Influence of Selection of Soil and Interface Properties

on Numerical Results of Two Soil–Geosynthetic

Interaction Problems
Yan Yu1 and Richard J. Bathurst2

Abstract: Numerical modelers are often faced with the challenge to numerically reproduce the physical behavior of soil–geosynthetic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

interaction problems using assumed values for missing soil and interface model parameters. This paper examines two such examples
using the finite-difference method, (1) horizontal pullout of a geosynthetic (geogrid) reinforcement layer in a pullout box and (2) a geosyn-
thetic (geotextile)-reinforced soil layer over a void. It also presents the results of parametric sensitivity analyses for the missing soil and
interface model parameter values and identifies the values that give the best agreement with measured data. The paper further demon-
strates that correct modeling of geometrical nonlinearity is key to accurately predicting the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced soil
systems controlled by the tensioned membrane effect. The lessons learned in this study will be of interest to numerical modelers during
numerical model design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil systems. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000847. © 2016 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geosynthetics; Numerical modeling; Pullout test; Voids; Geosynthetic-soil interaction; Interfaces; FLAC.

Introduction the reinforcement layer are sensibly horizontal. Examples of

Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-reinforced soil systems is
now widely used for the design of field structures, prediction of
measured responses, and in research to generate synthetic data for
the purpose of filling in knowledge gaps on the behavior of these
systems. However, in almost all cases, assumptions must be made
regarding the choice of some or all of the parameter values for the
soil and soil-reinforcement interaction constitutive models that
are used in advanced numerical codes (computer programs). The
accuracy of numerical outcomes when compared with physical
measurements may be sensitive to the choice of magnitude of the
missing parameters in some cases and negligible in others. This
paper considers two examples in which parameter values for the
component constitutive models in the finite-difference method
(FDM) program FLAC are not available. The numerical results
using a range of missing parameter values from physical tests
reported in the literature are compared with the matching meas-
ured physical test results.
The first example is a geogrid reinforcement layer in a pullout
box subjected to horizontal pullout loads. The geosynthetic rein-
forcement layer is placed horizontally within the soil mass to
carry axial tensile loads. Vertical differential displacements
between the soil and reinforcement are negligible in the rein-
forced soil mass. Hence, axial strains and loads generated within
1
Postdoctoral Fellow, GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC, Dept.
of Civil Engineering, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON,
Canada K7K 7B4. E-mail: yan.yu@queensu.ca
2
Professor, GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada
K7K 7B4 (corresponding author). E-mail: bathurst-r@rmc.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 6, 2016; approved on
September 21, 2016; published online on November 8, 2016. Discussion
period open until April 8, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
physical and numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and
steel-reinforced pullout tests are the work of Alam et al. (2014),
Bathurst and Ezzein (2016), Ezzein and Bathurst (2014), Fannin
and Raju (1993), Moraci and Recalcati (2006), Ochiai et al.
(1996), Perkins and Edens (2003), Rouse et al. (2014), Wilson-
Fahmy and Koerner (1993), and Yogarajah and Yeo (1994),
among others. The practical application of pullout testing and
modeling is the performance of the reinforcement in the anchor-
age zone of mechanically stabilized earth walls (Allen and
Bathurst 2014a, b; Damians et al. 2015; Karpurapu and Bathurst
1995; Rowe and Skinner 2001; Yu et al. 2015a, b, 2016a, b).
The second example of geosynthetic-reinforced soil struc-
tures examined in this paper is a geosynthetic-reinforced soil
layer over a void. For this case, large vertical displacements of
the reinforced soil layer above the void can occur and the rein-
forcement layers will displace both horizontally and vertically
generating tensile loads in the horizontal anchorage zone and in the
vertically deformed reinforcement layer over the void. Examples of
the behavior of these systems can be found in the papers by
Briançon et al. (2005), Briançon and Villard (2008), Bridle and
Jenner (1997), Feng and Lu (2015), Galve et al. (2012), Giroud et al.
(1990), Wang et al. (1996), Jones and Cooper (2005), Ponomaryov
and Zolotozubov (2014), Villard and Briançon (2008), Villard et al.
(2009), Villard et al. (2000), and Wang et al. (2009), among others.
The second example in this paper with the unsupported geosynthetic
located just above a void can be considered as the limiting case for
geosynthetic-reinforced embankments over soft zones (Blanc et al.
2014; Benmebarek et al. 2015; Cao et al. 2016; Xu et al. 2016; Yu et
al. 2016c).
Unless noted otherwise, the numerical simulations in this
study were performed in the large-strain mode. Readers are
referred to the FLAC manual (Itasca 2011) for more details
regarding FLAC small-strain and large-strain mode options. The
lessons learned in this paper are valuable to numerical modelers
investigating soil–geosynthetic interaction problems of the type
described in the paper using the program FLAC.

