the soil (Figure 1). To prevent the
shallow collapse caused by the local deformation of
the slope, geogrids are generally back-folded and
wrapped around the soil. The back-wrapped part of
Figure 1 Schematic diagram of geogrid reinforced structure: (a) Reinforced expansive soil slope; (b) Force analysis of
reinforced layer i after swelling and stabilization
1967
the lower geogrid is connected with the upper
geogrid by a connecting rod to enhance the
constraint of lateral deformation. To facilitate the
stress analysis of geogrids, their back-wrapped parts
are not shown in Figure 1. In order to study the
local stability of reinforced expansive soil slopes, a
back-wrapped reinforced soil unit is taken as the
research object.
In the calculation of unit model, influencing
factors are various and the effect is relatively
complex. For the sake of simplicity, the following
assumptions are made when analyzing the
reinforced soil based on the results of laboratory
tests and field monitoring:
1968
1) The stability of geogrid reinforced
expansive soil slopes is a plane strain problem.
2) The soil in the free zone of a geogrid (i.e.,
the area significantly influenced by cyclic drying
and wetting in the reinforced soil unit) is fully
saturated. ZHAN et al [23] monitored the
performance of a vegetable expansive soil slope
under artificial rainfall in situ. It was found that the
suction of soil in the depth of 2 m decreased down
to approximately zero after rainfall; and this means
that the soil was in the saturated state within this
depth. Therefore, it is reasonable to assumed that
the area affected by drying-wetting cycles is
completely saturated and the shallow slope is in the
most disadvantageous state.
3) In the process of humidification, the
swelling deformation of soil in the reinforced soil
unit is in accordance with the tensile deformation of
geogrid, and the friction between reinforcement
materials and soil in the free zone of geogrid is not
considered. Because of the back-wrapping effect of
geogrids in reinforced soil unit, the soil in the free
zone is firmly confined in the interior of geogrids.
When the balance state is reached, the total
deformation is the same as the final deformation of
upper and lower geogrids. The cohesion of soil is
almost zero when the soil in the free zone is
saturated. Because the surface of geogrids is
smooth, the friction between the geogrid and the
wet soil is very small and not considered in this
study.
4) The water content of the anchorage zone is
close to the equilibrium water content, and plastic
limit is the most disadvantageous situation. Crack is
the most important index for dividing the area
affected by drying-wetting cycles. It has no or less
influence on the soil in the anchorage area. The
permeability coefficient of expansive soil is low.
Therefore, it is difficult for water to migrate
between the soil layers, and the water content has
little change.
5) In the anchorage zone, the tensile stress of
reinforcement materials is considered while the
displacement is neglected. The water content of the
soil in the anchorage zone is quite different from
that in the free zone, and the overburden pressure is
also different because of the free surface of slope.
Therefore, the friction between the geogrid and the
soil in the anchorage zone is much larger than that
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
in the free zone. The geogrid in the anchorage zone
can hardly produce displacement or only produce
micro-displacement, which is not considered in this
study.
3 Stability analysis method of geogrid
reinforced expansive soil slope
The reinforced soil unit consists of the free
zone and the anchorage zone. The interaction
calculation methods of soil and geogrids are
selected separately according to different interface
states of soil. The calculation model of reinforced
soil interaction is shown in Figure 1. In the
calculation of the anti-pullout stability of geogrids,
the total pullout force includes pullout forces
caused by sliding and lateral swelling. The total
anchorage force is produced by anchorage zone.
Finally, according to the results of the total pullout
force and the total anchorage force, the pullout
resistance safety factor of each layer of geogrid is
calculated.
3.1 Pullout force in free zone caused by soil
swelling
The lateral swelling of expansive soil after
humidification results in lateral pullout force in the
back-wrapped area of geogrids. The lateral swelling
pressure of reinforced soil unit in different layers is
affected by the overburden pressure. When the
swelling deformation reaches the equilibrium state,
the pullout force of expansive soil is borne entirely
by the upper and lower geogrids of reinforced soil
unit, and each geogrid layer bears half the pullout
force. Because the deformation of soil in the free
zone of reinforced soil unit is in accordance with
that of the geogrid, the strains of the geogrid and
expansive soil are identical after swelling
deformation. When the reinforced soil reaches the
equilibrium state after humidification and swelling,
the following equations are obtained:

