See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322356153

Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and

Steel Strip Reinforced Slopes

Article · December 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 19

3 authors, including:

Burak Evirgen
Anadolu University
12 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Burak Evirgen on 10 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, 32(4), ss. 227-240, Aralık 2017
Çukurova University Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, 32(4), pp. 227-240, December 2017

Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and Steel Strip Reinforced

Slopes
Burak EVİRGEN*1, Mustafa TUNCAN1, Ahmet TUNCAN1
1
Anadolu Üniversitesi, Mühendislik Fakültesi, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü, Eskişehir

Geliş tarihi: 15.11.2017 Kabul tarihi: 19.12.2017

Changing the natural conditions of soil creates unexpected stress increments in slope stability projects,
which are required high amount of soil excavation near the highways and railways or braced cut systems.
Some safety problems can occur during this application under different loading cases. In addition, slope
stability design requires economical solutions. Slope-supporting structures should be designed with most
effective solution according to these signified requirements. A slope stability problem considering deep
excavations in front of the reinforced soils are studied within this study in all its parts, after an extensive
review of the literature. Geotextile (GT), geogrid (GG) and steel strip (SS) reinforcements are used to
increase the stability conditions of slope during both experimental procedure and modelling process with
Plaxis software. Each reinforcement type provided the bearing capacity enhancement and showed that
unique displacement behavior. Therefore, most effective reinforcement member can be chosen in design
procedure and construction phase in the site according to the bearing capacity and displacement
requirements according to presented values.

Keywords: Slope stability, Reinforced slope, Geotextile, Geogrid, Steel strip

Geotekstil, Geogrid ve Çelik Şerit Donatılı Şevlerde Modelleme Çalışması

Öz

Zeminin doğal koşullarının değişmesi, yüksek miktarda hafriyat gerektiren otoyol ve demiryolu kenarları
veya destekli kazılardaki şev stabilitesi projelerinde beklenmedik gerilme artışlarına neden olmaktadır.
Bu işlem sırasında farklı yükleme durumlarında bazı güvenlik sorunları oluşabilmektedir. Ek olarak, şev
stabilitesi tasarımı ekonomik çözüm gerektirmektedir. Şev destek yapıları için bu önemli gereksinimler
göz önünde bulundurularak en efektif tasarım yapılmalıdır. Bu çalışmada; kapsamlı bir literatür
taramasının ardından, donatılı zemin yapısının ön kısmında yer alan derin kazılar dikkate alınarak şev
stabilitesi problemi tüm yönleriyle incelenmiştir. Geotekstil (GT), geogrid (GG) ve çelik şerit (SS)
donatılar, hem deney sürecinde hem de Plaxis yazılımı ile modelleme aşamasında şevin stabilite
koşullarının arttırılması işleminde kullanılmıştır. Her donatı tipi zemin taşıma kapasitesi artışı sağlamış ve
kendine has yer değiştirme davranışı göstermiştir. Dolayısıyla, sunulan değerlere göre taşıma kapasitesi
ve yer değiştirme gereklilikleri doğrultusunda, tasarım işlemi ve sahadaki inşa sürecinde en efektif donatı
elemanı seçilebilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Şev stabilitesi, Donatılı şev, Geotekstil, Geogrid, Çelik şerit

*
Sorumlu yazar (Corresponding author): Burak EVİRGEN, burakevirgen@anadolu.edu.tr

Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017 227

Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and Steel Strip Reinforced Slopes

