ChapterPDF Available

FFDM Software Development Series 13- Modelling Reinforcing Material Subjected to Pullout

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

In displacement-based analyses using FFDM, mobilized pullout forces of reinforcement are functions of shear displacements along the potential failure surface. Based on past studies on the tensile stress vs. pullout displacement of reinforcing material subjected to pullout, the tensile stress vs. pullout displacement relationship can be well-simulated using hyperbolic curves. To establish a hyperbolic curve-based reinforcement pullout model, some well-instrumented pullout tests on polymer or non-polymer reinforcement are analyzed using a curve fitting technique. Huang (2013) and Huang et al. (2017) conducted preliminary study on using hyperbolic curves in modelling pullout behavior of geosynthetic material in some reduce-scaled pullout test. In the following, the hyperbolic curve-based pullout model is extended to accommodate a wide variety of materials currently used as reinforcing materials. Correlations between the soil types and the parameters governing the hyperbolic pullout curves are identified.
Content may be subject to copyright.
FFDM Software Development Series 13 1 2025-01-07
FFDM Software Development Series 13
Modelling Reinforcing Material Subjected to Pullout
Ching-Chuan Huang
Professor Emeritus
Department of Civil Engineering,
National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
Email: samhcc@mail.ncku.edu.tw
2025/01/07
FFDM Software Development Series 13 2 2025-01-07
INTRODUCTION
In displacement-based analyses using FFDM, mobilized pullout forces of
reinforcement are functions of shear displacements along the potential failure surface.
Based on past studies on the tensile stress vs. pullout displacement of reinforcing
material subjected to pullout, the tensile stress vs. pullout displacement relationship can
be well-simulated using hyperbolic curves. To establish a hyperbolic curve-based
reinforcement pullout model, some well-instrumented pullout tests on polymer or non-
polymer reinforcement are analyzed using a curve fitting technique. Huang (2013) and
Huang et al. (2017) conducted preliminary study on using hyperbolic curves in
modelling pullout behavior of geosynthetic material in some reduce-scaled pullout test.
In the following, the hyperbolic curve-based pullout model is extended to accommodate
a wide variety of materials currently used as reinforcing materials. Correlations
between the soil types and the parameters governing the hyperbolic pullout curves are
identified.
13.1 BOND COEFFICIENT
Experimental studies on soil-reinforcement interactions using pullout boxes (Table
13.1.1) provide information in terms of bond coefficient, fb defined by:
𝑓=𝜏
𝜏 (13 1 1)
τmax: peak value of shear stress mobilized at peak pullout force.
τf: shear strength of soils
Values of fb obtained in these pull-out tests shown in Fig. 13.1.1 reveal the
following:
(1) A consistent trend of decreasing fb with the increase of σn is for all tested materials,
except the geogrid/clayey silt which exhibits no pressure-dependent values of fb.
(2) The values of fb for the smooth steel/sand interface are close to those for
geogrid/sand and geotextile/sand.
(3) Ribbed materials, such as ribbed geostrips and ribbed steel strips have values of fb
which are distinct from those with smooth faces.
(4) The values of fb for the ribbed geostrip/sand have a relatively highly variated fb,
compared with other materials tested. This is shown by the line of the upper limit
for ribbed geostrip/sand interface.