  hi h
Tswi -T +Tswi -B =phi  fi ,
 1
 
Tswi -T =Tswi -B = T  h i (1)
 2

 
 hi = hi
where phi(σfi, εhi) is the lateral swelling pressure
corresponding to the strain εhi of the soil in the free
zone of the reinforced soil unit of layer i when the
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
overburden pressure is σfi; T(ε′hi) is the pullout force
of upper and lower geogrids of the reinforced soil
unit of layer i produced by swelling of expansive
soil; Tswi−T and Tswi−B are the pullout forces of upper
and lower geogrids of the reinforced soil unit of
layer i produced by swelling, respectively; h is the
reinforcement spacing; εhi and ε′hi are the lateral
strains of expansive soil and geogrid in the free
zone of the reinforced soil unit of layer i,
respectively.
3.2 Pullout force in free zone caused by soil
sliding
According to the method recommended by
Technical Specification for Application of
Geosynthetics in Highway (JTG/T D32 2012) [24],
the total tensile force of reinforcement materials in
non-expansive soil reinforced slope meeting the
design requirements is calculated by:
MD
TS =  FSR FSU  (2)
D friction angle; σei is the overburden pressure on the
where TS is the sum of the required tensile force per
unit width of a reinforcement; FSR is the target
minimum safety factor of a slope, which is 1.3; FSU
is the safety factor of a unreinforced slope; D is the
moment arm of TS with respect to the center of the
failure circle (when the geogrid is used as
reinforced material); D equals the radius of the
failure circle; MD is the driving moment with
respect to the center of the failure circle, which is
expressed by the following equation:
M D =  (Wi +Qi ) R sin i (3)
where Wi is the gravity of slice i; Qi is the external
force acting on the vertical direction of strip i; R is
the radius of the failure circle; αi is the angle
between the bottom sliding plane and the horizontal
plane of slice i.
According to the statement in the specification
[24], if the slope height is not more than 6 m, The
total tensile force is evenly distributed to each
reinforcement layer, the tensile force in each
reinforcement layer and its reinforcement spacing
are equal. When the slope height is more than 6 m,
the slope can be divided into two reinforced areas
of equal height. The total tensile force of the
reinforced area is equal to the sum of the tensile
forces of the two reinforced areas. The tensile
forces of upper and lower parts of the reinforced
area are calculated by:
1969
 1 Ts H
 4 n , H i  2
Tsi   (4)
 3 Ts , H  H
i
 4 n 2
where Hi is the height from the geogrid to the slope
bottom; H is the height of the anchorage zone; n is
the number of geogrid layers; Tsi is the tensile force
of the geogrid.
3.3 Anchorage force in anchorage zone
The maximum anchorage force produced by
the friction between reinforcement materials and
soil is called the ultimate anchorage force, which
can be determined by the interface strength and
related to the overburden pressure:
Tei  2B  ce   ei tan e  le (5)
where B is the width of the reinforced soil unit,
which is 1 m; le is the length of the anchorage zone;
ce is the interface cohesion; φe is the interface
geogrid reinforced anchorage zone of layer i.
3.4 Anti-pullout safety factor of each geogrid
layer
The total pullout force of each geogrid layer
includes the pullout forces caused by soil swelling
and sliding. Because the pullout forces of the upper
and lower interfaces of a single-layer geogrid are
different, it is assumed that half pullout force of
each geogrid layer is provided by adjacent
reinforced soil unit. The anti-pullout safety factor of
each geogrid layer is calculated by:
Tei
Fsi  (6)
Tsi cos i  Tswi T  Tsw  i 1  B
where Fsi is the anti-pullout safety factor of the
geogrid of layer i; Tei is the allowable anchorage
force of the anchorage zone of layer i; θi is the
angle between the sliding plane and the horizontal
direction.
As can be seen from Eq. (6), the local stability
of the reinforced slope will be overestimated if the
swelling effect of soil in the free zone is not
considered. The key of the above calculation
method is to obtain the calculation parameters,
including: 1) the lateral swelling parameter phi(σfi,
εhi) of soil and the tensile parameter T(ε′hi) of the
geogrid required by Eq. (1); 2) the interface
parameters ce and φe required by Eq. (5).
1970
4 Determination of key parameters
4.1 Lateral swelling parameters of soil
When used as backfill material, expansive soil
shows swelling anisotropy. In order to obtain the
variation law of actual lateral swelling pressure
with lateral swelling strain, a test device of lateral
swelling pressure considering the effect of different
overburden pressures was developed, as shown in
Figure 2. The test device includes a main
component, a loading system, and a monitoring and
acquisition system. The main component consists of
an inner box, a lateral displacement adjusting lever
and an outer box. The left side wall of the inner box
is equipped with a water inlet hole, and a porous
stone is placed between the left side wall and the
specimen. The right side of the specimen is
equipped with a concave block, and the pressure
sensor and cushion block are placed in the concave
groove of the concave block. The conventional
three-phase high-pressure consolidometer is used as
the loading system. The monitoring and acquisition
system includes a lateral pressure sensor, vertical
and lateral dial gauges, a data acquisition device
and a computer. The pressure sensor is a high
precision resistance strain pressure sensor with a
Figure 2 Structure diagram of two-dimensional swelling pressure test apparatus: (a) Front view; (b) Left view
(Unit: mm)
Figure 3 Specimen preparation device and specimen in preparation and testing stages
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
thickness of 12 mm, a diameter of 20 mm, a range
of 0−1000 kPa, and a precision of 0.05% FS.
As shown in Figure 2, the lateral pressures of
the fully lateral restrained expansive soil after
immersion could be determined by the apparatus
under different vertical swelling conditions.
Moreover, the variation law of the lateral pressure
