Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
© 1994 ElsevierScienceLimited
Printed in Ireland.All rightsreserved
0266-1144/94/$7.00
ELSEVIER
R. David Espinoza*
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
ABSTRACT
281
282 R. David Espinoza
INTRODUCTION
/
Local Failure
\ General Failure
(a)
(b)
1~ Effect
(c)
Fig. !. Influence of geotextile inclusion on a two-layer soil system. (a) Change of failure
mode; (b) redistribution of the applied surface load; (c) membrane effect (after Bourdeau
et al., 1982).
EQUILIBRIUM EQUATIONS
dy ( 1a)
tan fl(x) = -~x
T(x)
Y
(a)
i ~ dx [
Undeformed length
(b)
Fig. 2. (a) System of forces acting on a geotextile; (b) geometric characteristics.
Soil-geotextile interaction 285
where fl(x) is the angle that the deformed geotextile makes with the hori-
zontal line (Fig. 2(a)); T(x) represents the geotextile tensile force, Th(X)
and Tv(x) the horizontal and vertical components of the tensile force
along the geotextile, respectively; x the horizontal coordinate from the
lowest point in the deformed geotextile; and y(x) the vertical deflection of
the geotextile measured from the undeformed geometry. The shear stresses
along the upper and lower sides of the interface can be related:
Tlower = k 17upper (2)
For a subgrade underneath the geotextile composed of soft soil and a
base of cohesionless material, the friction along the base-geotextile inter-
face is significantly higher than the friction along subgrade-geotextile
interface. In such cases, it is acceptable to assume k = 0, yielding
17lower= 0, and 17upper~---17- Equilibrium equations can be written for a
differential element, dl, of geotextile supporting applied vertical loads.
Thus, the force equilibrium in the horizontal direction yields
dTh + zd/cos fl = dTh + zdx = 0 (3)
which gives
dTh
z -- dx (4)
By dividing eqn (l(b)) by (l(c)) and taking the first derivative of the
resulting equation, gives
dTv dTh
dx - dx y'(x) + Thy"(x) (7)
or
2E fL/2 e (X) y" (X)
dx (14)
qavg T /ao ~/1 + (y' (x)) 2
Constant strain
where fl0 is the deflection angle evaluated at x = L/2. Once the geotextile
deformed geometry is assumed, the strain (a) and the angle fl0 can be
computed and, hence, the membrane support (qavg). Usual shapes assumed
to describe the geotextile deformation are circular ones (Baremberg, 1980)
and parabolic ones (Giroud & Noirey, 1981; Raumann, 1982).
288 R. David Espinoza
where
tanfl0 = 4ct, secfl0 = V/1 + (4~) 2 (16b)
Similarly, the total geotextile strain for a circular shape deformation is
given by
1 + (2ct) 2
e- 4ct tan-l fl0 - 1 (17a)
where
4ct 1 + (2c0 2
tan fl0 - I - (2a) 2' sec fl0 - 1 - (2a) 2 (17b)
F_,quations (16) or (17) can be replaced into eqn (15) to obtain an expres-
sion for the average membrane support for a parabolic or a circular
geotextile deformation, respectively. In order to m a k e appropriate
comparisons, the value of m e m b r a n e support, eqn (14), is expressed in a
dimensionless form (2 = qavg/(2E/L)) and in terms of the dimensionless
geometric parameter ~. Figure 3 shows the variation of 2 versus rutting
factors (ct), for both assumed geotextile defofrnation shapes, i.e. circular
and parabolic. It is noted that for rutting factors smaller than 0.2, no
significant differences in the m e m b r a n e support obtained using eqn (16)
assuming circular and parabolic shapes are observed.
Variable strain
0.25
(*)constantstrain(Eq.15) 'I Parabola(*)
(+) variable strain (Eq.19) /" Circle (*)
~ 0.20-
c'q Parabola(+)
---G--
g Circle (+)
0.15
0
Ca,
r~ 0.10-
e-
E
N 0.05.