© ASCE 04016136-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Geogrid Pullout Test Example
Physical Tests
The numerical geogrid pullout models are based on physical tests
reported by Moraci and Recalcati (2006). The tests were performed
in a pullout box 1.70 m long, 0.60 m wide, and 0.68 m high
[Fig. 1(a)]. The geogrid specimens were placed at middepth in 0.6
m of granular soil. Four direct shear box tests were performed with
the same soil prepared to 95% of Standard Proctor maximum dry
density matching the as-compacted soil in the pullout tests. The se-
cant friction angle for the soil from direct shear tests varied from
f ds = 48° at s v = 10 kPa to f ds = 42° at s v = 100 kPa.
Moraci and Recalcati (2006) tested three different extruded inte-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
gral uniaxial high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geogrids. In the
current study, the tests with the highest tensile strength product
(GG3) are used because load-displacement curves up to pullout fail-
ure are available for all applied vertical stresses. Tests with GG1
and GG2 materials ruptured before pullout was achieved when the
applied stress was 100 kPa. Based on the reported data for the in-
isolation tensile tests performed at a 1 mm/min displacement rate,
the tensile stiffness of Geogrid GG3 was J = 1,903 kN/m (i.e.,
secant stiffness calculated using tensile load at 2% axial strain),
and the ultimate tensile strength was Tult = 118 kN/m. The GG3
geogrid specimens in the pullout tests had a length of 1.15 m and
a width of 0.58 m. The pullout tests were performed under four
different surcharge pressures using an air bag. The corresponding
vertical stresses at the geogrid elevation were s v = 10, 25, 50, and
100 kPa. The tensile load in each geogrid specimen was measured
using a load cell placed between an electric jack and the clamping
system.
Surcharge pressure
0.30 m 0.30 m
Upper sleeve
Clamp Geogrid
Soil
Pullout load
Lower sleeve
0.25 m
0.10 m 1.15 m
(a)
1.70 m
Surcharge pressure
0.30 m 0.30 m
Geogrid
Soil
Pullout load
y tion f = tan−1(1.2
tan f ds) (Kulhawy and Mayne 1990) applied
x
(b) Clamp
(c)
Fig. 1. Example showing horizontal geogrid specimen subjected to
horizontal pullout load: (a) schematic of physical pullout test;
(b) matching FLAC numerical grid and boundary conditions; (c) local
soil boundary conditions around the clamp
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 04016136
Numerical Modeling Details
Reinforced soil walls with planar soil-reinforcement elements are,
for practical purposes, plane strain problems and are most often ana-
lyzed and designed as such using analytical methods (AASHTO
2014; BSI 2016) or numerical methods (Damians et al. 2015;
Karpurapu and Bathurst 1995; Rowe and Skinner 2001; Yu et al.
2015a, 2016a, among many others). The only practical experimen-
tal method for deducing soil-geogrid interface properties for design
and analysis is to perform pullout or direct interface shear tests in
mechanical devices of limited width. Moraci and Recalcati (2006)
reviewed the literature for lessons about how to construct and per-
form pullout tests that approach plane strain conditions as far as
practical and adopted these recommendations in their experimen-
tal program. Rouse et al. (2014) compared the measured and
back-calculated results of the pullout resistance of two planar
inclusions and concluded that plane strain conditions prevail in a
typical pullout test box at large displacements. Based on the pre-
vious comments, the numerical geogrid pullout test models were
performed using the two-dimensional (2D) version of the pro-
gram FLAC and plane strain boundary conditions (Itasca 2011).
The plane strain FLAC numerical grid and boundary conditions
for the soil within the pullout box are shown in Fig. 1(b). A total of
3,376 zones for the soil were used. The soil domain was fixed in x-
and y-directions at the bottom boundary and in the x-direction at
both the left and right vertical boundaries. The pullout clamp
extended 0.35 m into the soil from the left pullout box boundary.
The purpose of using 0.25-m long upper and lower sleeves in the
original test was to reduce the effect of the front pullout box bound-
ary on the measured pullout loads. However, to simplify the model
the soil boundaries above and below the clamp in Fig. 1(b) were
fixed in the y-direction, and the soil boundary at the sleeve ends was
fixed in the x-direction [Fig. 1(c)]. Using finer numerical grids than
those shown in Fig. 1 (and also in the void case study that follows
later) had negligible influence on the numerical results for the
examples and boundary conditions examined.
The reported geogrid pullout loads from Moraci and Recalcati
(2006) were corrected loads that account for soil-clamp friction.
Thus, no attempt was made to model the interaction between the
clamp and soil. A single beam element was used to model the clamp.
The two nodes of the beam element were initially fixed in the x- and
y-directions and then advanced to the left in the x-direction with the
same pullout velocity.
A total of 115 cable elements were used to model each geo-
grid specimen. The first geogrid cable node was slaved to the
right beam node at the end of the clamp to generate the same x-
and y-displacements during pullout.
The soil was modeled as a linear elastic-plastic material (i.e.,
Mohr-Coulomb model). The plane strain secant friction angle used
in each numerical simulation was computed using the transforma-
to the direct shear friction angle at the corresponding stress level.
The conversion of direct shear test (and triaxial test) peak friction
angles to plane strain values that better reflect field conditions for
typical reinforced soil walls has been recommended by Allen and
Bathurst (2014a, b) and Yu et al. (2016a). The soil Young’s modu-
lus and cohesion were not reported by Moraci and Recalcati (2006).
Thus, a range of soil Young’s modulus E = 10 to 100 MPa (Budhu
2010) and cohesion c = 1–5 kPa were examined. The influence of
stress-dependent stiffness of the granular soil on the pullout loads
was investigated by comparing numerical outcomes under the same
applied vertical stress but with different soil Young’s moduli. The
granular soil properties are summarized in Table 1. The choice of
clamp properties does not influence numerical outcomes because
04016136-2 Int. J. Geomech.
 the clamp is subjected to a prescribed horizontal velocity only.
The interface properties between the granular backfill and geogrid
were also unknown. The interface was modeled using the grouted
cable element available in FLAC. The interface frictional and cohe-
sive shear strength components were computed by applying the
same strength reduction factor (Ri) as that applied to the granular
soil friction angle and cohesion, where Ri = 0.5–0.8. Grout stiffness
values of Ks,gg = 1–100 MN/m/m were selected in the parametric
analyses to follow. The cable elements were assigned tensile yield
strength equal to the geogrid ultimate tensile strength (i.e.,
118 kN/m). More details about the calculation of cable properties
are provided by Yu et al. (2015b) and in the footnotes of Table 2.
Each pullout test simulation started by activating 0.1-m-thick soil
layers in sequence matching the actual test construction method,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
clamp by applying the same pullout velocity to the two beam
nodes.
Influence of a Granular Soil Young’s Modulus
Fig. 2 shows the influence of the value of the granular soil Young’s
modulus on predicted geogrid pullout load-displacement response
under different applied vertical pressures. The numerical results
show that the Young’s modulus ranging from 10 to 100 MPa had
negligible influence on numerical results. Yu et al. (2016a) com-
pared results using a linear elastic-plastic soil model (with con-
stant soil stiffness) and a nonlinear elastic-plastic model (with
stress-dependent soil stiffness) to predict the behavior of two well-
instrumented geogrid-reinforced modular block walls (Allen and

until the final thickness of 0.6 m was achieved. Nevertheless, acti-
vating the total 0.6-m-thick soil layer in one step had negligible
influence on the numerical outcomes. The clamp beam element
and geogrid cable elements were added to the model when the
soil thickness reached 0.3 m. After the surcharge pressure was
applied, the model was solved to force equilibrium. Next, the
specimen was subjected to a constant rate of displacement at the
Bathurst 2014a, b). They found that a properly selected single value
of the Young’s modulus for the backfill soil implemented in a linear
elastic-plastic model gave similar wall-facing displacements and
reinforcement strains using the nonlinear elastic-plastic soil model.
Comparisons of measured and numerical results in Fig. 2 show that
a simple linear-elastic model with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion is
able to reproduce the physical load-displacement performance of the
geogrid pullout tests to practical satisfactory accuracy.