with the lateral swelling strain was obtained by
controlling the lateral displacement. However, the
measured lateral pressure contains the component
caused by overburden pressure so that it is difficult
to distinguish the lateral swelling pressure
effectively. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the
test method. Considering that the anisotropy of
swelling pressure is attributed to the directional
arrangement of platy montmorillonite particles in
expansive soil, the lateral swelling pressure could
be directly measured by the vertical loading
swelling test method. Thus, the problems caused by
the conventional test method are avoided. In order
to change the arrangement direction of platy
montmorillonite particles in the test, the specimen
preparation device and method were improved, as
shown in Figure 3. In this way, the original lateral
side of the specimen was upward during the test.
The main steps for a lateral swelling test are as
follows:
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
1) Intact or remolded specimens are prepared
according to the requirement. The specimen
preparation device is used to mold the soil
specimen with the desired water content by
hydrostatic compaction according to the desired dry
density.
2) The prepared specimen is placed into the
swelling box. The dial gauges are reset and the time
interval is set.
3) The specimen is immersed in water. If the
specimen swells in the horizontal direction, the
horizontal load is increased immediately. When the
change of vertical pressure is less than 1.0 kPa
within 2 h, it is considered stable. The vertical and
horizontal pressures are the original vertical
swelling pressure and lateral swelling pressure,
respectively. The horizontal load decreases till
0.001 mm swelling occurs in the horizontal
direction.
4) The horizontal displacement of the concave
block is slowly adjusted so that the vertical stress
can decrease to the preset value and be stabilized.
The initial lateral swelling pressure is measured by
the unloading method in Step 3.
5) The vertical strain is kept constant and the
original lateral swelling pressure is gradually
reduced to 0. After unloading at each stage, the
reading of the vertical dial gauge is not more than
0.01 mm within 2 h, which means that the swelling
deformation is stable; the horizontal strain is the
original lateral swelling strain when it is stable. The
variation law of lateral swelling pressure with
lateral swelling strain under initial lateral swelling
pressure can be obtained in this step.
6) By changing the vertical load in Step 5 and
then repeating Steps 1−5, the variation law of
lateral swelling pressure with lateral strain under
different overburden pressures can be obtained.
4.2 Tensile parameters of geogrid
When the geogrid is used as reinforcement
material in reinforced soil structures, it mainly
bears the load transferred from the soil through its
tensile strength. The tensile strength is expressed by
the tensile force per unit width, which can be
measured by tensile tests according to the
Specification for Test and Measurement of
Geosynthetics (SL 235-2012) in China [25]. The
lowest tensile strength of geogrids is only
considered under the most disadvantageous
1971
condition. The smaller the tensile strength of
reinforcement is used in the design and calculation,
the safer the reinforced soil structure is. Therefore,
it is suggested that test results at a tensile rate of
0.05 mm/min are selected for parameter calculation.
The effect of tensile strain on the tensile strength of
geogrids can be measured by experiments [26].
Then the relationship between the tensile strength
and the tensile strain of geogrids can be fitted. Then,
the fitting equation can be used to predict the
relationship between the tensile strength and the
tensile strain of geogrids at a given tensile rate.
4.3 Interface parameters between geogrid and
soil
The interface cohesion ce and friction angle φe
are key factors in the design of reinforced soil
retaining walls. The shear strength of reinforced soil
interface is directly defined, and the rationality of
reinforced soil structure design and the safety of
engineering are determined. Pullout tests can be
used to determine the parameters of interaction
between the geogrid and soil. The interfacial shear
stress−displacement curves under different normal
stresses can be obtained by applying different
normal stresses to the geogrid reinforced soil
specimen. The interface cohesion and friction angle
under different normal stresses can be determined
by fitting the data points. They are then applied to
calculate the anchorage force of geogrids under
different overburden pressures. The shear strength
of reinforced soil interface is linearly correlated
with the normal stress; the relationship can be
expressed by the Mohr-Coulomb strength theory.
5 Engineering applications
5.1 Engineering background
Anxiao Road is a class I highway of two-way
four lanes located in Zhijiang City, Hubei Province,
China. It has a total length of 7.3 km, in which 4 km
is covered by expansive soil. Its design speed is 80
km/h and subgrade width is 22.5 m. The landform
of the working area of the road mainly belongs to
the denudation accumulation type. Most of the road
is situated in the river terrace, only a part is in the
structural denudation hilly area. The groundwater
level is relatively shallow and is mainly supplied by
atmospheric rainfall. The buried depth of
groundwater level is generally 1−3 m, and its
1972
dynamic change is greatly affected by the seasons.
The test slope of 8.5 m high is at the left side
of the section between K5+448 and K5+558 of
Anxiao Road. After the excavation at a slope ratio
of 1(V):1.5(H), groundwater seeped out from the
slope surface and a collapse occurred later. When
the slope ratio was modified into 1(V):2.5(H),
another collapse took place, as shown in Figure 4.
In both cases, the soil slid out at the foot of the
slope, which is characterized by shallow and
progressive sliding.
Figure 4 Failure of expansive soil cut slope at different
slope ratios: (a) Collapse at slope ratio of 1(V):1.5(H);