O.OG 1" =
0.00 0.05 o.lo o.'15 o:2o o.2~
rutting factor (r/L)
Replacing eqn (18) into eqn (14) and integrating the resulting expression
yields a closed-form solution:
qavg /
tan flo - In(tan flo + ~/1 + tan 2 flo) (19)
(2E/L)
Figure 3 shows the variation of qavg/(2E/L) versus rutting factors (r/L),
for two geotextile deformation shapes (i.e. circular and parabolic). It is
noted that for rutting factors smaller than 0.12, no significant differences
in the membrane support obtained using eqn (19) and assuming circular
and parabolic shapes are observed.
Among the different methods proposed for the design of unpaved roads, a
number of them take into consideration the membrane effect. In such
290 R. David Espinoza
procedures, the shape of the geotextile deflection is assumed and, then, the
overall response of the geotextile support is evaluated. However, none of
these methods satisfy strict equilibrium conditions. Table 1 summarizes
the different available expressions for the evaluation of the membrane
support. These expressions have been expressed in terms of the dimen-
sionless parameters 2 and ~ defined herein. A comparison of the
membrane effect obtained from the proposed formulation assuming
constant (eqn 15) and variable (eqn 19) geotextile strain and those
obtained from existing procedures is subsequently presented.
Giroud and Noirey (1981) assumed the geotextile deformation to be
parabolic and derived an expression for the membrane support (Table 1)
in which the strain is computed by eqn (16a). Raumann (1982) proposed a
semi-empirical expression (Table 1) to evaluate the membrane support
assuming also a parabolic geotextile deformation thus the strain is also
computed by eqn (16a).
Figure 4 shows the variation of 2 versus ~ for the different models that
assume parabolic deformation. For all practical purposes, for rutting
factors smaller than 0-17, no significant differences are observed among
the models presented by Giroud and Noirey, Rausmann, and the ones
derived in this article using eqns (15) and (19).
Baremberg (1980) assumed a circular shape for the geotextile deforma-
tion and derived an expression for the membrane support (Table 1) in
which the strain is computed by
[ 4 ] (5)
e = 2 (0-225cC 1 + 0.625e) ~ 0 - 1 where 0 = 2 tan -1 e (20)
Table 1
Summary of the Membrane Support Methods
16~e
Raumann (1982) Parabolic
1+~/1+(46) 2
0.25-
---l--
Constant strain
Variable Strain
N --)K---
Giroud-lmlrey(1981)
--l<--
0.15" Rausaann (1982)
J -- _..-.--au-""-
0.00
0.00 0.~ o.~o o.~6 o.~ 0.25
= u t t i n g f a c t o r (r/L)
--m--
Constant Strain
./
0.~
/ Variable Strain
Ol
Bsreaberg (1980)
0.15
&n.
0.10
j 0.O6
0.00, !
0.O0 0.06
~utting £aoto= (=/L)
model (Eq. (19)). In general, for small rutting factors (~ < 0.12 to 0.15), no
significant differences are observed among the different models. On the
contrary, for large rutting factors (7 > 0.2) the choice of membrane support
model influences significantly the final result; for instance, for ~ = 0.25,
Baremberg's model yields a value of membrane support twice of that
obtained using Giroud and Noirey's model. It is, however, pointed out that
for large rutting factors, it is likely that slippage cannot be fully prevented;
therefore, the actual values of membrane support will be smaller than those
predicted by any of the expressions discussed above.
From all the different models studied, Giroud and Noirey's model
renders the most conservative results. In general, models that assume a
parabolic geotextile deformation yield the smaller membrane support.
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
Baremberg, E. J. (1980). Design Procedures for Soil Fabric-Fabric-Aggregate
Systems with Mirafi 500X Fabric. University of Illinois at Urbana, Cham-
paign, IL, USA, ENG-802019.
Soil-geotextile interaction 293