1. INTRODUCTION purpose of separation, reinforcement, filtration and

drainage applications. While soil is good in
Retaining structures are used to support for vertical compression, geotextile is good in tension.
or close to vertical and inclined slopes of soil Therefore, geotextiles are used in the case of low
along the highway, road and railway structures. strength fine-grained silt and clay type of soils to
They are also used for bridge abutments and eliminate the risk of local tearing under load.
stability of miscellaneous slopes as well. They are Geotextile has rapid, economical and eco-friendly
made of reinforced concrete named as cantilever usage in many geotechnical areas with vegetation
retaining walls and stone masonry named as and extra steel reinforcement, recently. In addition
gravity retaining walls, generally. If the height of to this, geogrid is a mesh like material produced
retaining walls exceed about 8 m-10 m, counterfort from polymeric materials with variable space and
retaining walls can be constructed within the rib properties according to standards. Besides, steel
purpose of reducing the shear and bending strip utilization in soil layers creates a strong
moments. On the other hand, reinforced earth composite matrix against active forces. All of these
structures are used to design foundation and earth reinforcements are used with respect to both
retaining buildings. Reinforced earth is created increasing of soil bearing capacity and decreasing
with the combination of soil and geosynthetics both horizontal and vertical deformations against
such as geotextile, geogrid and geonet type of failures such as settlement, sliding, overturning,
materials. Reinforced earth structures are preferred pullout failure and local or general failures.
due to the fast construction, high resistance to
earthquake, relatively high tensile strength, 2. PREVIOUS STUDIES
economic feasibility and aesthetic appearance too.
The most common study approaches of reinforced
The first reinforced earth-retaining wall for the soils are experimental evaluations in the literature.
roads was constructed in 1972 in the United States Juran and Christopher [6] determined the behavior
according to Das [1]. Vidal [2] presented the and failure mechanisms of reinforced soil retaining
concept of systematic analysis and design of walls with geotextile and geogrid materials. Three
reinforced earth structures. Several reinforced different failure mechanisms were observed caused
earth retaining walls were constructed in France by sliding or breakage of reinforcement and
soon after his work. Moreover, geosynthetic excessive facing displacement. DeMerchant et al.
reinforced walls was gaining demand in Northern [7] realized experimental plate load tests on
America in time due to its specific advantages geogrid reinforced lightweight aggregate bed for
according to Bathurst and Simac [3]. Miyata and the case of underlying foundation area. Subgrade
Bathurst [4] mentioned that more than 30,000 steel modulus was presented depending on soil density,
strip reinforced soil walls have been constructed in width and location of geogrid reinforcements,
Japan from 1970s to 2012s. These approaches tensile strength of geogrid and number of
showed that reinforced soils have been widely reinforced layer. Yıldız [8] realized that the
used around the world. experimental and analytical study at shallow
foundation which is constructed on geogrid
Geosynthetic is defined as a planar product reinforced soil according to distance between
manufactured from polymeric material used with foundation and slope with 30º angle, number of
soil, rock, earth, or other geotechnical engineering reinforcement layers and depth of reinforcement
related material as an integral part of a man-made tests. Bathurst et al. [9] predicted that full-scaled
project, structure, or system as stated by ASTM instrumented soil walls reinforced with bar mat,
D4439-15a [5]. Geotextile is a permeable welded wire and steel strips depending on the
geosynthetic made of textiles that is generally evaluation of AASHTO simplified method
woven product with different filament properties accuracy. Granular backfills have less than 45º
and dimensions, too. Geotextile is used with soil internal friction angle showed reasonably precision
and any other earth like materials within the for steel strip reinforced soil wall design according

228 Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017

 Burak EVİRGEN, Mustafa TUNCAN, Ahmet TUNCAN

to related study. Palmeira [10] conducted that the presented the detailed information about initial
testing techniques are still rough approximations facing failure of geotextile-reinforced retaining
about the behavior of geosynthetic type of wall constructed in 1987 in North Carolina, USA.
materials in the field. Lin et al. [11] proved the Kim and Won [22] studied long-term behavior of
effectiveness of grid-rib type of geometry in geosynthetic reinforced walls (GRS) which are
geosynthetic reinforcements according to constructed on weak ground. The maximum
experimental pull out performances. Indraratna et horizontal displacement and shear strain at soil
al. [12] discussed the beneficial effects of geogrids mass without reinforcement were observed about
on the strength characteristics were evaluated 2.5 times and 1.4 times greater than GRS walls,
using large-scale direct shear tests. Latha and within the results of in-situ application and finite
Santhanakumar [13] examined the stronger and element modelling, respectively. Stuedlein et al.
weaker polypropylene biaxial geogrid [23] studied that 46 m tall steel strip reinforced
reinforcements with rigid and modular concrete earth wall technology near the runways of Seattle -
block facing systems on shaking table. Nearly 60% Tacoma International Airport via real time
of vertical deformation decrement was reported geotechnical instrumentations. Yonezawa et al.
with using 3 layers of geogrid usage. Gonzalez- [24] described the design and construction of GRS
Torre et al. [14] evaluated those six different according to satisfying very high-performance
geosynthetics within the purpose of anti-cracking requirements, a high stability for earthquakes and a
agent utilization. It is also effective between soil high cost effectiveness, which is higher than the
layers in terms of interlocking effect that consists conventional type soil structures. Liu et al. [25]
of voids between grid strips and thickness. Suzuki observed the pressure and displacement changes of
et al. [15] studied the effect of cement treated soil expansive soil/rock channel slope reinforced with
as a backfill material behind the reinforced soil soil bags under moisture effect within 60 m long
walls under different seismic conditions. Costa et full-scaled project. Soil bags practically eliminated
al. [16] investigated the time dependent the water content change of underlying soil
deformations in geotextile reinforced soil walls. influenced by rainfall or channel flow. In addition,
Deformations of geogrid reinforced soil walls swelling pressure of expansive soil can be
through centrifuge model tests at constant gravity prevented with overburden pressure of soil bag.
under the effects of molding water content and
stiffness of the geogrid were presented by Furthermore, various studies can be found in the
Balakrishnan and Viswanadham [17]. Provision of literature about new method proposals, finite
stiffer geogrid reinforced soil walls reduced element modelling or economic analysis within the
problems due to the marginal backfills as stated in aim of enhancement of the effectiveness. Saving
study. Xiao et al. [18] studied about some model money within retaining wall projects may be
tests to understand the effects of the offset distance possible up to 25% and 85% in 5 m tall and 20 m
and width of footing, the length of geogrid tall retaining structures with using reinforced soil
reinforcement, and connection mode between walls, respectively consistent with Jones [26].
geogrid and facing, on the maximum capacity of Yılmaz and Aklık [27] indicated that the
strip footings that is located on the reinforced soil reinforced concrete retaining wall was more
walls. Load - settlement characteristics of coir expensive than both geotextile and geogrid
geotextiles in various forms were studied by Lal et reinforced walls at the rate of 71% and 24%,
al. [19], which were subjected to plate load test. respectively. Allen et al. [28] developed that steel
Al-Rkaby et al. [20] realized the monotonic reinforced soil walls in new design methodology
drained tests within the aim of determination the that is called as K-stiffness method. It is utilizing
effect of principle stress direction on reinforced about prediction of reinforcement loads more
soil samples. accurately. Hatami and Bathurst [29] presented the
simulation of full-scaled reinforced soil segmental
The other important research area of reinforced retaining walls with different reinforcement types
soils is in-situ applications. Richardson [21] such as polypropylene, polyester, welded wire

Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017 229

Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and Steel Strip Reinforced Slopes

mesh in FLAC model. Lin et al. [30] developed a limit analysis approach to determine the required
new version of reinforcement mechanism for strength and length of reinforcement. Three-
slopes. Pseudo-static approach was used to dimensional analysis for reinforced soil slopes
reduction of reinforcements. Gu [31] evaluated the gave more conservative results than two-
benefits of geogrids in two types of steel wire dimensional analysis.
mesh and steel bar mesh geogrid reinforced soil
underlying flexible pavements in Abaqus software. In this study, slope stability conditions in deep
The use of geogrid reinforcement decreases the excavation constructions in front of the retaining
deformations within the base and subgrade layers structure were evaluated. Slope models were set up
as well as reduces the vertical deformations on top in the laboratory by considering behavior of
of subgrade layer. Damians et al. [32] reported that reinforced slopes with geotextile, geogrid and steel
compressible bearing pads could be effective in strip reinforcements. Vertical static load is applied
reducing vertical compression loads in reinforced up to the failure for each case. In addition,
soil wall structures with limited to a 16.7 m wall analytical model of reinforced slopes was
height and 1.5 m depth of embedment. Yu and modelled with Plaxis software under 0.50 kg/cm 2
Pradhan [33] realized the numerical study on the vertical stresses within the scope of slope
mechanism of geogrid reinforcements with respect simulation under light road load located on the top
to various parameters. Loading rate and particle corner. Displacement values and failure
shape were founded as leading factors for geogrid - mechanisms were determined and compared.
soil interaction in discrete element method. Hou et
al. [34] compared the friction, stress distribution 3. THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS
and displacement behaviors of strip and H-V
reinforced soils due to finite element modelling Main design criteria of reinforced soil walls are to
under vertical loads. H-V reinforcement can be compensate the active forces caused by external
defined as horizontal strip reinforcement effects or soil in itself. Passive forces are the first
strengthened with vertical partial plates to improve solution of this problem. However, if passive
of its load bearing capacity. Yu et al. [35] defined forces remain incapable during this conflict, extra
the effects of interface stiffness, soil modulus and retaining structures become a part of activity to
foundation modulus parameters on the steel strip provide safety. The material strength of each
reinforced earth walls due to linear elastic Mohr reinforcement members distinguishes during the
Coulomb constitutive model. Carbone et al. [36] design process, unlike the system requirements in
proposed a new inclined plane test procedure both bracing systems such as reinforced concrete
static and dynamic conditions for interaction retaining walls, lateral piles, sheet piles, etc. Soil
between soil and geosynthetic reinforcements. reinforcements must have enough strength against
Allen and Bathurst [37] developed existing K- tension forces, bending moments or tearing with
stiffness method to improve the accuracy of respect to related standards for geogrid [41],
simplified method. Reinforcement stiffness, facing geotextile [42] and steel strips [43] as well.
stiffness, facing batter, and cohesion of backfill Friction behavior is the most important design
soil were defined as key variables. Liu [38] criteria to define the interaction performance
proposed an analytical method to analyze the between reinforcement and the soil layers. Main
reinforcement load and compression of reinforced failure mechanisms must be ensured against
soil mass subjected to surcharge load. Analytical overturning, sliding and bearing capacity. In
method considered soil nonlinearity, soil dilatancy, addition, long-term stability conditions must be
soil reinforcement interaction and end restrictions checked both slope reinforcements and facing
of reinforced soil mass. Damians et al. [39] behavior in spite of the fact that negative
depicted that Plaxis software could be safely used possibilities may be caused by natural conditions,
for the analysis and design of reinforced soil unexpected load parameters and harmful effects on
structures according to both numerical results and materials. Common standard and regulations
physical measurements. Gao et al. [40] used the involve the design methods, construction and

230 Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017

 Burak EVİRGEN, Mustafa TUNCAN, Ahmet TUNCAN

maintenance about mechanically stabilized earth displacement and failure horizontal displacement
walls (MSEW) and reinforced soil slopes (RSS), criteria, respectively. Japan Road Association [49]
and the monitoring of their long-term performance. proposed that permissible differential settlement
MSEW is a generic term that includes reinforced values should be between 0.1 - 0.2 m. On the other
soil. Reinforced earth indicates a specific hand, if settlement value is greater than 0.2 m that
reinforced soil system. Reinforced soil walls is called as severe differential settlement, damage
having nearly or almost vertical face inclination is required for long term retrofitting measurements
which has 70° to 90° and horizontal rows of the are required. Facing deformations of reinforced
same length and type of reinforcement that retain a walls are limited at the range from 0.1% to 0.3%
homogeneous backfill, generally [44]. A minimum vertically [50]. This limit can reach up to the 3.0%
reinforcement length of 0.6 to 0.7H (H = height of according to PWRC [51] for all walls and
wall at wall face) has been used in most designs of maximum limit is defined as 3.5% for segmental
geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) and walls [52]. Minimum factor of safety found from
geosynthetic mechanically stabilized earth walls slice method during the analysis as 1.57 that is
(GMSE) [45]. greater than allowable value of 1.50.