(b) Collapse at slope ratio of 1(V):2.5(H)
Through the field investigation, it was found
that the distance from the sliding surface to the
slope surface was about 1.5 m. An obvious weak
layer with a thickness of about 0.15 m was found.
The soil surface was gray white and wet with water
overflown, as shown in Figure 5. Through the field
investigation, it was found that the distance from
the sliding surface to the slope surface was about
1.5 m. An obvious weak layer with a thickness of
about 0.15 m was found. The soil surface was gray
white and wet with water overflown, as shown in
Figure 5. According to the statistical data, the local
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
Figure 5 Field investigation of sliding surfaces:
(a) Sliding surface depth; (b) Weak layer
atmospheric impact depth (the area significantly
impacted by drying-wetting cycles) is 2.0 m. The
continuous collapses of the slope was resulted from
the weak expansive soil with the characteristics of
swelling and shrinkage. Due to the effect of
atmospheric drying-wetting cycles, cracks
developed in the shallow layer (2 m) of the slope.
Dense crack networks were distributed on the
surface of the slope, and many large cracks
occurred on the top of the slope. Rainwater
infiltrated along the cracks, which led to the
formation of the upper stagnant water area under
rainfall. On the one hand, the shallow soil swelled
after humidification. Consequently, the shear
strength was reduced, and the effective cohesion
was completely lost. The effective internal friction
angle was slightly reduced because of the soil
swelling. Meanwhile, the pore water pressure in the
shallow soil increased and the effective stress
decreased after rainwater infiltration. Therefore, the
expansive soil slope eventually showed shallow
collapses compared with a general soil slope. Even
if the slope ratio was adjusted to 1(V):2.5(H), the
slope still collapsed. In order to reduce the
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
construction cost, the expansive soil was not
replaced but reinforced with geogrids.
The natural water content that determined by
laboratory tests was 26%. The natural density and
dry density were 2.0 and 1.6 g/cm³, respectively.
The liquid limit (LL) and the plasticity index (PI)
were 54.3% and 29.9%, respectively. The specific
gravity (Gs) of soil was 2.73. According to the Test
Methods of Soils for Highway Engineering (JTG
E40-2007) [27] in China, the free swelling rate
(FSR) of the expansive soil was 40%, so the soil
was classified as weak potential expansive soil.
Referring to the wet compaction standard, the
maximum dry density and the optimum water
content of the soil were 1.75 g/cm3 and 20.8%,
respectively. The physical properties of the
expansive soil are shown in Table 1.
5.2 Initial design and stability analysis of geogrid
reinforced structure
The reinforcement design was carried out
following the method recommended in the Chinese
specification [24]. The height of the reinforced soil
retaining wall was 6 m. The slope ratio was
1(V):1.5(H), and the reinforcement spacing was
0.5 m. The length of the free zone determined based
on the local atmospheric influence depth and slope
rate was 3.0 m. A length of 1.0 m was considered
for the anchorage zone. Therefore, the
reinforcement length was 4.0 m. When expansive
soils in the free zone were assumed to be nearly
saturated, the cohesion and friction angle were
2.5 kPa and 20°, respectively. Expansive soils in the
anchorage zone were not affected by atmospheric
circulation and rainfall. They were regarded as
unsaturated state, the cohesion and friction angle
were 18 kPa and 20°. In order to calculate the
anti-pullout stability of the top geogrid, a 0.5 m
planting layer was considered as the overburden
pressure. The anchorage force of reinforcement in
the anchorage zone and the swelling force of soil in
the free zone were taken into account. The
calculation steps are presented in the following
subsections.
Table 1 Physical properties of expansive soil
Liquid limit/% Plastic limit/% Specific gravity
>0.075 mm
54.3 24.4 2.73
1973
5.2.1 Determination of calculation parameters
1) Lateral swelling parameters of soil
Five specimens with the same initial water
content and density were prepared. The initial dry
density was 93% of the maximum dry density, and
the initial water content was the optimum water
content. The vertical loads applied to the specimens
were controlled at 86.5, 52.5, 25.3, 12.5 and 0 kPa,
respectively, so that the specimens swelled
vertically under different stresses. The lateral
swelling pressure under completely lateral
restrained conditions was obtained by the lateral
swelling pressure test. In the test, the lateral
swelling pressure was 74.3 and 22.8 kPa, when the
vertical swelling strain was 0 and the maximum,
respectively. Thus, the lateral swelling pressures
could be calculated by the following equation:
  p pv  
m
 h0min 
ph0  1 1 1   ph0max (7)
  ph0max  pνmax  
where ph0 is the lateral swelling pressure under
completely lateral restrained conditions; ph0max is
the lateral swelling pressure without vertical
swelling; ph0min is the lateral swelling pressure when
the vertical stress is 0; pv is the vertical stress; pvmax
is the vertical swelling pressure; m is the fitting
parameter, which reflects the effect of vertical
swelling on the change of lateral swelling pressure.
Fitting results showed that m=2.28 with the
coefficient of determination of 0.98.
Similarly, the initial lateral swelling pressure
and the corresponding final lateral strain were
plotted in Figure 6. It can be seen that within a
certain range of lateral swelling pressure, there is a
good linear relationship between the initial lateral
swelling pressure and the final lateral strain, which
is expressed by:
 hf =aph0 +b, ph0  ph0min , ph0max  (8)
where εhf is the final lateral strain when the lateral
swelling pressure decreases to zero with the lateral
swelling deformation; a and b are fitting parameters.
Proportion of different particle sizes/%
<0.075 mm 0.002−0.075 mm <0.002 mm
4.19 95.81 41.09 54.72
1974 J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980