Table 1. Granular Soil Property Values for Geogrid Pullout Test Example
Influence of the Granular Soil Cohesive
Property Value Strength Component
Unit weighta [ g (kN/m3)] 15.4 It is common practice to add a very small cohesive soil strength
Young’s modulus [E (MPa)] 10–100 component to frictional soil backfills in soil-structure interaction
Poisson’s ratio () 0.3 problems, such as reinforced soil walls and slopes, to ensure numer-
Friction angleb [ f (°), s v (kPa)] 47, 100 ical stability at unconfined domain boundaries (1–2 kPa) (Alam et
49, 50 al. 2014; Rowe and Skinner 2001; Yu et al. 2015a, 2016a–c). The
51, 25 influence of the granular soil cohesive component on the geogrid
53, 10 pullout load-displacement response is shown in Fig. 3. Increasing
Dilation anglec [ c (°), s v (kPa)] 17, 100 the soil cohesion from 1 to 5 kPa generated a detectable increase in
19, 50 the geogrid pullout loads as expected, but the effect was minor. Fig.
21, 25 3 shows that the calculated pullout load-displacement responses
23, 10 using cohesion of 1 kPa agree well with the measured data.
Cohesion [c (kPa)] 1–5
a
g = 95%
g dmax. Influence of the Strength Reduction Factor
b
f = tan−1(1.2
tan f ds) for plane strain boundary condition. The strength reduction factor (Ri) is used to calculate the shear
c
c = f − 30°. strength parameter values of the interface between the soil and geo-
synthetic based on the soil friction angle and cohesion (Yu et al.
2015b). Thus, the grout frictional resistance is calculated as f gg =
Table 2. Cable Element Property Values for Geogrid Pullout Test
Example tan−1(Ri
tan f ), where f = sand backfill friction angle. The grout
cohesive strength component (Cgg) is computed as Cgg =
Cable element parameter Value Ri
c
Pgg, where c = sand backfill cohesion and Pgg = cross-
a
Tensile stiffness [J (kN/m)] 1,903 section perimeter of the geogrid with an out-of-plane width
Young’s modulusb [Egg (MPa)] 951.5 of 1 m (Pgg = 2 m for the plane strain condition). Interface
Cross-sectional area [Agg (m2/m)] 2
10−3 properties are summarized in Table 2.
Exposed perimeter [Pgg (m)] 2 Fig. 4 shows the influence of the shear strength reduction factor
Tensile yield strengtha [Tult (kN/m)] 118 on the geogrid pullout load-displacement responses. The numerical
Grout stiffness [Ks,gg (MN/m/m)] 1–100 results using Ri = 0.5–0.8 show that increasing the shear strength
Grout frictional resistancec [ f gg(°), s v (kPa)] 28.2–40.6, 100 reduction factor increased the pullout loads. The best agreement
29.9–42.6, 50 between the calculated and measured pullout load-displacement
31.7–44.6, 25 responses was obtained for a strength reduction factor Ri = 0.67.
33.5–46.7, 10
Grout cohesive strengthd [Cgg (kN/m)] 1.34–6.7 Influence of the Soil-Geogrid Interface Stiffness
a
With an out-of-plane width of 1 m [for tensile yield strength a unit of Fig. 5 shows the influence of cable element grout stiffness on the
force was used in the FLAC manual (Itasca 2011)]. geogrid pullout load-displacement responses. The numerical
b
Egg = J/Agg. results show that the use of grout stiffness Ks,gg = 1 MN/m/m
c
f gg = tan−1(Ri
tan f ) with Ri = 0.5 to 0.8. underestimated the pullout loads. However, the influence of grout
d
Cgg = Ri
c
Pgg. stiffness greater than 20 MN/m/m on the pullout loads is

© ASCE 04016136-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Measured (Moraci and Recalcati 2006)
Calculated (E = 10 MPa)
Calculated (E = 30 MPa)
Calculated (E = 100 MPa)
150 150
σv= 10 kPa σv= 25 kPa

Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

Large-strain mode
100 c = 1 kPa 100
Ri = 0.67
Ks,gg = 20 MN/m/m
50 50

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

150 150
σv= 50 kPa σv= 100 kPa

Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(c) (d)

Fig. 2. Influence of the soil Young’s modulus on calculated pullout load-displacement responses

Measured (Moraci and Recalcati 2006)

Calculated (c = 1 kPa)
Calculated (c = 3 kPa)
Calculated (c = 5 kPa)
150 150
σv= 10 kPa σv= 25 kPa
Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

Large-strain mode
100 100
E = 30 MPa
Ri = 0.67
Ks,gg = 20 MN/m/m
50 50

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

150 150
σv= 50 kPa σv= 100 kPa
Pullout load (kN/m)
Pullout load (kN/m)

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(c) (d)

Fig. 3. Influence of soil cohesive strength component on calculated pullout load-displacement responses

© ASCE 04016136-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Measured (Moraci and Recalcati 2006)
Calculated (Ri = 0.5)
Calculated (Ri = 0.67)
Calculated (Ri = 0.8)
150 150
σv= 10 kPa σv= 25 kPa

Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

Large-strain mode
100 E = 30 MPa 100
c = 1 kPa
Ks,gg = 20 MN/m/m

50 50

0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

150 150
σv= 50 kPa σv= 100 kPa

Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Influence of strength reduction factor on calculated pullout load-displacement responses

negligible. The calculated pullout load-displacement responses
using Ks,gg = 20 MN/m/m agreed well with the measured data,
and this value is used from now on.
Influence of the FLAC Strain Mode
The parametric analyses described in previous sections for the
geogrid pullout test demonstrated that the measured pullout load-
displacement responses were generally in good agreement with
numerical predictions using large-strain mode and backfill Young’s
modulus E = 30 MPa, backfill cohesion c = 1 kPa, strength reduction
factor Ri = 0.67, and cable grout stiffness Ks,gg = 20 MN/m/m. Fig. 6
shows the influence of the FLAC large-strain and small-strain modes
on the geogrid pullout loads. From a practical point of view, the
influence of the choice of FLAC small-strain and large-strain modes
on the calculated pullout load-displacement responses is judged to
be negligible for the example geometry, physical test displacement
rate, boundary conditions, and the simple constitutive models for the
component materials in this example.
Measured and Calculated Peak and
Large-Displacement Geogrid Pullout Loads
Previous data plots have shown that the peak pullout capacity of
each test can be reasonably well predicted even though linear
elastic-plastic (Mohr-Coulomb) models adopted for the soil and the
soil-geogrid interface are very simple. The predicted ultimate
pullout capacity of the most heavily surcharged test is controlled by
the tensile strength of the reinforcement, which can be expected for
pullout tests that are performed under large surcharge load to ulti-
mate tensile strength ratios (Huang and Bathurst 2009).
Fig. 7 shows the measured and calculated geogrid pullout loads
at four different applied vertical stresses. Increasing the applied ver-
tical stress on the geogrid increased the ultimate geogrid pullout
capacity. The results show that the calculated geogrid pullout loads
agree well with the measured peak and large-displacement pullout
loads reported by Moraci and Recalcati (2006) when sand and inter-
face parameter values that are not available in their study were taken
as E = 30 MPa (the backfill Young’s modulus), c = 1 kPa (the back-
fill cohesion), Ri = 0.67 (the strength reduction factor), and Ks,gg =
20 MN/m/m (the cable element grout stiffness) and using the peak
plane strain soil friction angle.
Summary of Geogrid Pullout Test Model Results
Generally, good agreement is judged to have been achieved
between physical and numerical results using the set of soil and
interface parameter values identified earlier. This good agreement
using this set of parameters was achieved regardless of whether the
simulations were performed in small-strain or large-strain mode.
Better predictions could be possible using other soil-geogrid inter-
face models and/or more advanced tensile load models for the geo-
grid, such as the time-dependent and strain-dependent stiffness
model by Walters et al. (2002) and Allen and Bathurst (2014b) and/

© ASCE 04016136-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Measured (Moraci and Recalcati 2006)
Calculated (Ks,gg = 1 MN/m/m)
Calculated (Ks,gg = 20 MN/m/m)
Calculated (Ks,gg = 100 MN/m/m)
150 150
σv= 10 kPa σv= 25 kPa

Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

100 Large-strain mode 100
E = 30 MPa
c = 1 kPa
Ri = 0.67
50 50

0 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

150 150
σv= 50 kPa σv= 100 kPa

Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(c) (d)