Sun and Graves [46] listed the design checks as

follows; strength limit states, service limit states
and global stability according to LRFD (Load and
Resistance Factor Design) methodology. Strength
limit states are inclusive of external stability
(limiting eccentricity, sliding, bearing resistance)
and internal stability (tensile and pullout resistance
of reinforcement, structural resistance of face
element and face element connections) checks. In
addition, vertical and horizontal wall movements
are defined as service limit states. In order to check Figure 1. Analysis of a reinforced earth retaining
that global stability, overall and compound wall
stability must be provided as well. Miyata and
Bathurst [47] compared the reliability of geogrids
pullout models used in Japan in terms of ultimate 4. EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
limit state.
In this study, model box was developed for
Reinforced earth walls are generally used for reinforced slope simulation according to the
construction of retaining walls, bridge abutments, theoretical calculations. A slope model, which has
waterfront walls, and so forth. There are three 20 cm in height, 50 cm in width and 90º angle of
basic ways to design ties that resist the lateral earth facing, was prepared in the box cell. Different type
pressure such as Rankine method, Coulomb force of slopes was established without reinforcement
method and Coulomb moment method. Rankine (WR) and with reinforcements such as geotextile
method was used in this study related illustration is (GT), geogrids (GG) and steel strips (SS). After
shown in Figure 1 [1]. placing the reinforcements at required positions,
the soil was compacted by using compaction
Some deformation limits are defined in the energy, which has proper magnification factor
literature by researchers and standards for obtained from standard proctor test. Concrete
reinforced soil walls or retaining walls. facing of the slope was constructed within the
Displacement limits are generally defined as a scope of tighten the reinforcements properly. The
function of height of retaining wall (H). Wu and facing member that both provides the movement of
Prakash [48] suggested that 0.02 H and 0.1 H reinforcements together and spreads over the load,
displacement limits for permissible horizontal which concentrated on connection points. Only

Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017 231

Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and Steel Strip Reinforced Slopes

experimental part consists of the partially 4.3. Test Setup

elaborated study of existing works have been
evaluated by Özdemir et al. [53] and Onur et al. The loading frame was generated with a cubic cell
[54], partially. that has 500 mm unit width and metal braces
(Figure 3). Hydraulic jack was assembled on the
4.1. Soil Properties top of the frame to create vertical load. Data
acquisition system consists of 10 tons capacity
Clayey sand type of granular fill material was used load cell and four linear variable differential
as a backfill that has 77.6% sand, 17.8% silt and transducers (lvdt). 50 mm capacity of two lvdts
4.6% clay. Specific gravity of fill material is 2.67 were used to collect data of vertical displacement
and the optimum water content is 6.0% obtained from soil surface and this value indicates the
from compaction test. Undrained cohesion and settlement of soil. 25 mm capacity of lvdts were
internal friction angle values were determined as placed to measure the horizontal displacement of
5.7 kN/m2 and 33.3º, respectively according to the facing. Data collection was provided from
triaxial test results. instrumentations simultaneously.

4.2. Reinforcement Properties

Geotextile, geogrid and steel strip reinforcements

are given in Figure 2. 40 mm x 40 mm in square
mesh opening 1.6 mm thick geogrid material has
200 g/m2 planar density. 0.7 mm thick and
8.106 g/m3 density possessed galvanized steels
have 240 mm in length and 10 mm in width. In
addition, geotextile material has 1.2 mm thickness
and 200 g/m2 planar density values.
Reinforcements were placed 20 mm intervals in
the horizontal direction. All of these dimensions
were calculated by considering real sizes, after the
Figure 3. Experimental test setup
theoretical calculations within the experimental
frame limits. The average tensile strength values of
reinforcements are taken from manufacturers as 5. RESULTS
follows; 9.25 kPa, 45 kPa and 515 MPa for GT,
GG and SS, respectively. Slope without reinforcement (WR) and with
reinforcements (GT, GG and SS) were subjected to
vertical static loading case to simulate site
behavior, after implementation of facing. When
slopes have been subjected to external loading up
to the ultimate point, each cases collapsed with
their unique behaviors. Although, slope without
reinforcement showed toe circle type of failure
mechanism under the low stress level and ultimate
load is observed as 320 kg. Test process of
unreinforced slope is given in Figure 4. Maximum
applied stress of slope without reinforcement is
found as 0.86 kg/cm2 at ultimate condition.
Vertical and horizontal displacements of the slope
Figure 2. Geotextile, geogrid and galvanized steel just before the collapse down are detected as
from left to right 6.2 mm and 4.2 mm, respectively.