2) Tensile parameters of the geogrid

The polypropylene geogrid of type TGDG-35
was selected for tensile test at a tensile rate of
0.05 mm/min. The relationship between the tensile
strength and strain of geogrids used in the test is
shown in Figure 8 and expressed by the following
equation:
T   h   k ( h )q (10)
where k and q are fitting parameters related to the
tensile rate and material (k=6.121 and q=0.689 in
this study).

Figure 6 Relationship between final lateral strain and

initial lateral swelling pressure

Fitting results showed that a and b are 0.061 and

−0.796, respectively (the coefficient of
determination is 0.99).
In order to characterize the variation of
different initial lateral swelling pressures with
lateral strain, the obtained lateral swelling pressures
together with the lateral strains are fitted by a power
function (Figure 7): Figure 8 Relationship between tensile strength and strain
     of geogrid
ph  ph0 1   h   (9)
   hf  
3) Interface parameters between geogrid and
where ph is the lateral swelling pressure varying soil
with the lateral strain εh; β=0.421 is the fitting The pullout test was carried out by a
parameter, which reflects the effect of lateral large-scale digital control pullout test system
swelling deformation on the attenuation of lateral (CS-LB01) at a constant pullout rate of 1 mm/min
swelling pressure. [28]. The interface shear stress−shear displacement
curve under different normal stresses is plotted in
Figure 9. The interface parameters between

Figure 7 Variation of normalized lateral swelling

pressure with normalized lateral strain under different Figure 9 Relationship between shear strength and
initial lateral swelling pressures normal stress of pullout test
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
reinforcement and soil were as follows: ce=7.0 kPa,
φe=6.2°.
5.2.2 Calculation of pullout force in free zone
caused by swelling
The following equation was derived based on
Eqs. (1) and (8)−(10):
   
1  
k ( h ) q  ph0 1   h
  (11)
2   aph0  b  
By substituting experimental parameters (i.e.,
k, q, a, b and β) into Eq. (9), one could determine
Ph0. The lateral swelling pressure and pullout
strength of each layer of geogrid corresponding to
different overburden pressures were obtained.
However, because εh is in both sides of Eq. (11), the
formula must be solved by the iteration method.
When the residual value is less than 0.01, it is
considered that the calculation requirements can be
satisfied. The lateral strains of layers 1−9 of
geogrids were all 0.99%, and those of layers 10−12
were 0.97%, 0.90% and 0.78%, respectively. The
lateral swelling forces of corresponding layers 1−9
of the reinforced soil unit were all 6.1 kN, and those
of layers 10−12 were 6.0, 5.7 and 5.3 kN,
respectively.
The pullout force in the free zone caused by
the swelling of soils in different layers was obtained
by substituting the corresponding strains of
geogrids in different reinforced soil units into the
Eq. (1) and Eq. (10). The pullout forces of geogrids
of layers 1−8 caused by soil swelling are 6.1 kN,
and those of layers 9−12 were 6.0, 5.9, 5.4 and
2.6 kN, respectively.
5.2.3 Calculation of pullout force in free zone
caused by sliding
Firstly, the module Slope/W of GeoStudio
software was used to calculate the stability of an
unreinforced slope, and the Bishop method was
selected as the calculation method. The whole slope
was divided into two areas: 1) green area, which
represents the unsaturated soil, and 2) yellow area,
which represents the saturated soil. The shallow
sliding of the slope was considered and the sliding
earth mass was represented by orange, and it can be
known that the third part of the sliding earth mass
belongs to the saturated area. The safety factor, the
maximum vertical depth under the most
disadvantageous condition and the position of the
1975
center of the corresponding failure circle were
obtained, as shown in Figure 10. The safety factor
(Fsu) of the unreinforced slope is 0.890 and the
maximum vertical depth (Dv) of the sliding surface
is 1.72 m under the most unfavorable condition.
Figure 10 Safety factor and the maximum vertical
sliding depth of unreinforced expansive soil slope (I:
Unsaturated area; II: Saturated area; III: Sliding earth
mass)
According to Eqs. (2) and (3), the total tensile
force of geogrids was calculated as follows:
747.08
Ts  1.3  0.890   kN/m  15.7 kN/m (12)
19.48
When the slope height was less than 6 m,
geogrids were arranged at equal spacing in 8 layers,
as shown in Figure 11. The average tensile force of
different geogrid layers was evenly distributed by
the standard method as follows:
 15.7
Tsl  kN/m  1.3 kN/m
 12 (13)
Tsli  Tsl cos i
Thus, the pullout force on each layer of
geogrids can be determined based on the average
tensile force and its angle to the horizontal direction.
The pullout forces of geogrids of layers 1−3 were
1.2 kN, those of layers 4−6 were 1.1 kN, those of
layers 7−9 were 1.0 kN, those of layers 10−11 were
0.9 kN, and that of layer 12 was 0.8 kN.
Figure 11 Reinforcement layout of reinforced expansive
soil slope (I: Unsaturated area; II: Saturated area; III:
Sliding earth mass; IV: Planting layer)
5.2.4 Calculation of allowable anchorage force in
anchorage zone
The working environment of reinforcement
materials has a great influence on their strengths.
1976 J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
Because of creep characteristics and construction geogrid at the top layer is about half of that of the
damage, their performance is difficult to fully play. geogrid at a lower layer.
Reinforcement materials, filling material types and The safety factors of geogrids at layers 10 and
environmental conditions should be considered in 11 are low. Because it is close to the top of the slope,
the design of reinforcement. According to the the anchorage force of geogrid is limited under
Chinese specification [24], the durability reduction small overburden pressure. Geogrid layers from 11
coefficient is 1.2; the construction damage to 1, each layer of geogrids has to bear the lateral
reduction coefficient is 1.1; and the creep reduction swelling pressure of reinforced expansive soil unit
coefficient is 1.5. Therefore, the total reduction in upper and lower layers, which produces a larger
coefficient is 2.0. According to Eq. (5), the ultimate pullout force; thus, there is a pullout risk for
anchorage forces of geogrids of layers 1−9 were geogrids.
24.2 kN, and those of layers 10−12 were 22.7, 18.4 The safety factor of the geogrid at the middle
and 16.2 kN, respectively. The allowable anchorage of the slope changes less. With the increase of
forces after reduction of geogrids of layers 1−8 are overburden pressure, geogrids can produce enough
12.2 kN, and those of 9−12 layers are 11.5, 10.4, anchorage force. When the overburden pressure of
9.3 and 8.2 kN, respectively. the reinforced soil unit close to the bottom of the
5.2.5 Calculation of anti-pullout safety factor of slope does not change, the pullout force caused by
each geogrid layer lateral swelling remains unchanged. However, the
The parameters obtained from Sections proportion of pullout force caused by sliding is
5.2.2−5.2.4 were substituted into Eq. (6). The smaller than that of total pullout force, which
results are presented in Table 2, the safety factors of results in less change. It can be seen that the lateral
geogrid layers 1−8 were 1.7, and those of geogrid swelling of expansive soil plays a dominant role in
layers 9−12 were 1.6, 1.5, 1.5 and 2.4, respectively. the analysis of anti-pullout stability of expansive
soil slope.
Table 2 Calculation results of safety factors of different The safety factor of geogrid layers near the
geogrid layers bottom of the slope tends to decrease because the
overlying load of reinforced soil unit does not
Geogrid layer i Tei Tsi cos θi Tswi Fsi
change any more. Therefore, the pullout force
1 12.2 1.2 6.1 1.7
caused by the lateral swelling remains unchanged.
2 12.2 1.2 6.1 1.7
The pullout force caused by sliding tends to
3 12.2 1.2 6.1 1.7 increase, resulting in the increase of total pullout
4 12.2 1.1 6.1 1.7 force. The anchorage force generated by the
5 12.2 1.1 6.1 1.7 anchorage zone also does not changed. Thus, the
6 12.2 1.1 6.1 1.7 anti-pullout safety factor of geogrid layers
7 12.2 1.0 6.1 1.7 decreases.
8 12.2 1.0 6.1 1.7
According to the Technical Specifications for
Application of Geosynthetics in Highway (JTG/T
9 11.5 1.0 6.0 1.6
D32 2012) [24], when the clay is used as filler, the
10 10.4 0.9 5.9 1.5
anti-pullout safety factor of geogrids should reach
11 9.3 0.9 5.4 1.4 2.0. In the case studied, except that the geogrids at
12 8.2 0.8 2.6 2.4 the top layer meet the requirements, other geogrid
layers do not meet the requirements of specification.
5.2.6 Discussion of results Therefore, a new design scheme is needed.
It can be found that the anti-pullout safety
factor of geogrids at the top layer is the highest 5.3 Structural optimization design
because the geogrid there only bears the lateral The optimum scheme consisted in changing
force produced by the swelling of the next the reinforcement spacing and length. For each
reinforced expansive soil unit. The upper arable soil scheme, the reinforcement spacing and length
is non-expansive soil, which cannot swell laterally. increase by 0.25 and 0.5 m, respectively, and other
Therefore, the lateral swelling pressure of the parameters remain unchanged. The reinforcement
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980 1977
spacing can be set to 0.5, 0.75 and 1.0 m, and the to higher construction costs and a longer
reinforcement length can be set to 4.0 and 4.5 m. construction period. Therefore, scheme IV is chosen
There are six schemes, as shown in Table 3. as the optimum scheme.