Fig. 5. Influence of cable element grout stiffness on calculated pullout load-displacement responses

or the rate-dependent models by Ezzein et al. (2015) and Kongkitkul
et al. (2014). However, these models require additional in-isolation
tensile test data that were not available.
Geotextile-Reinforced Soil Layer over a Void Example
Numerical Modeling Details
The second example is a geotextile-reinforced soil (gravel) layer
over a void [Fig. 8(a)] based on a physical test reported by Villard
and Briançon (2008). The reinforced soil layer at the location of the
void in the figure was initially supported by two inflated air bags.
The gravel layer had a thickness of hg = 0.5 m and was compacted
to a unit weight of g g = 17.0 kN/m3. Villard et al. (2009) reported a
friction angle of f g = 44° for the gravel. The geotextile had a tensile
stiffness of Jgt = 1,100 kN/m in the longitudinal direction and a ten-
sile rupture strength of Tf,gt = 125 kN/m measured at 12% of strain.
The supporting soil (original ground) was assigned a Young’s mod-
ulus of Es = 30 MPa by Villard and Briançon (2008). No other infor-
mation for the supporting soil is reported. The interface friction
angle was reported as f upper = 30° between the gravel and geotex-
tile, and f lower = 25° between the supporting soil and geotextile.
The physical test began by deflating the air bags, resulting in a
void under the geotextile and continued by surcharging the gravel
layer in the vicinity of the void. During the surcharging stage, the
gravel layer surface over a 2-m distance adjacent to the left side of
the void was surcharged first (q1 = 16 kPa). Thereafter, two
surcharge increments of q2 = 5.3 and 12.4 kPa were applied to the
gravel layer surface directly over the void. The strains in the geo-
synthetic reinforcement at different locations were measured using
optical fiber strain sensors.
The linear-elastic Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model was used
for the gravel layer and supporting soil. Using the reported interface
friction angle between the gravel and the geotextile, the interface
reduction factor was computed as Ri = tan( f upper)/tan( f g) = tan
(30°)/tan(44°) = 0.6. Thus, the friction angle of the supporting
soil was back-calculated to be f s = tan−1[tan( f lower)/Ri] = tan−1
[tan(25°)/0.6] = 38° using the same value of Ri = 0.6 for the inter-
face between the supporting soil and the geotextile. The cohesive
strength component of the supporting soil was not reported, and in
the current study values of cs = 2–10 kPa were examined. The
gravel layer with a Young’s modulus from Eg = 10–100 MPa and
cohesion cg = 1–5 kPa was investigated. The gravel and supporting
soil properties are summarized in Table 3.
The simulations were run using FLAC with an out-of-plane
width of 1 m matching the plane strain conditions of the original
physical test. The in-plane horizontal length of 10 m starting from
the left fixed end of the geotextile was modeled [Fig. 8(a)]. Two dif-
ferent model cases were performed as described in the following:
1. Case 1 modeled the geotextile using 200 beam elements. The
gravel layer and supporting soil were discretized into 6,000
zones [Fig. 8(b)]. The geotextile was fixed at the left end and
free at the right end. All beam nodes were defined using x- and
y-coordinates except the beam node at the center of void (x =
3 m), which was defined using a grid number. It should be

© ASCE 04016136-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Measured (Moraci and Recalcati 2006)
Calculated (Large-strain mode)
Calculated (Small-strain mode)
150 150
σv= 10 kPa σv= 25 kPa

Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

100 E = 30 MPa 100
c = 1 kPa
Ri = 0.67
Ks,gg = 20 MN/m/m
50 50

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(a) (b)

150 150
σv= 50 kPa σv= 100 kPa

Pullout load (kN/m)

Pullout load (kN/m)

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100

Geogrid front end displacement (mm) Geogrid front end displacement (mm)
(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Influence of FLAC small-strain and large-strain mode on calculated pullout load-displacement responses

150
Reinforcement ultimate tensile strength:
Tult = 118 kN/m

Large-strain mode
Pullout load (kN/m)

100 E = 30 MPa
c = 1 kPa
Ri = 0.67
Ks,gg = 20 MN/m/m

50
Measured data from Moraci and Recalcati (2006)

Measured (Peak)
Measured (Large-displacement)
Calculated
0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Applied vertical stress (kPa)

Fig. 7. Measured and calculated peak and large-displacement pullout loads at different applied vertical pressures

© ASCE 04016136-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 noted that the model did not converge if the beam node at x = 3
m was not defined using the grid number even when the model
was executed in large-strain mode. The supporting soil bottom
boundary was fixed in x- and y-directions. The left and right
sides of the model were fixed in the x-direction. The soil–
geosynthetic interactions were modeled using interfaces
between the gravel layer and geotextile and between the sup-
porting soil and geotextile. For Case 1, the beam elements
were assigned a zero moment of inertia.
2. Case 2 is similar to Case 1 with the exceptions that the geotextile
was modeled using 200 FLAC cable elements (all nodes were
defined using x- and y-coordinates) and only one interface was
generated between the gravel layer and the supporting soil. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
interaction between the geotextile and surrounding soil was simu-
lated using grouted cable elements. For Case 2, the use of cable
elements for the geotextile required an interface between the
gravel layer and the supporting soil. This interface was assigned
the same properties as the lower interface between the geotextile
beam elements and the supporting soil in Case 1.
The interface normal stiffness kn = 50–1,000 MPa/m and shear
stiffness ks = 1–50 MPa/m were investigated for Case 1 using beam
elements to model the geotextile. For Case 2, the cable grout stiff-
ness was calculated using Ks,gt = ks
Pgt, where Pgt = cross-section
perimeter of the geotextile with an out-of-plane width of 1 m (Pgt =
2 m for the plane strain condition). For example, if the interface
shear stiffness between the geotextile and surrounding soil from
Case 1 is ks = 10 MPa/m, the cable grout stiffness for Case 2 is cal-

Surcharge pressure culated as Ks,gt = ks
Pgt = 10
2 = 20 MN/m/m. Table 4 summa-

q1 rizes the interface property values used for the two cases. The beam
q2 Gravel layer
and cable element property values for the geotextile are summarized
Fixed end 0.5 m in Table 5. Details regarding the use of beam and cable elements to
0.5 m
(Geotexle) Geotexle model soil reinforcement materials in the program FLAC can be
Void
(with air bags inially) found in the paper by Yu et al. (2015b).
4.0 m Each FLAC model was solved to force equilibrium before acti-
Supporng soil vating the void. After creating the void below the geotextile, each