232 Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017

 Burak EVİRGEN, Mustafa TUNCAN, Ahmet TUNCAN

Figure 4. Slope without reinforcement (WR),

before, pending and after test
Figure 5. Geotextile reinforced slope (GT),
before, pending and after test
Construction and loading steps of geotextile-
reinforced slope are given in Figure 5. Geotextile
products were placed on the required coordinate The placement of geogrid members, construction
before compaction of granular materials. The of rigid concrete facing and final deformed state
bundling of slope surface was provided layer by are presented in Figure 6. The exiting ribs along
layer within the scope of facing structure the horizontal direction were anchored to the wire
generation. Maximum vertical and horizontal mesh located at slope surface. Then, water cement
deformations are observed around 28.0 mm and mixture was poured inside the formwork in order
9.0 mm respectively, under 2.6 tons of vertical to create rigid facing wall. Maximum stress is
load that are corresponding to 6.6 kg/cm2 stress calculated about 8.6 kg/cm2 under 3.3 tons applied
value at collapse status. Partially rigid deviations load. It also indicates the extreme loading
were observed on the excavation surface with condition for slope loading near the slope surface.
respect to the vertical axis. Geotextile layers also 22.0 mm and 7.0 mm displacement values are
deflected from horizontal direction because of noted as maximum readings in vertical and
local collapsing. horizontal directions, respectively.

Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017 233

Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and Steel Strip Reinforced Slopes

Vertical and horizontal displacements are observed

as 19.0 mm and 5.0 mm, respectively.

Figure 6. Geogrid reinforced slope (GG), Figure 7. Steel strip reinforced slope (SS), before,
before, pending and after test pending and after test

Steel strip reinforcements were placed on the The obtained stress-displacement curves are
predefined locations according to theoretical presented in Figure 8 for each case. Vertical
calculations (Figure 7). Strips were fixed to the displacement values represent the settlement of top
wire mesh before construction of facing member. soil level with respect to soil surface elevation at
Maximum applied stress is calculated as the beginning of test. Facing displacement values
8.3 kg/cm2 after 3.2 tons vertical static load indicate the horizontal translation of slope surface
application. It simulates the extreme loading case. at the measurement point, which may be defined as

234 Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017

 Burak EVİRGEN, Mustafa TUNCAN, Ahmet TUNCAN

three out of four parts from the bottom of slope. 6. ANALYTICAL STUDY
Unreinforced slope collapsed at low state of load
and displacement performance. Geotextile Analytical study of reinforced slopes is modelled
reinforced slopes present the highest displacement with Plaxis software under vertical stress of
both horizontal and vertical directions under 0.50 kg/cm2 within the simulating of light level
reasonable level of stress. On the other hand, steel vehicle load on the top corner of slope. Real scaled
strip reinforced and geogrid-reinforced slopes slope construction is modelled in 5.0 m height of
demonstrate similar settlement behavior under
wall with 90º angle. Soil properties are defined as
same loading steps. However, steel strips and
same as soil characteristics acquired from
geogrid members have seriously increment
geotechnical experiments. Unit weight of
influence on the bearing capacity of slope
according to their high modulus of elasticity and unsaturated and saturated soils is considered as
tensile strength capacity. They increase the bearing 18.5 kN/m3 and 19.0 kN/m3, respectively. The
capacity of soil about 10.0 times greater than young modulus is calculated as 12000 kN/m2 with
unreinforced slope. This range remains relatively respect to the uniaxial compression test results.
low in geotextile-reinforced case around 7.5 times The other stiffness parameter, Poisson’s ratio, is
increasing. Facing of steel reinforced slope taken as 0.35. Mohr-Coulomb material model and
behaves much more rigid deflection comparing to undrained material type are used during modelling
the others. Maximum horizontal deflection action process. Each reinforced case have facing element
on facing can be seen on the geotextile-reinforced within the aim of observation of the changes in
slope associated with partially rigid deviations. shear force and bending moment along the wall
height. Extreme total displacement outputs of
slopes are given in Figure 9.

a.

a.

b.
Figure 8. a. Stress-settlement graph of slopes and
b. Stress-horizontal facing displacement
graph of slopes b.

Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017 235

Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and Steel Strip Reinforced Slopes

The other required query is an identification of the

location defined as the translation point, which has
maximum deformation along horizontal direction.
Horizontal displacement values of top
reinforcement, top point of facing and whole
facing surface, are given in Figure 11. It can be
clearly seen from the figure that top point of facing
has not always represents the maximum
displacement location in reinforced slope
structures.

c.

Figure 11. Horizontal displacement behavior of

slope surface
d. Shear force has a vital role on the connection
Figure 9 Total displacement shades of slopes, a. points between reinforcement and facing member.
WR, b. GT, c. GG and d. SS Material properties and number of reinforcement
layers affect both distribution and magnitude of
The comparative displacement values of reinforced resultant shear force on the facing members
slopes are given in Figure 10 with respect to the according to its rigid, semi rigid or modular
whole soil structure. Geotextile reinforced slope construction method. Obtained values showed that
has 2.1 times greater total displacement than facing member of steel strip reinforced slope has
geogrid reinforced slope as well as 4.0 times more 2.3 times greater shear force than geotextile-
displaces if compared with steel strip reinforced reinforced slope. This multiplier was attained
slope. In other saying, geotextile reinforced soil about 1.9 times for geogrid reinforced one as given
has more displacement for each component. in Figure 12.