Table 3 Reinforcement sizes of different schemes
Scheme Length/m Spacing/m
I 4.0 0.5
II 4.5 0.5
III 4.0 0.75
IV 4.5 0.75
V 4.0 1.0
VI 4.5 1.0
The calculation results of each scheme are
given in Table 4. It can be found that with the
increase of reinforcement spacing, the number of
geogrid layers decreases correspondingly. In
schemes I, III and V, the anti-pullout safety factor
of each layer of geogrid does not meet the
requirements of the specification [24]. When the
length of reinforcement is set to 4.0 m, the length of
the anchorage zone is only 1.0 m, which cannot
provide sufficient anchoring force. When the length
and spacing of reinforcement are 4.5 and 0.5 m
respectively, the minimum safety factor is 2.3. The
safety factor of each geogrid layer is greater than
2.0. Therefore, the scheme II is feasible. If the
reinforcement spacing is 0.75 m, the minimum
safety factor is 2.0. The safety factor of each
geogrid layer is greater than 2.0. Therefore, the
scheme IV is also feasible. If the reinforcement
spacing is 1.0 m, the minimum safety factor is 1.9.
The safety factor of one geogrid layer does not meet
the requirements of the specification. This means
that scheme VI is unfeasible. Compared with
scheme IV, scheme II needs more geogrids and the
geogrid strength is not fully developed, which leads
5.4 Application of geogrid reinforced structure
According to the above analysis, the length
and spacing of reinforcement were 4.5 and 0.75 m,
respectively. Eight layers of geogrids were laid.
Each layer of geogrid was filled with three layers of
soils. The compaction thickness of each layer was
0.25 m. The upper and lower layers of geogrids
were connected by connection rods in the back-
wrapped part, and the length of the back-wrapped
part was 1.5 m. Three U-shaped steel nails with
diameters of 6 mm were used to fix the end of each
geogrid to the compacted soil. The original slope
was 8.5 m high; the slope ratio was 1(V):2.5(H); the
reinforced slope ratio was 1(V):1.5(H); and the
reinforced body was 6 m high. The base was
over-excavated by 0.5 m and backfilled with
lime-treated soil. The top slope was backfilled with
non-expansive soil and the slope ratio was adjusted
to 1:6. The TDGD-35 geogrids with a width of
2.5 m were used. The minimum tensile strength was
35 kN/m, and the maximum elongation was 8%.
The cross section at K5+537 was taken as an
example, and the specific design size of
reinforcement was shown in Figure 12.
After the base was excavated and backfilled
with lime-treated soil, a layer of waterproof
geotextile was laid, and a gravel layer with a
thickness of 0.5 m was set for drainage. After the
backfilling of expansive soil, another layer of
waterproof geotextile was laid on the top of the
slope to protect the geogrid from rainwater erosion.
The backfilled arable soil and the plants planted
subsequently of the slope plays the role of rainwater