Table 4. Interface Property Values for Geotextile over a Void Example

2.0 m 2.0 m
(a) Interface parameter Value
10.0 m
Normal stiffness [kn (MPa/m)] 50–1,000
Surcharge pressure
q1 Shear stiffness [ks (MPa/m)] 1–50
q2 Gravel layer Gravel layer-geotextile
0.5 m Friction angle [ f upper (°)] 30
Fixed end 0.5 m Dilation angle [ c upper (°)] 0
(Geotexle) Geotexle
Void Cohesiona [cupper (kPa)] 0.6–3
Supporting soil-geotextile
4.0 m
Supporng soil Friction angle [ f lower (°)] 25
Dilation angle [ c lower (°)] 0
(b) Cohesionb [clower (kPa)] 1.2–6
a
cupper = Ri
cg with Ri = 0.6.
Fig. 8. Example showing a horizontal geotextile subjected to unbal- b
clower = Ri
cs with Ri = 0.6.
anced vertical stresses on upper and lower sides of the geotextile:
(a) geotextile-reinforced soil layer over void; (b) FLAC numerical grid
and boundary conditions
Table 5. Beam and Cable Element Property Values for Geotextile over a
Void Example
Table 3. Gravel Layer and Supporting Soil Property Values for
Property Value
Geotextile over a Void Example
a
Tensile stiffness [Jgt (kN/m)] 1,100
Property Value
Young’s modulusb [Egt (MPa)] 550
Gravel layer Cross-sectional area [Agt (m2/m)] 2
10−3
Unit weight [ g g (kN/m3)] 17.0 Exposed perimeter [Pgt (m)] 2
Young’s modulus [Eg (MPa)] 10–100 Tensile yield strengtha [Tf,gt (kN/m)] 125
Poisson’s ratio ( g) 0.3 Beam elements (Case 1)
Friction angle [ f g (°)] 44 Moment of inertia [Igt (m4)] 0
Dilation anglea [ c g (°)] 14 Cable elements (Case 2)
Cohesion [cg (kPa)] 1–5 Grout stiffnessc [Ks,gt (MN/m/m)] 2–100
Supporting soil Grout frictional resistanced [ f gt (°)] 30
Unit weight [ g s (kN/m3)] 16.0 Grout cohesive strengthe [Cgt (kN/m)] 1.2–6
Young’s modulus [Es (MPa)] 30 a
Out-of-plane width of 1 m [for tensile yield strength a unit of force was
Poisson’s ratio ( s) 0.3
used in the FLAC manual (Itasca 2011)].
Friction angle [ f s (°)] 38 b
Egt = Jgt/Agt.
Dilation angleb [ c s (°)] 8 c
Ks,gt = ks
Pgt with ks defined in Table 4 and Pgt = 2 m for the plane strain
Cohesion [cs (kPa)] 2–10
condition.
a
c g = f g −30°. d
f gt = f upper with f upper defined in Table 4.
b
c s = f s −30°. e
Cgt = cupper
Pgt with cupper defined in Table 4.

© ASCE 04016136-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 model was solved to reach force equilibrium again. Then the distrib-
uted surcharge q1 = 16 kPa was applied to the left-side anchorage
zone and solved to force equilibrium, and the procedure was
repeated for surcharge increments q2 = 5.3 and 12.4 kPa located
directly over the void.
As in the previous pullout test example cases, no attempt was
made to model the strain and time-dependent behavior of the geotex-
tile in this study because the necessary test data were not available.
Influence of the Gravel Layer Young’s modulus
Fig. 9 shows the influence of the gravel layer Young’s modulus on the
geotextile vertical displacements after removing the air bags and cre-
ating a void below the geotextile. The numerical results demonstrate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
that the value of the gravel layer Young’s modulus has negligible
influence on the geotextile vertical displacements. The calculated geo-
textile vertical displacements for the gravel layer Young’s modulus,
Eg, ranging from 10 to 100 MPa were in good agreement with the
measured data from Villard and Briançon (2008).
Influence of the Gravel Layer Cohesive
Strength Component
The influence of the gravel layer cohesive strength component on the
geotextile vertical displacements is shown in Fig. 10. Increasing the
gravel layer cohesion decreased the geotextile vertical displacements.
For example, the calculated geotextile vertical displacement at x =
3 m was about 0.18 m for cg = 5 kPa and increased to about 0.21 and
0.23 m when cg = 3 and 1 kPa, respectively. The calculated geotextile
vertical displacements using the gravel cohesion value cg = 1 kPa
were in good agreement with measured data.
Influence of Supporting the Soil Cohesive
Strength Component
Fig. 11 shows the influence of the supporting soil cohesive strength
component on geotextile vertical displacements. The numerical
results show that the calculated geotextile vertical displacements
Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)
1 2
0.0
Geotextile vertical displacement (m)
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Fig. 9. Influence of the gravel layer Young’s modulus on geotextile vertical displacements after creating a void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m)
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 04016136
increased with decreasing supporting soil cohesion. For example,
the calculated geotextile vertical displacements at x = 3 m were
about 0.27, 0.23, and 0.21 m for the case of supporting soil cohesion
cs = 2, 5 and 10 kPa, respectively. The best agreement between the
measured and calculated data was obtained for cs = 5 kPa.
Influence of the Soil-Geosynthetic Interface
Normal Stiffness
The influence of the soil-geosynthetic interface normal stiffness on
geotextile vertical displacements is shown in Fig. 12. The results
indicate that the interface normal stiffness kn = 50–1,000 MPa/m
had a minor influence on geotextile vertical displacements when the
interface shear stiffness was fixed at ks = 10 MPa/m. The use of
interface normal stiffness kn = 50 or 100 MPa/m resulted in slightly
better agreement between the calculated and measured data.
Influence of the Soil-Geosynthetic Interface
Shear Stiffness
Fig. 13 shows the influence of the soil-geosynthetic interface
shear stiffness on geotextile vertical displacements. Values of
soil-geosynthetic interface shear stiffness ks = 1–50 MPa/m had
a minor influence on the geotextile vertical displacements when
the interface normal stiffness was fixed at kn = 100 MPa/m. A
slightly better agreement between the calculated and measured
results was obtained using interface shear stiffness in the range
ks = 1–10 MPa/m.
Influence of Soil-Geosynthetic Interface Normal and
Shear Stiffness
For soil-geosynthetic interaction problems, the interface stiffness
can be related to the stiffness of the surrounding soils (Itasca 2011;
Yu et al. 2015b). An increase in the interface normal stiffness gener-
ally results in an increase in the interface shear stiffness. Fig. 14
shows the influence of soil-geosynthetic interface normal and shear
stiffness with fixed ratio kn = 10 ks on geotextile vertical
3 4 5
Void edge
Case 1
Large-strain mode
cg = 1 kPa
cs = 5 kPa
ks = 10 MPa/m
kn = 100 MPa/m
Measured data from
Villard and Briançon (2008)
Measured (after removing air bags)
Calculated (Eg = 10 MPa)
Calculated (Eg = 40 MPa)
Calculated (Eg = 100 MPa)
04016136-9 Int. J. Geomech.
 Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
Void edge

Geotextile vertical displacement (m)

0.1 Case 1
Large-strain mode
Eg = 40 MPa
cs = 5 kPa
ks = 10 MPa/m
0.2 kn = 100 MPa/m
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Measured data from

Villard and Briançon (2008)
0.3
Measured (after removing air bags)
Calculated (cg = 1 kPa)
Calculated (cg = 3 kPa)
Calculated (cg = 5 kPa)
0.4

Fig. 10. Influence of the gravel layer cohesive strength component on the geotextile vertical displacements after creating a void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m)

Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)

1 2 3 4 5
0.0
Void edge
Geotextile vertical displacement (m)

0.1 Case 1
Large-strain mode
Eg = 40 MPa
cg = 1 kPa
ks = 10 MPa/m
0.2 kn = 100 MPa/m

Measured data from

Villard and Briançon (2008)
0.3
Measured (after removing air bags)
Calculated (cs = 2 kPa)
Calculated (cs = 5 kPa)
Calculated (cs = 10 kPa)
0.4