Figure 10. General displacement values of Figure 12. Resultant shear force on the facing, a.
reinforced slopes GT, b. GG and c. SS

236 Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017

 Burak EVİRGEN, Mustafa TUNCAN, Ahmet TUNCAN

Figure 13 represents the bending moment experimental and finite element modelling.
envelopes of reinforced slopes created at the facing Following remarks can be concluded according to
member. Bending moment is directly affected results obtained from this study.
from rigidity of facing caused by construction
materials and methods. On the other hand, Slope without reinforcement collapsed with toe
reinforcement locations and mechanical properties circle type of failure mechanism under the 0.86
also affect the peak nodes of envelopes. Resultant kg/cm2 low state of stress. Related stress level is
bending moment created on the facing member of seriously increased about 10.0 times with using
geogrid reinforced slope at existing maximum load steel strips and geogrid members. This range
levels are acquired as 1.7 times greater value than remains in relatively low due to geotextile
geotextile reinforced soil, contrary to expectations reinforcement implementation around 7.5 times.
coming from shear forces. This value reaches to Main reasons of high increment ratio can be
the just 1.4 times greater than geotextile reinforced indicated as the mechanical properties of
slope that is valid for steel reinforced one. reinforcements and their application styles.

Vertical and horizontal displacement values of the

slope without reinforcement just before the
collapse down are detected as 6.2 mm and 4.2 mm.
Vertical displacement values are increased around
4.5, 3.5 and 3.1 times greater values for geotextile,
geogrid and steel strip reinforced slopes
respectively, if compared with unreinforced slope.
On the other hand, the increment coefficient of
extreme horizontal displacement values is noticed
Figure 13. Resultant bending moment on the
as 2.1, 1.7 and 1.2 for same reinforcement
facing, a. GT, b. GG and c. SS
arrangement. These high amounts of displacement
enhancements are provided under heavy loads up
Obtained internal force values for facing and top
to the failure. Most enormous displacement values
reinforcement at the end of the modelling are given
are observed in the case of geotextile reinforced
in Table 1.
slope according to lack of facing requirement as
well as common usage at site. Moreover,
Table 1. Ultimate forces obtained on top approximately 4.0 and 2.0 times greater extreme
reinforcement and facing according to total displacement values are obtained than
Plaxis software results geotextile reinforced one in geogrid and steel strip
Reinforcement reinforced slopes in Plaxis software modelling.
Internal Force
GT GG SS
Axial Force on Top Each of the reinforced slopes have unique failure
12.6 15.6 31.8 mechanisms. Geotextile reinforced slope is
Reinforcement (kN/m)
collapsed with extremely high amount of
Shear Force on Facing
9.1 17.0 21.2 displacement at local bundled layers located at
(kN/m)
middle portions. However, steel and geogrid
Bending Moment on reinforced slopes are failed within the results of
3.6 6.1 5.2
Facing (kNm/m) deformation on the reinforcements located at upper
part. Therefore, horizontal displacement can be
7. CONCLUSIONS seen on the different portions of facing member.
Number of reinforcements, mechanical properties
In this study, geotextile, geogrid and steel strip of reinforcement materials and interlocking-
types of reinforcements are used to improve the frictional behavior between soil and reinforcement
soil properties and stability of slope by using both members directly affects the behavior.

Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017 237

Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and Steel Strip Reinforced Slopes