Table 4 Safety factors of geogrid layers in different reinforcement schemes

Geogrid layer i
Scheme
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
I 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 2.4
II 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 3.7
III 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 2.0
IV 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.0 3.0
V 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.8
VI 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.7
1978
Figure 12 Structural design diagram of geogrid reinforced cut slope (unit: cm)
erosion prevention and greening. The base
treatment had been finished since July 28, 2019.
Due to the impact of several days of rainfall on the
construction progress, the construction of the arable
layer was completed on August 12, 2019, and the
subsequent constructions of intercepting ditch and
grass seed spraying were completed successively.
The construction of reinforced soil retaining wall
lasted for about two weeks with simple construction
steps and low cost. Figure 13 shows the
photographs taken in the construction process.
Figure 13 Photographs taken in construction process:
(a) Compaction; (b) Geogrid back-wrapping
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
6 Conclusions
Based on the laboratory test results of
expansive soils in Hubei Province, China, the
interaction between expansive soil and geogrid
incorporated with the failure characteristics of
expansive soil slope were considered in the stability
analysis. The determination method of key
parameters was introduced, and the stability
calculation method was then used in the treatment
of a failed expansive soil cut slope. The stability of
the slope was rechecked by changing the
reinforcement spacing and length so as to determine
the optimal reinforcement scheme. The engineering
case of geogrid reinforced expansive soil cut slope
was successfully constructed. The following
conclusions were drawn:
1) The reinforced soil unit is composed of the
free zone and the anchorage zone. In calculating the
anti-pullout stability of geogrids, the additional
pullout force caused by lateral swelling should be
considered. Therefore, the total pullout force
includes the component caused by sliding and that
caused by lateral swelling. The total anchorage
force is produced by the anchorage zone; it is
related to the overburden pressure and interface
friction parameters.
2) The key parameters to be determined in the
calculation include the lateral swelling parameters
of expansive soil, the tensile parameters of geogrid
and the interface parameters of reinforced soil,
which can be determined by the lateral swelling
pressure test, tensile test and pullout test,
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
respectively.
3) The pullout stability of geogrid layers is
verified by the calculation method in this study. By
analyzing the anti-pullout safety factor of geogrid
of each layer in initial reinforced structure, one can
note that the safety factor of geogrid at the top layer
is the highest, those of geogrid layers below the top
of slope are smaller. Moreover, there is a little
difference in the safety factor of geogrid layers in
the middle of slope, and those of the geogrid layers
closer to the foot of the slope tend to decrease. The
lateral swelling pressure of expansive soil is the
main source of pullout force on the geogrid.
4) The method proposed in this study can be
used to optimize the reinforcement design. On the
premise of ensuring the overall stability of the
reinforcement body, the size of reinforcement can
be adjusted continuously, and the optimum
reinforcement scheme can be determined
considering the economic and construction factors.
5) In order to verify the rationality of the
calculation method, a cut slope engineering case of
geogrid reinforced expansive soil was constructed.
In this construction, expansive soil was directly
used, which enabled to reduce the cost and shorten
the construction period. This technique also has the
advantages of good workability and environmental
friendliness.
References
[1] HOU Tian-shun, XU Guang-li, SHEN Yan-jun, WU Yan-jun,
ZHANG Ning-ning, WANG Rui. Formation mechanism and
stability analysis of the Houba expansive soil landslide [J].
Engineering Geology, 2013, 161: 34−43. DOI: 10.1016/
j.enggeo.2013.04.010.
[2] ZHAN T L T, CHEN R, NG C W W. Wetting-induced
softening behavior of an unsaturated expansive clay [J].
Landslides, 2014, 11: 1051−1061. DOI: 10.1007/s10346-
013-0449-6.
[3] DONG Jun-gui, XU Guo-yuan, LV Hai-bo, YANG Jun-yan.
Prediction of expansive soil strength based on micro-scale
properties [J]. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
2019, 37: 869−882. DOI: 10.1007/s10706-018-0657-x.
[4] KHAN M S, HOSSAIN S, AHMED A, FAYSAL M.
Investigation of a shallow slope failure on expansive clay in
Texas [J]. Engineering Geology, 2017, 219: 118−129. DOI:
10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.10.004.
[5] LIU Yun-long, VANAPALLI S K. Influence of lateral
swelling pressure on the geotechnical infrastructure in
expansive soils [J]. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2017, 143(6): 04017006.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001651.
1979
[6] ZHANG Rui, LIU Zheng-nan, ZHENG Jian-long, ZHANG
Jun-hui. Experimental evaluation of lateral swelling pressure