FFDM Software Development Series 13 3 2025-01-07
Table 13.1.1 Summary of pullout tests
Reference Soil type
(USCS)
Pullout material Lf *
(m)
c **
(kPa)
φ**
()
Sugimoto &
Alagiyawanna (2003)
Silica sand
(SP)
Integrated geogrid 0.68 0 29.9
Sieira et al. (2009) Sandy silt (SM), silty
clay (MC)
Woven geogrid 1.0 15-30
21-37
Moraci et al. (2014) Silica sand (SP) Geogrid 1.15
Tajabadipour &
Lajevardi (2021)
Silica sand
(SP)
Geosynthetic, Steel,
Ribbed steel strips
0.85 0 38
Ismail et al. (2021) Silica sand
(SP)
Biaxial geogrid,
Wonen geotextile
0.70 0 46.8-
52.6
Park & Hong (2021)
Well-graded sand (SW) Geosynthetic strip 1.25 8.7 35.5
Vieira & Pereira
(2022)
Re-cycled construction
materials
Woven geogrid,
Woven geotextile
0.75 12.4-
21.1
37.5-
40.5
* Full embedment length of pullout specimen
** Cohesion intercept and internal friction angle of soils
Fig. 13.1.1 Bond coefficients obtained for various materials
FFDM Software Development Series 13 4 2025-01-07
An important issue to be addressed in using the above-mentioned values of fb in
the analysis is the length of reinforcement embedded in the potential pullout zone, i.e.,
use the full length of reinforcement embedded (Lf) or use the so-called ‘effective length’
(Le). The latter one has been observed and proposed in recent research (Cardile et al.,
2016). Table 13.1.1 shows that only very limited number pullout tests using Lf>1.0 m
along with local strain (or displacement) sensors. Therefore, an assumption of Le1.0
m is used here to derive the bond coefficients shown in Fig. 13.1.1. Another fact that
supports the use of Le1.0 m is that under the peak pullout state, the local axial stresses
(or strains) at a distance larger than 1.0 m from the pullout end are negligibly small
(Cardile et al., 2016, Ferreira et al., 2020).
13.2 HYPERBOLIC PULLOUT FORCE-DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIPS
The hyperbolic pullout force vs. displacement curve can be expressed as:
𝑇=𝛿
𝑎+𝑏𝛿 (13 2 1)
𝑎= 1
𝑘 (13 2 2)
𝑏= 1
𝑇 = 𝑅
𝑇 (13 2 3)
δ: pullout displacement
ki: initial pullout stiffness
Rt: asymptote factor (ratio between failure strength and asymptote strength)
Tspt: asymptote strength at infinite displacement
Tf: failure strength determined by the smaller of tiebreak and pullout strength
𝑇= 𝑀𝑖𝑛.𝑜𝑓 𝑇,𝑇 (13 2 4)
𝑇 = 𝑓𝜎
󰆒𝐿 (1325)
σn: Effective normal stress
Le: Effective pullout length of reinforcement (1.0 m)
Ttiebreak: tie-break strength of reinforcement
FFDM Software Development Series 13 5 2025-01-07
13.3 STRESS DEPENDENCY OF INITIAL PULLOUT STIFFNESS
The initial pullout stiffness (ki) can be expressed as a power function of effective
normal stress (σn) on the failure surface:
𝑘=𝐾𝐺󰇧𝜎󰆒
𝑃󰇨 (13 3 1)
Kt: initial pullout stiffness number (a non-dimensional material constant)
Pa: atmospheric pressure (= 101.3 kPa)
G: reference pullout stiffness (= 101.3 kN/m/m)
nt: exponent of stress dependency
Based on a series of curve-fitting using pullout resistance vs. pullout displacement
curve reported in the studies shown in Table 13.1.1, hyperbolic curve parameters, Kt, nt,
Rt are summarized in Figs. 13.3.1 (and 13.3.2), 13.3.3, and 13.3.4, respectively. In each
figure, median line and 95% confidence intervals are shown. Soil types (type1: SW, 2:
SP, 3: SM, 4: MC) according to Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), rather than
friction angles (φ) are used because one of the soils investigated here is a cohesive soil
(with a non-zero cohesion intercept). Therefore, friction angles are not the only
parameters for soil strength.
Figure 13.3.1 shows Kt vs. soil type relationship obtained in the pullout tests. An
overall trend of descending value of Kt with the decrease of soil strengths (or the
decrease of particle size) can be seen. Figure 13.3.2 provides another version of Kt vs.
soil type relations. In this case, a normalized parameter (Kt
·
G)/J2% is used as the ordinate,
rather than Kt. The J2% is the in-air tensile stiffness of the pullout material. Data points
in Fig. 13.3.2 are with less scattering than those in Fig. 13.3.1.