Fig. 11. Influence of the supporting soil cohesive strength component on geotextile vertical displacements after creating a void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m)

displacements. The results show that the influence of interface nor-
mal stiffness kn = 50–500 MPa/m with fixed ratio kn = 10 ks on the
geotextile vertical displacements is negligible.
Influence of Small-Strain and Large-Strain
Mode Options
Fig. 15 shows the calculated displacement vectors for Case 1
with beam elements used to model the geotextile. The use of
the FLAC small-strain mode resulted in failure of the model to
converge. After 10,000 calculation steps, the maximum calcu-
lated vertical displacement of the geotextile in Fig. 15(a) was
about 1.51 m. When the model was run in the FLAC large-
strain mode, force equilibrium was reached with a maximum
calculated vertical displacement of 0.23 m for the geotextile
[Fig. 15(b)].
In some applications there may be the temptation to use the
small-strain mode rather than large-strain mode in FLAC (or

© ASCE 04016136-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
Void edge

Geotextile vertical displacement (m)

Case 1
0.1 Large-strain mode
Eg = 40 MPa
cg = 1 kPa
cs = 5 kPa
ks = 10 MPa/m
0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Measured data from

Villard and Briançon (2008)

Measured (after removing air bags)

0.3 Calculated (kn = 50 MPa/m)
Calculated (kn = 100 MPa/m)
Calculated (kn = 500 MPa/m)
Calculated (kn = 1000 MPa/m)
0.4

Fig. 12. Influence of soil-geotextile interface normal stiffness on geotextile vertical displacements after creating a void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m)

Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)

1 2 3 4 5
0.0
Void edge
Geotextile vertical displacement (m)

Case 1
0.1 Large-strain mode
Eg = 40 MPa
cg = 1 kPa
cs = 5 kPa
kn = 100 MPa/m
0.2

Measured data from

Villard and Briançon (2008)

Measured (after removing air bags)

0.3 Calculated (ks = 1 MPa/m)
Calculated (ks = 5 MPa/m)
Calculated (ks = 10 MPa/m)
Calculated (ks = 50 MPa/m)
0.4

Fig. 13. Influence of soil-geotextile interface shear stiffness on geotextile vertical displacements after creating a void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m)

equivalently without mesh updating in FEM models) because of
the reduced computation time to reach convergence. However,
for situations in which there is large geometrical nonlinearity
the two approaches can give very different numerical outcomes.
An example is the case of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil
embankment over soft or weak foundations (Benmebarek et al.
2015; Cao et al. 2016; Xu et al. 2016; Yu et al. 2016c). The
example of a geotextile over a void in the current study can be
understood to be an extreme case for geosynthetic-reinforced
embankments.
Measured and Calculated Geotextile
Vertical Displacements
Based on the results of parametric analyses presented in the previ-
ous sections, the good agreement between the measured and calcu-
lated geotextile vertical displacements can be obtained using the
gravel Young’s modulus Eg = 40 MPa, gravel cohesive strength
component cg = 1 kPa, supporting soil cohesive strength component
cs = 5 kPa, interface normal stiffness kn = 100 MPa/m, and interface
shear stiffness ks = 10 MPa/m. Fig. 16 shows the deformed

© ASCE 04016136-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
Void edge

Geotextile vertical displacement (m)

Case 1
0.1 Large-strain mode
Eg = 40 MPa
cg = 1 kPa
cs = 5 kPa
0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Measured data from

Villard and Briançon (2008)
0.3
Measured (after removing air bags)
Calculated (kn = 10ks = 50 MPa/m)
Calculated (kn = 10ks = 100 MPa/m)
Calculated (kn = 10ks = 500 MPa/m)
0.4

Fig. 14. Influence of soil–geotextile interface normal and shear stiffness on geotextile vertical displacements after creating a void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m)

geotextile shape after forming a void below the geotextile. The

measured data and calculated results using a FEM code capable of
modeling large displacement are taken from Villard and Briançon
(2008). The FLAC Case 1 model with beam elements for the geo-
textile provided better prediction than the FLAC Case 2 with cable
elements and may be judged to give an improved prediction when
compared with the FEM result.

Measured and Calculated Geotextile Strains

Fig. 17 shows the calculated geotextile strains after removing

(a)
(b)
Fig. 15. Calculated displacement vectors with beam elements for geo-
textile reinforcement (Case 1): (a) FLAC small-strain mode (final force
equilibrium is not reached, and the maximum vertical displacement of
the geotextile is about 1.51 m after 10,000 steps); (b) FLAC large-strain
mode (final force equilibrium is reached, and the maximum vertical dis-
placement of the geotextile is about 0.23 m) (Note: Vectors are drawn
to the same scale)
the air bags to create the underlying void. Also shown in Fig. 17
are the available measured data from the physical test. The nu-
merical results indicate that the calculated geotextile strains
from Villard and Briançon (2008) gave maximum geotextile
strains at the left and right edges of the void (i.e., at x = 2 and
4 m in Fig. 17), whereas FLAC Cases 1 and 2 predicted the maxi-
mum geotextile strains above the middle of the void. The calcu-
lated strains using FLAC Case 1 (beam elements for the geotex-
tile) agree well with the physical data measured shortly after
removing the supporting air bags. The numerical results from
FLAC Case 2 (cable elements for the geotextile) are in good
agreement with the measured geotextile strains measured
5 months after forming the void. A coupled FEM and discrete-
element method (FEM-DEM) code used to simulate the same
physical test gave the same numerical outcome with the maxi-
mum geotextile strain located above the middle of the void
(Villard et al. 2009).
Measured and predicted geotextile strains are plotted in Fig.
18(a) for the case of the geotextile anchorage zone between x = 0
and 2 m surcharged to q1 = 16 kPa and q2 = 5.3 kPa applied to the
gravel surface over the void (between x = 2 and 4 m). As expected,
the strains are larger than those plotted in Fig. 17. Increasing the sur-
charge from q2 = 5.3–12.4 kPa increased the geotextile strains even
further, as shown in Fig. 18(b).

© ASCE 04016136-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)
1 2 3 4 5
0.0
Void edge

Geotextile vertical displacement (m) 0.1

Large-strain mode

0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Measured data and calculated FEM results

from Villard and Briançon (2008)
0.3
Measured (after removing air bags)
Calculated (FEM)
Calculated (FLAC, Case 1)
Calculated (FLAC, Case 2)
0.4

Fig. 16. Measured and calculated geotextile vertical displacements after creating a void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m)

Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0

Void edge
0.5

1.0
Geotextile strain (%)

Large-strain mode
1.5

2.0
Measured data and calculated FEM results
2.5 from Villard and Briançon (2008)

3.0 Measured (shortly after removing air bags)

Measured (5 months after removing air bags)
Calculated (FEM)
3.5
Calculated (FLAC, Case 1)
Calculated (FLAC, Case 2)
4.0

Fig. 17. Measured and calculated geotextile strains after removing the air bags to create an underlying void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m)

From a practical point of view, the three numerical models for
the surcharge cases in Figs. 17 and 18 performed well in predicting
the maximum geotextile strains after forming the void below the
geotextile. However, there are differences in the shape of the geo-
textile strain distributions. For example, FLAC Cases 1 and 2 pre-
dicted the largest strains at the middle of the void (which is also the
same result reported by Villard et al. 2009 using their coupled
FEM-DEM code), whereas the FEM results from Villard and
Briançon (2008) predicted the largest strains at the edge of the void.
These differences in geotextile strain distributions above the void
can be attributed to the limitation of the FEM model used by Villard
and Briançon (2008), which cannot capture the load transfer mecha-
nism between the soil and geotextile at locations in which the bot-
tom of the geotextile is unsupported.