of expansive soil fill behind a retaining wall [J]. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, 2020, 32: 04019360. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003032.
[7] ZHENG Jian-long, ZHANG Rui, YANG He-ping. Highway
subgrade construction in expansive soil areas [J]. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, 2009, 21: 154−162. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:4(154).
[8] WANG Liu-jiang, LIU Si-hong, ZHOU Bin. Experimental
study on the inclusion of soilbags in retaining walls
constructed in expansive soils [J]. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 2015, 43: 89−96. DOI: 10.1016/
j.geotexmem.2014.11.002.
[9] LIU Si-hong, LU Yang, WENG Li-ping, BAI Fu-qing. Field
study of treatment for expansive soil/rock channel slope with
soilbags [J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2015, 43:
283−292. DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.004.
[10] ZHANG Rui, LONG Ming-xu, ZHENG Jian-long.
Comparison of environmental impacts of two alternative
stabilization techniques on expansive soil slopes [J].
Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019: 9454929. DOI:
10.1155/2019/9454929.
[11] XIAO Jie, YANG He-ping, ZHANG Jun-hui, TANG Xian-
yuan. Surficial failure of expansive soil cutting slope and its
flexible support treatment technology [J]. Advances in Civil
Engineering, 2018: 1609608. DOI: 10.1155/2018/ 1609608.
[12] CHEHADE H A, DIAS D, SADEK M, JENCK O,
CHEHADE F H. Seismic analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced
retaining wall in cohesive soils [J]. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 2019, 47: 315−326. DOI: 10.1016/
j.geotexmem.2019.02.003.
[13] RAHMOUNI O, MABROUKI A, BENMEDDOUR D,
MELLAS M. A numerical investigation into the behavior of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental retaining walls [J].
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016, 10:
435−444. DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2016.1158443.
[14] STAHL M, KONIETZKY H, KAMP L T, JAS H. Discrete
element simulation of geogrid-stabilised soil [J]. Acta
Geotechnica, 2014, 9: 1073−1084. DOI: 10.1007/s11440-
013-0265-0.
[15] PALMEIRA E M. Soil-geosynthetic interaction: Modelling
and analysis [J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2009, 27:
368−390. DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.03.003.
[16] WON M S, KIM Y S. Internal deformation behavior of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls [J]. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 2007, 25: 10−22. DOI: 10.1016/
j.geotexmem.2006.10.001.
[17] PATHAK Y P, ALFARO M C. Wetting-drying behaviour of
geogrid reinforced clay under working load conditions [J].
Geosynthetics International, 2010, 17: 144−156. DOI:
10.1680/gein.2010.17.3.144.
[18] Al-OMARI R R, FATTAH M Y, ALI H A. Treatment of soil
swelling using geogrid reinforced columns [J]. Italian
Journal of Geosciences, 2016, 135: 83−94. DOI: 10.3301/
IJG.2014.54.
[19] LIU Hua-bei. Long-term lateral displacement of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental retaining walls [J].
 1980
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2012, 32: 18−27. DOI:
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.12.001.
[20] ZHANG Rui, ZHANG Bo-ya, ZHENG Jian-long, LIU
Zheng-nan. Modified lateral confined swelling tests on an
expansive soil [J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2018, 40(12): 2223−2230. DOI: 10.11779/
CJGE201812009. (in Chinese)
[21] SCOTLAND I, DIXON N, FROST M, FOWMES G,
HORGAN G. Modelling deformation during the construction
of wrapped geogrid reinforced structures [J]. Geosynthetics
International, 2016, 23: 219−232. DOI: 10.1680/jgein.15.
00049.
[22] Federal Highway Association. FHWA-NHI-10-025: Design
and construction of mechanically stabilized earth walls and
reinforced soil slopes [R]. 2009.
[23] ZHAN Liang-tong, NG Wang-wai Charles, BAO Cheng-
gang, GONG Bi-wei. Artificial rainfall infiltration tests on a
well-instrumented unsaturated expansive soil slope [J]. Rock
and Soil Mechanics, 2003, 24(2): 151−158. DOI: 10.1142/
S0252959903000104. (in Chinese)
中文导读
土工格栅加筋膨胀土边坡稳定性的分析方法及工程应用
摘要：传统土工格栅加筋边坡稳定性分析方法忽略了侧向膨胀作用对加筋体局部稳定性的影响，并不
适用于膨胀土加筋边坡。本文提出了一种土工格栅加筋膨胀土边坡稳定性分析的新方法，在保证加筋
边坡整体稳定的前提下，得到了自由区因侧向膨胀而产生的附加拔出力和各土工格栅层的抗拔安全系
数。通过改变土工格栅加筋间距和长度，对湖北省某膨胀土路堑边坡进行了优化设计。结果表明，膨
胀土侧向膨胀引起的附加拔出力对土工格栅的抗拔稳定性有很大影响，若不考虑自由区土体的膨胀效
应，将高估加筋边坡的局部稳定性。
关键词：膨胀土；侧向膨胀力；筋土相互作用；稳定性分析；工程应用
View publication stats
J. Cent. South Univ. (2020) 27: 1965−1980
[24] Ministry of Transport of the People’s Republic of China.
JTG/T D32: Technical specifications for application of
geosynthetics in highway [R]. 2012. (in Chinese)
[25] Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of
China. SL 235: Specification for test and measurement of
geosynthetics [R]. 2012. (in Chinese)
[26] YANG Guang-qing, PANG Wei, LV Peng, ZHOU Qiao-
yong. Experimental study of tensile properties of Geogrids
[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2008, 29(9): 2387−2391. DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2008.09.015. (in Chinese)
[27] Ministry of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of
China [S]. JTG E40: Test methods of soils for highway
engineering. Beijing, 2007. (in Chinese)
[28] YANG He-ping, WANG Liang, ZHENG Jian-long.
Development and application of large scale numerical
control pullout test system [J]. Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 2007, 29(7): 129−133. DOI:
10.3321/j.issn:1000-4548.2007.07.019. (in Chinese)
(Edited by ZHENG Yu-tong)