Figure 13.3.3 shows the stress level dependency exponent (nt) vs. soil type
relationships. The value of nt tends to decrease with the decrease of soil strengths (or
the decrease of particle size). Figure 13.3.4 shows asymptote factor (Rt) vs. soil type
relationships for various types of soils investigated. A similar trend to those observed
in Fig. 13.3.1 through 13.3.3 can be seen.
FFDM Software Development Series 13 6 2025-01-07
Figure 3.3.1 Initial pullout stiffness number K vs. Soil type relationship
Figure 13.3.2 Normalized initial pullout stiffness number Kt vs. Soil type relationship.
FFDM Software Development Series 13 7 2025-01-07
Figure 13.3.3 Pressure dependency exponent (nt) vs. Soil type relationships
Figure 13.3.4 Asymptote factor (Rt) vs. Soil type relationships
13.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PULLOUT AND SHEAR DISPLACEMENTS
Figures 13.4.1(a) show a zero-shear displacement and a large shear displacement
condition, respectively, of a shear band intersecting with a reinforcement layer. Fig.
13.4.1(b) shows that the pullout displacement of reinforcement (δ) is identical to the
shear displacement of the base of slice No. i (Δi):
FFDM Software Development Series 13 8 2025-01-07
𝛿= (13 4 1)
The increment of reinforcement pull-out displacement (
incr) is the difference
between the post-loading pullout displacement (
b) and pre-loading pullout
displacement (
a), expressed as:
𝛿 =𝛿𝛿 (13 4 2)
Corresponding to the incremental pull-out displacement, an incremental pull-out
force (Tincr) is expressed as:
𝑇 = 𝑇𝑇 (13 4 3)
Where Ta and Tb are pull-out forces mobilized at the pre-loading and post-loading
conditions, respectively.
Fig. 13.4.1 Pullout displacement of reinforcement intersecting with a shear band.
(a) zero shear displacement condition, (b) large shear displacement condition.
(b)
FFDM Software Development Series 13 9 2025-01-07
REFERENCES
Cardile, G., Moraci, N. and Calvarano, L.S. (2016) “Geogrid pullout behaviour
according to the experimental evaluation of the active length” Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 23, No.3, 194-205.
Ferreira, F. B., Vieira, C. S. and Lopes, M. L. (2020) “Pullout behavior of different
geosynthetics- Influence of soil density and moisture content” Frontiers in Built
Environment, Vol. 6, No. 12, 1-13. Doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2020.00012
Huang, C.-C. (2013) “Force equilibrium-based finite displacement analyses for
reinforced slopes: Formulation and verification” Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
Vol. 42, pp. 394-404.
Ismail, M.K.A., Joohari, M.I., Habulat, A. and Azizan, F.A. (2021) “Pull-out resistance
of sand-geosynthetics reinforcement” The International Journal of Integrated
Engineering, Vol. 13, No.3, 87-93. Doi: doi/org/10.30880/ijie.2021.13.03.010
Moraci, N., Cardile, G., Gioffre, D., Mandaglio, M. C., Calvarano, L.S., Carbone, L.
(2014) “Soil geosynthetic interaction: Design parameters from experimental and
theoretical analysis” Transport Infrastructure and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
1, 165-227. Doi: 10.1007/s40515-014-0007-2
Park, J. and Hong, G. (2021) “Effective length prediction and pullout design of
geosynthetic strips based on pullout resistance” Materials, Vol. 14, 6151.
Sieira, A.C.C.F., Geoscovich, D.M.S, Sayao, A.S.F.J. (2009) “Displacement and load
transfer mechanisms of geogrids under pullout condition” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 27, 241-253.