© ASCE 04016136-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0
Void edge
0.5

Geotextile strain (%) 1.0 Large-strain mode

1.5 q1 = 16 kPa
q2 = 5.3 kPa
2.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2.5 Measured data and calculated FEM results

from Villard and Briançon (2008)

3.0
Measured
Calculated (FEM)
3.5
Calculated (FLAC, Case 1)
Calculated (FLAC, Case 2)
4.0
(a)

Horizontal distance from geotextile left end, x (m)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.0
Void edge
0.5

1.0
Large-strain mode
Geotextile strain (%)

1.5 q1 = 16 kPa
q2 = 12.4 kPa
2.0

2.5 Measured data and calculated FEM results

from Villard and Briançon (2008)

3.0
Measured
Calculated (FEM)
3.5
Calculated (FLAC, Case 1)
Calculated (FLAC, Case 2)
4.0
(b)

Fig. 18. Measured and calculated geotextile strains for surcharge pressure over geotextile anchor zone (0 ≤ x ≤ 2 m) q1 = 16 kPa, and surcharge pres-
sure directly above the void (2 m ≤ x ≤ 4 m) is (a) q2 = 5.3 kPa and (b) q2 = 12.4 kPa

Conclusions
The FEM and FDM are attractive numerical techniques to model
the performance of soil–geosynthetic interaction problems, such as
geosynthetic/steel pullout tests, geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls
and embankments, and geosynthetic-reinforced layers over voids.
However, the accuracy of numerical models using the FDM
program FLAC will depend on the choice of soil and geosynthetic
constitutive models selected, which may be problematic for param-
eter values that are not available from original physical test
documentation.
This paper reports the modeling details and the sensitivity
and accuracy of numerical results using a range of assumed soil
and interface property values for two different geosynthetic-

