Numerical Study on Cyclic Shear Behavior of Soil–Geosynthetics Interface

  • R. Roy
  • H. Venkateswarlu
  • A. HegdeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 29)


Geosynthetics are being widely used as a reinforcement material in the construction of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. The strength and stability of these walls are depending upon the interface behavior between soil and reinforcement material. It is understood from the literature review that the dynamic interface properties of soil and geosynthetics are not well explored yet, as in the case of static loading conditions. The present study investigates the cyclic behavior of the interface between sand and non-woven geotextile material. The objective was achieved by simulating the cyclic direct shear test using finite element-based package PLAXIS2D. The behavior of interface shear stiffness, and damping ratio were studied with increase in number of cycles and displacement amplitude. In addition, the interface behavior of geotextile with the sand having different fines content was also studied. The results revealed that the increase in the fines content causes the reduction in the interface shear stiffness. The interface shear strength properties obtained from the cyclic direct shear test were compared with the static shear test. The friction angle obtained from the cyclic shear test was 6% higher than that obtained from the static direct shear test.


Sand–geotextile interface Cyclic interface behavior Interface shear stiffness Damping ratio PLAXIS2D 


  1. ASTM D-4632 (2008) Standard test method for grab breaking load and elongation of geotextiles. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. ASTM D-5321 (2008) Standard test method for determining the coefficient of soil and geosynthetic or geosynthetic and geosynthetic friction by the direct shear method. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. Abu-Farsakh M, Coronel J, Tao M (2007) Effect of soil moisture content and dry density on cohesive soil-geosynthetic interactions using large direct shear tests. J Mater Civ Eng 19(7):540–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakeer RM, Abdel-Rahman AH, Napolitano PJ (1998) Geotextile friction mobilization during field pullout test. Geotext Geomembr 16(2):73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basudhar PK (2010) Modeling of soil–woven geotextile interface behavior from direct shear test results. Geotext Geomembr 28(4):403–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De A, Zimmie TF (1998) Estimation of dynamic interfacial properties of geosynthetics. Geosynth Int (Special Issue on Geosynthetics in Earthquake Engineering) 5(1–2):17–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Desai CS, Drumm EC, Zaman MM (1985) Cyclic testing and modelling of interfaces. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(6):793–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobry R, Vucetic M (1988) Dynamic properties and seismic response of soft clay deposits. Department of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferreira F, Vieira C, de Lurdes Lopes M (2016) Cyclic and post-cyclic shear behaviour of a granite residual soil-geogrid interface. Procedia Eng 143:379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hegde A, Roy R (2018) A comparative numerical study on soil–geosynthetic interactions using large scale direct shear test and pullout test. Int J Geosyn Ground Eng 4(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Izgin M, Wasti Y, Silver (1998) Geomembrane–sand interface frictional properties as determined by inclined board and shear box tests. Geotext Geomembr 16(4):207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Juran I, Knochenmus G, Acar YB, Arman A (1988) Pullout response of geotextiles and geogrids. In: Proceedings of symposium on geotextiles for soil improvement. ASCE, Geotech. Special Publication. 18, pp 92–111Google Scholar
  13. Kenney TC (1997) Residual strength of mineral mixtures. In: Soils and foundations. Proceedings of 9th international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol 1, pp 155–160Google Scholar
  14. Khedkar MS, Mandal JN (2009) Pullout behaviour of cellular reinforcements. Geotext Geomembr 27(4):262–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim J, Riemer M, Bray JD (2005) Dynamic properties of geosynthetic interfaces. Geotech Test J 28(3):1–9Google Scholar
  16. Koutsourais MM, Sprague CJ, Pucetas RC (1991) Interfacial friction study of cap and liner components for landfill design. Geotext Geomembr 10(5–6):531–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kwak CW, Park IJ, Park JB (2013) Evaluation of disturbance function for geosynthetic–soil interface considering chemical reactions based on cyclic direct shear tests. Soils Found 53(5):720–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lee KM, Manjunath VR (2000) Soil-geotextile interface friction by direct shear tests. Can Geotech J 37(1):238–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ling HI, Wang JP, Leshchinsky D (2008) Cyclic behaviour of soil-structure interfaces associated with modular-block reinforced soil-retaining walls. Geosynth. Int. 15(1):14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayer N, Nernheim A, Kohler U (2004) Geosynthetic–soil interaction under cyclic loading. In: 3rd European geosynthetics conference, Munich, Germany, 1–3 Mar 2004, pp 635–639Google Scholar
  21. Mitchell JK (1993) Fundamentals of soil behavior, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Murthy BS, Sridharan A (1993) Evaluation of interfacial frictional resistance. Geotext Geomembr 12(3):235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nye CJ, Fox PJ (2007) Dynamic shear behaviour of a needle-punched geosynthetic clay liner. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(8):973–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Rourke TD, Druschel SJ, Netravali AN (1990) Shear strength characteristics of sandpolymer interfaces. J Geotech Eng ASCE 116(3):451–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Portelinha FHM, Bueno BS, Zornberg JG (2013) Performance of nonwoven geotextile-reinforced walls under wetting conditions: laboratory and field investigations. Geosyn Int 20(2):90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roy R, Hegde A (2017) Numerical simulation of geotextile-sand interface using box shear test and pullout test: a comparison. In: Proceedings of sixth Indian Young geotechnical engineers conference (6IYGEC) 2017, 10–11 Mar, Trichy, pp 514–519Google Scholar
  27. Sayeed MMA, Ramaiah BJ, Rawal A (2014) Interface shear characteristics of jute/polypropylene hybrid nonwoven geotextiles and sand using large size direct shear test. Geotext Geomembr 42(1):63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Silver ML, Seed HB (1971) Deformation characteristics of sands under cyclic loading. J Soil Mech Found DivGoogle Scholar
  29. Soroush A, Soltani-Jigheh H (2009) Pre-and post-cyclic behavior of mixed clayey soils. Can Geotech J 46(2):115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sugimoto M, Alagiyawanna AMN (2003) Pullout behavior of geogrid by test and numerical analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 129(4):361–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sukmak K, Han J, Sukmak P, Horpibulsuk S (2016) Numerical parametric study on behavior of bearing reinforcement earth walls with different backfill material properties. Geosynth Int, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  32. Swan RH, Bonaparte R, Bachus RC, Rivette CA, Spikula DR (1991) Effect of soil compaction conditions on geomembrane-soil interface strength. Geotext Geomembr 10(5–6):523–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thevanayagam S (1997) Dielectric dispersion of porous media as a fractal phenomenon. J Apply Phys 82(5):2538–2547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vieira CS, Lopes ML, Caldeira LM (2013) Sand-geotextile interface characterisation through monotonic and cyclic direct shear tests. Geosynth Int 20(1):26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang J, Liu FY, Wang P, Cai YQ (2016) Particle size effects on coarse soil-geogrid interface response in cyclic and post-cyclic direct shear tests. Geotext Geomembr 44(6):854–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology PatnaPatnaIndia

Personalised recommendations