Sugimoto, M. and Alagiyawanna, A.M.N. (2003) “Pullout behavior of geogrid by test
and numerical analysis” Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 4, 361-371. Doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2003)129:4(361)
Tajabadipour, M. and Lajevardi, S.H. (2021) “Laboratory large-scale pullout
investigation of a new reinforcement of composite geosynthetic strip” Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 13, 1147-1159.
Vieira, C. and Pereira, P.M. (2022) “Influence of the geosynthetic type and compaction
conditions on the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics embedded in recycled
construction and demolition materials” Sustainability, Vol. 14, 12070. Doi:
doi.org/10.3390/su14031207
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
In this study, pullout tests were conducted on geosynthetic strips which can be applied to a block-type front wall. Based on the test results, the effective length is predicted, and the pullout design results are presented. In other words, the pullout displacement–pullout load relationship of all geosynthetic strips was analyzed using the pullout test results, and their effective lengths were predicted. It was found that the reinforcement width affected the pullout force for the geosynthetic strips at the same tensile strength. The pullout behavior was evidenced within a range of approximately 0.45 L of the total length of the reinforcement (L) and hardly occurred beyond a certain distance from the geosynthetic strips front regardless of the normal stress. Based on these pullout behavioral characteristics, a method is proposed for the prediction of the effective length (LE) and maximum effective length (LE(max)) of a geosynthetic strip. The pullout strength was compared using the total area and effective area methods in accordance with the proposed method. In the case of the total area method, GS50W (width: 50 mm) and GS70W (width: 70 mm) exhibited similar pullout strengths. The pullout strength by the effective area method, however, was found to be affected by the soil-reinforcement interface adhesion. The proposed method used for the prediction of the effective length of a geosynthetic strip was evaluated using a design case. It was confirmed that the method achieved an economical design in instances in which the pullout resistance by the effective length (LE) was applied compared with the existing method.
Article
Full-text available
In this paper, more than 70 large-scale pullout tests were performed to evaluate the performance of an innovative composite geosynthetic strip (CGS) reinforcement in sandy backfill. The CGS reinforcement is composed of a geosynthetic strip (GS) and parts of a scrap truck tire as transverse members. The experimental pullout results for the CGS reinforcement were compared with the suggested theoretical equations and ordinary reinforcements, including the GS, the steel strip (SS), and the steel strip with rib (SSR). The pullout test results show that adding three transverse members to the GS reinforcement (CGS3) with S/H=6.6 (where S and H are the space and height of the transverse members, respectively) increases pullout resistance by more than 120%, 170%, and 50% compared to the GS, the SS, and the SSR, respectively. This result shows that the CGS3 (CGS with three transverse members) reinforcement needs at least 55.5%, 63%, and 33.3% smaller length compared to the GS, the SS, and the SSR, respectively. In general, implementation of mechanically stabilized earth wall (MSEW) with the proposed strip may help geotechnical engineers prevent costly designs and solve the problem of MSEW implementation in cases where there are limitations of space. © 2021 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (h t t p : / / c r e a t i v e c o m m o n s. o r g / licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Article
Full-text available
Geosynthetics have increasingly been used as reinforcement in permanent earth structures, such as road and railway embankments, steep slopes, retaining walls and bridge abutments. The understanding of soil-geosynthetic interaction is of primary importance for the safe design of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures, such as those included in transportation infrastructure projects. In this study, the pullout behaviour of three different geosynthetics (geogrid, geocomposite reinforcement and geotextile) embedded in a locally available granite residual soil is assessed through a series of large-scale pullout tests involving different soil moisture and density conditions. Test results show that soil density is a key factor that affects the reinforcement pullout resistance and the failure mode at the interface, regardless of geosynthetic type or soil moisture content. The soil moisture condition may considerably influence the pullout response of the geosynthetics, particularly when the soil is in medium dense state. The geogrid exhibited higher peak pullout resistance than the remaining geosynthetics, which is associated with the significant contribution of the passive resistance mobilised against the geogrid transverse members to the overall pullout capacity of the reinforcement. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00012/abstract
Article
Full-text available
The main objective of this paper is to discuss the experimental and theoretical approaches developed by different researchers in order to understand and to evaluate the soil geosynthetic interaction under different loading conditions. In the paper, the soil-geosynthetic interaction in pullout, direct shear, and inclined plane tests under both static and cyclic loading is analyzed based on the different theoretical and experimental results carried out by the authors and also available in literature. For each type of test, the factors affecting test results and soil-geosynthetic interface behavior, the theoretical model developed to predict the interface resistance and mobilized friction, and the relevance of the interface parameters obtained through the different tests in the design and performance of geosynthetic reinforced earth structures are discussed in detail.