© ASCE 04016136-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016136

 reinforced soil interaction examples: (1) horizontal pullout of a
reinforcing element (geogrid) in the anchorage zone of a reinforced
wall simulated by a pullout test and (2) a geotextile-reinforced soil
layer over a void. Based on the results reported in this paper, the
following conclusions can be summarized:
• For granular materials, such as sand and gravel, the use of the
soil Young’s modulus between 10 and 100 MPa had negligible
influence on the geosynthetic responses for the examples
examined and all other conditions unchanged.
• A small cohesion (e.g., 1 kPa) is recommended when modeling
the granular materials in soil–geosynthetic interaction problems
to ensure numerical stability at the unconfined soil boundaries.
• The interface between geosynthetic and surrounding soils can be
modeled by using normal stiffness kn = 100 MPa/m and shear
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stiffness ks = 10 MPa/m. The latter value corresponds to the grout
stiffness Ks = 20 MN/m/m when using FLAC cable elements
with the geosynthetic continuous in the out-of-plane direction.
• The shear strength of soil-geosynthetic interfaces can be
obtained by applying a strength reduction factor Ri = 0.67 to
the surrounding soil if the measured shear strength of soil-
geosynthetic interfaces is not reported from the physical
tests. This is also the default value recommended by
AASHTO (2014).
• The numerical results from the geogrid pullout test simulations
in which the geogrid specimen deformed only in the horizontal
direction showed that the choice of FLAC small-strain or
large-strain mode had a minor quantitative influence on pullout
load-displacement response. Numerical results were in reason-
able practical agreement with measured values, particularly
for tests with small confining pressures, at small initial dis-
placements (say less than 20 mm), and at peak pullout load.
• The numerical analyses of an unsupported geotextile-reinforced
soil layer over a void demonstrated that force equilibrium (nu-
merical convergence) was not achieved in numerical models
using the FLAC small-strain mode. This is because the horizon-
tal structure (beam) elements using the FLAC small-strain mode
can only generate horizontal axial loads; hence, force balance
cannot be satisfied between horizontal loads and the vertical
stresses acting on the horizontal structure elements. However,
force equilibrium was achieved using the large-strain mode in
FLAC. The calculated geotextile deformations and strains using
the FLAC large-strain mode were in good agreement with the
measured data from a physical test.
More advanced models for the soil, geosynthetic, and soil-
geosynthetic interaction could be used in numerical modeling of
the type investigated in this study. Examples include nonlinear
elastic-plastic models with strain softening for the soil and time-
dependent and strain-dependent geosynthetic stiffness models.
However, the relatively simple models used in this study are easy
to understand, need a minimum number of input parameters, and
at the same time result in satisfactory agreement with physical
test results when the latter are available. Finally, this study used
the program FLAC to perform numerical simulations. The inter-
ested reader is directed to the paper by Yu et al. (2015b) who
investigated the influence of choice of the numerical approach
[i.e., the FDM (program FLAC) and the FEM] on numerical soil-
structure interaction results.
Acknowledgments
The work reported in this paper was supported by a grant from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC).
© ASCE 04016136-15
Int. J. Geomech., 04016136
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
hg ¼ thickness of gravel layer over a void (m);
J ¼ secant stiffness of geogrid (N/m);
q, q1, q2 ¼ surcharge pressure (Pa);
Ri ¼ strength reduction factor (dimensionless);
Tult ¼ ultimate tensile strength (N/m);
x, y ¼ Cartesian coordinates (m);
s v ¼ vertical stress at elevation of the geogrid speci-
men (Pa);
f ¼ plane strain peak friction angle for pullout test
model (°); and
f ds ¼ peak friction angle from direct shear box test (°).
References
AASHTO. (2014). LRFD bridge design specifications, 7th Ed., Washington,
DC.
Alam, M. J. I., Lo, S. R., and Karim, M. R. (2014). “Pull-out behaviour of
steel grid soil reinforcement embedded in silty sand.” Comput. Geotech.,
56, 216–226.
Allen, T., and Bathurst, R. (2014a). “Design and performance of 6.3-m high
block-faced geogrid wall designed using the K-stiffness method.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001013,
04013016.
Allen, T. M., and Bathurst, R. J. (2014b). “Performance of an 11 m high
block-faced geogrid wall designed using the K-stiffness method.” Can.
Geotech. J., 51(1), 16–29.
Bathurst, R. J., and Ezzein, F. M. (2016). “Geogrid pullout load–strain
behaviour and modelling using a transparent granular soil.” Geosynth.
Int., 23(4), 271–286.
Benmebarek, S., Berrabah, F., and Benmebarek, N. (2015). “Effect of geo-
synthetic reinforced embankment on locally weak zones by numerical
approach.” Comput. Geotech., 65, 115–125.
Blanc, M., Thorel, L., Girout, R., and Almeida, M. (2014). “Geosynthetic
reinforcement of a granular load transfer platform above rigid inclu-
sions: Comparison between centrifuge testing and analytical model-
ling.” Geosynth. Int., 21(1), 37–52.
Briançon, L., Nancey, A., and Villard, P. (2005). “Development of
Geodetect: A new warning system for the survey of reinforced earth
constructions.” Stud. Geotech. Mech., 27, 21–32.
Briançon, L., and Villard, P. (2008). “Design of geosynthetic-reinforced
platforms spanning localized sinkholes.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26(5),
416–428.
Bridle, R. J., and Jenner, C. G. (1997). “Polymer geogrids for bridging min-
ing voids.” Geosynth. Int., 4(1), 33–50.
BSI (British Standards Institution). (2016). “Code of practice for strength-
ened/reinforced soil and other fills.” BS8006, London.
Budhu, M. (2010). Soil mechanics and foundations, 3rd Ed., Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Cao, W. Z., Zheng, J. J., Zhang, J., and Zhang, R. J. (2016). “Field test of a
geogrid reinforced and floating pile-supported embankment.” Geosynth.
Int., 23(5), 348–361.
Damians, I.. Bathurst, R., Josa, A., and Lloret, A. (2015). “Numerical analy-
sis of an instrumented steel reinforced soil wall.” Int. J. Geomech., 10
.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000394, 04014037.
Ezzein, F., and Bathurst, R. J. (2014). “A new approach to evaluate soil-
geosynthetic interaction using a novel pullout test apparatus and
transparent granular soil.” Geotext. Geomembr., 42(3), 246–255.
Ezzein, F., Bathurst, R. J., and Kongkitkul, W. (2015). “Non-linear load-
strain modeling of polypropylene geogrids during constant rate-of-strain
loading.” Polym. Eng. Sci., 55(7), 1617–1627.
Fannin, R. J., and Raju, D. M. (1993). “On the pullout resistance of geosyn-
thetics.” Can. Geotech. J., 30(3), 409–417.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Feng, S. J., and Lu, S. F. (2015). “Deformation analysis of a geosynthetic
material subjected to two adjacent voids.” Geotext. Geomembr., 43(4),
317–331.
FLAC [Computer software]. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis.
Galve, J. P., Gutierrez, F., Guerrero, J., Alonso, J., and Diego, I. (2012).
“Optimizing the application of geosynthetics to roads in sinkhole-prone
areas on the basis of hazard models and cost-benefit analyses.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 34, 80–92.
Giroud, J. P., Bonaparte, R., Beech, J. F., and Gross, B. A. (1990). “Design
of soil layer-geosynthetic systems overlying voids.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 9(1), 11–50.
Huang, B., and Bathurst, R. J. (2009). “Evaluation of soil-geogrid pullout
models using a statistical approach.” Geotech. Test. J., 32(6), 489–504.
Itasca. (2011). FLAC: Fast Lagrangian analysis of continua 7.0 user’s
manual, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Toronto on 11/10/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Jones, C. J. F. P., and Cooper, A. H. (2005). “Road construction over voids
caused by active gypsum dissolution, with an example from Ripon,
North Yorkshire, England.” Environ. Geol., 48(3), 384–394.
Karpurapu, R. G., and Bathurst, R. J. (1995). “Behaviour of geosynthetic re-
inforced soil retaining walls using the finite element method.” Comput.
Geotech., 17(3), 279–299.
Kongkitkul, W., Chantachot, T., and Tatsuoka, F. (2014). “Simulation of geo-
synthetic load–strain–time behaviour by the non-linear three-component
model.” Geosynth. Int., 21(4), 244–255.
Kulhawy, F. H., and Mayne, P. W. (1990). “Manual on estimating soil prop-
erties for foundation design.” Rep. EL-6800, Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Moraci, N., and Recalcati, P. (2006). “Factors affecting the pullout behavior
of extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil.” Geotext.
Geomembr., 24(4), 220–242.
Ochiai, H., Otani, J., Hayashic, S., and Hirai, T. (1996). “The pull-out resist-
ance of geogrids in reinforced soil.” Geotext. Geomembr., 14(1), 19–42.
Perkins, S. W., and Edens, M. Q. (2003). “Finite element modeling of a geo-
synthetic pullout test.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 21, 357–375.
Ponomaryov, A., and Zolotozubov, D. (2014). “Several approaches for the
design of reinforced bases on karst areas.” Geotext. Geomembr., 42(1),
48–51.
Rouse, P. C., Fannin, R. J., and Taiebat, M. (2014). “Sand strength for back-
analysis of pull-out tests at large displacement.” Geotechnique, 64(4),
320–324.
Rowe, R. K., and Skinner, G. D. (2001). “Numerical analysis of geosyn-
thetic reinforced retaining wall constructed on a layered soil founda-
tion.” Geotext. Geomembr., 19(7), 387–412.
© ASCE 04016136-16
Int. J. Geomech., 04016136
Villard, P., and Briançon, L. (2008). “Design of geosynthetic reinforce-
ments for platforms subjected to localized sinkholes.” Can. Geotech. J.,
45(2), 196–209.
Villard, P., Chevalier, B., Le Hello, B., and Combe, G. (2009). “Coupling
between finite and discrete element methods for the modelling of earth
structures reinforced by geosynthetic.” Comput. Geotech., 36(5), 709–717.
Villard, P., Gourc, J. P., and Giraud, H. (2000). “A geosynthetic reinforce-
ment solution to prevent the formation of localized sinkholes.” Can.
Geotech. J., 37(5), 987–999.
Walters, D. L., Allen, T. M., and Bathurst, R. J. (2002). “Conversion of geo-
synthetic strain to load using reinforcement stiffness.” Geosynth. Int.,
9(5–6), 483–523.
Wang, F., Han, J., Miao, L. C., and Bhandari, A. (2009). “Numerical analy-
sis of geosynthetic bridged and drilled shafts-supported embankments
over large sinkholes.” Geosynth. Int., 16(6), 408–419.
Wang, M. C., Feng, Y. X., and Jao, M. (1996). “Stability of geosynthetic-
reinforced soil above a cavity.” Geotext. Geomembr., 14(2), 95–109.
Wilson-Fahmy, R. F., and Koerner, R. M. (1993). “Finite element model-
ling of soil-geogrid interaction with application to the behavior of geo-
grids in a pullout loading condition.” Geotext. Geomembr., 12(5),
479–501.
Xu, C., Song, S., and Han, J. (2016). “Scaled model tests on influence fac-
tors of full geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankments.”
Geosynth. Int., 23(2), 140–153.
Yogarajah, I., and Yeo, K. C. (1994). “Finite element modelling of pullout
tests with load and strain measurements.” Geotext. Geomembr., 13(1),
43–54.
Yu, Y., Bathurst, R., and Allen, T. (2016a). “Numerical modelling of the
SR-18 geogrid reinforced modular block retaining walls.” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001438,
04016003.
Yu, Y., Bathurst, R. J., Allen, T. M., and Nelson, R. (2016b). “Physical
and numerical modelling of a geogrid reinforced incremental concrete
panel retaining wall.” Can. Geotech. J., in press.
Yu, Y., Bathurst, R. J., and Damians, I. P. (2016c). “Modified unit cell
approach for modelling geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported
embankments.” Geotext. Geomembr., 44(3), 332–343.
Yu, Y., Bathurst, R. J., and Miyata, Y. (2015a). “Numerical analysis of a
mechanically stabilized earth wall reinforced with steel strips.” Soils
Found., 55(3), 536–547.
Yu, Y., Damians, I. P., and Bathurst, R. J. (2015b). “Influence of choice of
FLAC and PLAXIS interface models on reinforced soil-structure interac-
tions.” Comput. Geotech., 65, 164–174.
Int. J. Geomech.