This study presents the comparison between most 8. Yıldız, L., 2005. Bearing Capacity of Shallow
common soil reinforcing members within the Foundation on Geogrid-reinforced Slope.
experimental and modelling results related to Master Dissertation, Cukurova University
accepted theoretical calculations. Presented Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences,
parameters may be use in design process or Adana.
application at site confidently. 9. Bathurst, R.J., Nernheim, A., Allen, T.M.,
2009. Predicted Loads in Steel Reinforced
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Soil Walls using the AASHTO Simplified
Method. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE,
This project was financially supported by the 135(2), 177-184.
Anadolu University Commission of Scientific 10. Palmeira, E.M., 2009. Soil–geosynthetic
Research Projects (Project number: 1407F353). Interaction: Modelling and Analysis. Geotext.
We would like to give our special thanks to Mr. Geomembr., 27, 368-390.
Bertan Özdemir within his contributes during the 11. Lin, Y.L., Li, X.X., Zhang, M.X., 2014. Effect
experimental process. of Reinforcement form on the Pullout
Resistance of Reinforced Sand. Ground
Improvement and Geosynthetics, ASCE,
9. REFERENCES GSP238, 380-388.
12. Indraratna, B., Nimbalkar, S.,
1. Das, B.M., 1984. Principles of foundation Rujikiatkamjorn, C., 2014. From Theory to
engineering. Brooks/Cole Engineering Practice in Track Geomechanics-Australian
Division, Monterey, California, 498. Perspective for Synthetic Inclusions. Transp.
2. Vidal, H., 1966. La terre armée. Annales de Geotech., 1, 171-187.
L’Institute Technique du Batiment et des 13. Latha, G.M., Santhanakumar, P., 2015.
Travaux Publics., 223-224, 888-938. Seismic Response of Reduced-scale Modular
3. Bathurst, R. J., Simac, M. R., 1994. Block and Rigid Faced Reinforced Walls
Geosynthetic Reinforced Segmental Retaining Through Shaking Table Tests. Geotext.
Wall Structures in North America, Keynote Geomembr., 43, 307-316.
Lecture Reprint. Proceedings of the Fifth 14. Gonzalez-Torre, I., Calzada-Perez, M.A.,
International Conference on Geotextiles, Vega-Zamanillo, A., Castro-Fresno, D., 2015.
Geomembranes and Related Products, Experimental Study of the Behaviour of
Singapore, 1-41. Different Geosynthetics as Anti-reflective
4. Miyata, Y., Bathurst, R.J., 2012. Measured Cracking Systems using a Combined-load
and Predicted Loads in Steel Strip Reinforced Fatigue Test. Geotext. Geomembr., 43,
c– Soil Walls in Japan. Soil Found., 52(1), 345-350.
1-17. 15. Suzuki, M., Shimura, N., Fukumura, T.,
5. ASTM D4439–15a, 2015. Standard Yoneda, O., Tasaka, Y., 2015. Seismic
Terminology for Geosynthetics. ASTM Performance of Reinforced Soil Wall with
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. Untreated and Cement-treated Soils as
6. Juran, I., Christopher, B., 1989. Laboratory Backfill using a 1-g Shaking Table. Soil
Model Study on Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Found., 55(3), 626-636.
Retaining Walls. J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE, 16. Costa, C.M.L., Zornberg, J.G., Bueno, B.S.,
115, (2), 905-926. Costa, Y.D.J., 2016. Centrifuge Evaluation of
7. DeMerchant, M.R., Valsangkar, A.J., the Time-dependent Behavior of Geotextile-
Schriver, A.B., 2002. Plate Load Tests on reinforced Soil Walls. Geotext. Geomembr.,
Geogrid-reinforced Expanded Shale 44, 188-200.
Lightweight Aggregate. Geotext. Geomembr., 17. Balakrishnan, S., Viswanadham, B.V.S., 2016.
20, 173-190. Performance Evaluation of Geogrid
Reinforced Soil Walls with Marginal Backfills

238 Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017

 Burak EVİRGEN, Mustafa TUNCAN, Ahmet TUNCAN

Through Centrifuge Model Tests. Geotext. Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,

Geomembr., 44, 95-108. Eskisehir, 312-321.
18. Xiao, C., Han, J., Zhang, Z., 2016. 28. Allen, T.M., Bathurst, R.J., Holtz, R.D., Lee,
Experimental Study on Performance of W.F., Walters, D., 2004. New Method for
Geosynthetic-reinforced Soil Model Walls on Prediction of Loads in Steel Reinforced Soil
Rigid Foundations Subjected to Static Footing Walls. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE,
Loading. Geotext. Geomembr. 44, 81-94. 130(11), 1109-1120.
19. Lal, D., Sankar, N., Chandrakaran, S., 2017. 29. Hatami, K., Bathurst, R.J., 2006. Numerical
Effect of Reinforcement Form on the Model for Reinforced Soil Segmental Walls
Behaviour of Coir Geotextile Reinforced Sand Under Surcharge Loading. J. Geotech.
Beds. Soil Found., 57(2), 227-236. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 132(6), 673-684.
20. Al-Rkaby, A.H.J., Chegenizadeh, A., Nikraz, 30. Lin, Y.L., Li, X.X., Zhang, M.X., 2010. Limit
H.R., 2017. Anisotropic Strength of Large Analysis of Reinforced Soil Slopes Based on
Scale Geogrid-reinforced Sand: Experimental Composite Reinforcement Mechanism.
Study. Soil Found., 57(4), 557-574. Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics,
21. Richardson, G.N., 1995. Lessons Learned ASCE, GSP207, 59-64.
from the Failure of a Geotextile Reinforced 31. Gu, J., 2011. Computational Modeling of
Retaining Wall Facing. Geogrid Reinforced Soil Foundation and
http://www.smithgardnerinc.com/docs/. Geogrid Reinforced Base in Flexible
22. Kim, Y-S., Won, M-S., 2006. Deformation Pavement. Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate
Behaviors of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Faculty of the Louisiana State University.
Walls on Shallow Weak Ground. Soil Stress- 32. Damians, I.P., Bathurst, R.J., Josa, A., Lloret,
Strain Behavior: Measurement, Modeling and A., Albuquerque, P.J.R., 2013. Vertical-facing
Analysis Geotechnical Symposium in Roma, Loads in Steel-reinforced Soil Walls. J.
Italy, 819-830. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 139(9),
23. Stuedlein, A.W., Bailey, M., Lindquist, D. 1419-1432.
Sankey, J., Neely, W.J., 2010. Design and 33. Yu, X., Pradhan, A., 2014. Study of Geogrid
Performance of a 46-m-high MSE Wall. J. Reinforcement using Two Dimensional
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 136(6), Discrete Element Method. Ground
786-796. Improvement and Geosynthetics, ASCE,
24. Yonezawa, T., Yamazaki, T., Tateyama, M., GSP238, 299-311.
Tatsuoka, F., 2014. Design and Construction 34. Hou, J., Zhang, M.X., Zhang, T.T., 2014.
of Geosynthetic-reinforced Soil Structures for Comparison of Strip-reinforced with H-V
Hokkaido High-speed Train Line. Transp. Reinforced Foundation using FEM. Ground
Geotech., 1, 3-20. Improvement and Geosynthetics, ASCE,
25. Liu, S., Lu, Y., Weng, L., Bai, F., 2015. Field GSP238, 404-413.
Study of Treatment for Expansive Soil/rock 35. Yu, Y., Bathurst, R.J., Miyata, Y., 2015.
Channel Slope with Soilbags. Geotext. Numerical Analysis of a Mechanically
Geomembr., 43, 283-292. Stabilized Earth Wall Reinforced with Steel
26. Jones, J.C.F.P., 1988. Earth Reinforcement Strips. Soil Found., 55(3), 536-547.
and Soil Structures, Revised Reprint. 36. Carbone, L., Gourc, J.B., Carrubba, P.,
Butterworth Advance Series in Geotechnical Pavanello, P., Moraci, N., 2015. Dry Friction
Engineering, Anchor Brendon Ltd, Tiptree, Behaviour of a Geosynthetic Interface using
Essex. Inclined Plane and Shaking Table Tests.
27. Yılmaz, H.R., Aklık, P., 2002. Geotekstil veya Geotext. Geomembr., 43, 293-306.
Geogrid Kullanılarak Oluşturulan Dayanma 37. Allen, T.M., Bathurst, R.J., 2015. Improved
Yapılarında Sağlanabilen Ekonomi Hakkında Simplified Method for Prediction of Loads in
Bir İnceleme. 9th National Conference of Soil Reinforced Soil Walls. J. Geotech.

Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017 239

 Modelling Study on the Geotextile, Geogrid and Steel Strip Reinforced Slopes

Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE, 141(11), 04015049- on Earthquake Geotechnical and Soil

1-14. Dynamics, Lisbon, 277-289.
38. Liu, H., 2015. Reinforcement Load and 49. JRA, 1996. Seismic Design Specifications and
Compression of Reinforced Soil Mass under Construction of Highway Bridges. Japan Road
Surcharge Loading. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Association.
Eng., ASCE, 141(6), 04015017-1-10. 50. NGG, 2005. Nordic Guidelines for Reinforced
39. Damians, I.P., Bathurst, R.J., Josa, A., Lloret, Soils and Fills. Nordic Geosynthetic Group,
A., 2015. Numerical Analysis of an www.sgf.net.
Instrumented Steel-reinforced Soil Wall. Int. 51. PWRC, 2000. Design and Construction
J. Geomech., ASCE, 15(1), 04014037-1-15. Manual of Geosynthetics Reinforced Soil,
40. Gao, Y., Yang, S., Zhang, F., Leshchinsky, B., Revised Version. Public Works Research
2016. Three-dimensional Reinforced Slopes: Center, Tsukuba, Japan.
Evaluation of Required Reinforcement 52. NCMA, 2009. Design Manual for Segmental
Strength and Embedment Length using Limit Retaining Walls, 3rd ed. National Concrete
Analysis. Geotext. Geomembr., 44, 133-142. Masonry Association, Herndon, VA, USA.
41. ASTM D6637/D6637M–15, 2015. Standard 53. Özdemir, B., Evirgen, B., Tuncan, A., Onur,
Test Method for Determining Tensile M.İ., Tuncan, M. 2015. Zemin Donatıları ile
Properties of Geogrids by the Single or Multi- Güçlendirilmiş Şevlerin Değerlendirilmesi. 6.
rib Tensile Method. ASTM International, Geotechnical Symposium, Adana, 105.
West Conshohocken, PA, USA. 54. Onur, M.İ, Tuncan, M., Evirgen, B., Ozdemir,
42. ASTM D4533/D4533M–15, 2015. Standard B., Tuncan, A., 2016. Behavior of Soil
test Method for Trapezoid Tearing Strength of Reinforcements in Slopes. Procedia
Geotextiles. ASTM International, West Engineering., 143, 483-489.
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
43. ASTM E8/E8M–15a, 2015. Standard test
Methods for Tension Testing of Metallic
Materials. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
44. FHWA-RD-89-04, 1990. Reinforced Soil
Structures Volume I. Design and Construction
Guidelines. U.S. Department of
Transportation Federal Highway
Administration, Virginia, United States.
45. FHWA-HRT-14-094, 2015. Synthesis of
Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Design
Topics. U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration, Virginia,
United States.
46. Sun, C., Graves, C., 2013. Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls Design
Guidance. University of Kentucky
Transportation Center.
47. Miyata, Y., Bathurst, R.J., 2012. Reliability
Analysis of Soil-geogrid Pullout Models in
Japan. Soil Found., 52(4), 620-633.
48. Wu, Y., Prakash, S., 1999. Effect of
Submergence on Seismic Displacement of
Rigid Walls. Second International Conference

240 Ç.Ü. Müh. Mim. Fak. Dergisi, 32(4), Aralık 2017

View publication stats