Article
In reinforced earth structures, the main function of the included reinforcement is to redistribute stresses within the soil mass in order to enhance internal stability. Redistribution of internal stresses in reinforced soil can be very complex. In order to simulate the behaviour of geosynthetic reinforcement, large-scale laboratory pullout tests are carried out. Once a pullout load has been applied, the tensile force is transferred along the geogrid (from the front to the free end) and reduced through interaction with the soil. The active length is the portion of the geogrid on which the mobilisation of interaction mechanisms withstands the applied pullout load. Evaluation of the active length can allow for the understanding of the interaction mechanisms and can therefore be important for the design of the soil–geosynthetic interface. This paper describes the interpretation of pullout test results based on an experimental and theoretical evaluation of the active length. This approach has been used to analyse several large-scale pullout tests performed on two extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil, varying the specimen lengths and the applied effective vertical pressures.
Article
Reinforcing elements embedded within soil mass improve stabilization through a load transfer mechanism between the soil and the reinforcement. Geogrids are a type of geosynthetic frequently used for soil reinforcement, consisting of equally spaced longitudinal and transverse ribs. Under pullout conditions, the longitudinal ribs are responsible for tensile resistance, while transverse ribs contribute to a passive resistance. This paper describes a new analytical model capable of reproducing both load transfer and displacement mechanisms on the geogrid length, under pullout conditions. The model subdivides the geogrid into rheological units, composed by friction/adhesion and spring elements, mounted in line. Friction/adhesion elements respond to the shear component mobilized at the soil–geogrid interface. Spring elements respond to the geogrid's tensile elongation. Model parameters are obtained through tensile strength tests on geogrids and conventional direct shear tests on soil specimens. The need for instrumented pullout tests becomes therefore eliminated. Results predicted from this new model were compared to instrumented pullout test data from two types of geogrids, under various confining stress levels. The results revealed that the new model is capable of reasonably predicting load and displacement distributions along the geogrid.
Pull-out resistance of sand-geosynthetics reinforcement
  • M K A Ismail
  • M I Joohari
  • A Habulat
  • F A Azizan
Ismail, M.K.A., Joohari, M.I., Habulat, A. and Azizan, F.A. (2021) "Pull-out resistance of sand-geosynthetics reinforcement" The International Journal of Integrated Engineering, Vol. 13, No.3, 87-93. Doi: doi/org/10.30880/ijie.2021.13.03.010
Pullout behavior of geogrid by test and numerical analysis
  • M Sugimoto
  • A M N Alagiyawanna
Sugimoto, M. and Alagiyawanna, A.M.N. (2003) "Pullout behavior of geogrid by test and numerical analysis" Journal of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 4, 361-371. Doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129:4(361)
Influence of the geosynthetic type and compaction conditions on the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics embedded in recycled construction and demolition materials
  • C Vieira
  • P M Pereira
Vieira, C. and Pereira, P.M. (2022) "Influence of the geosynthetic type and compaction conditions on the pullout behaviour of geosynthetics embedded in recycled construction and demolition materials" Sustainability, Vol. 14, 12070. Doi: doi.org/10.3390/su14031207