Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Geotextilesand Geomembranes13 (1994) 281-293

© 1994 ElsevierScienceLimited
Printed in Ireland.All rightsreserved
0266-1144/94/$7.00
ELSEVIER

Soil-Geotextile Interaction: Evaluation of Membrane


Support

R. David Espinoza*
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA

(Received 22 August 1993; accepted 22 November 1993)

ABSTRACT

A general expression for evaluating the increase of bearing.capacity due to


membrane action based on strict equilibrium conditions is presented. In
order to provide closed form solutions for design purposes, an average
membrane action is also defined. Particular expressions of the average
membrane action are obtained assuming constant - - as most models do - -
and variable strain deformation of the membrane. The general expression
derived herein provides a valuable framework to compare the most
commonly used expressions. This comparison is made in terms of dimen-
sionless parameters.
The most commonly used design procedures to quantify the membrane
action provided by the inclusion of geotextiles on soft soils underlying
granular fills are reviewed. Circular and parabolic shapes are used to
simulate the geotextile deformation. It is shown that independently of the
model used and geotextile deformation shape assumed, comparable values
for membrane support for relatively small rutting ratios are obtained. On
the contrary, for large rutting ratios, the choice of membrane support
model and geotextile deformation shape has significant influence on the
results, the latter being the most influential one.

*Present address: Department of Civil Engineering, 440 Davis Hall, University of


California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA.

281
282 R. David Espinoza

INTRODUCTION

With the availability of competent geotextiles, the use of geotextiles in


many engineering applications have become more apparent and have
proven to be an effective means of soil improvement. One such application
is the reinforcement of a granular layer placed on a soft subgrade which
cannot be replaced or avoided. The geotextile is placed between the gran-
ular fill and the soft clay. This configuration is typical in the construction
of unpaved roads or low embankments on soft subgrade, and closure
covers for tailing dams. The function of the fill is to dissipate applied
concentrated loads preventing local failures or large deformations of the
soft subgrade.
The use of geotextiles as soil reinforcement requires the application of
new design procedures. The behavior of such systems depends on the
interaction of the granular fill, subgrade and geotextile inclusion and their
associated strain compatibility requirements. A simple model that can be
used in routine design calculations and takes the deformability of all
components into consideration is difficult to obtain. Numerical analyses
are commonly used in this type of analysis (Love et al., 1987; Rowe &
Soderman, 1987), providing valuable information regarding the reinforced
soil behavior. Unfortunately, data preparation for finite element models
are time consuming and, therefore, not convenient for day to day design
calculations. Thus, different semi-empirical procedures to evaluate the
bearing capacity taking the geotextile into consideration and assuming
limiting conditions have been proposed in the past (Giroud & Noirey,
1981), implemented in design charts (Holtz & Sivakugan, 1987) and now
routinely used in practice (Koerner, 1990).
The influence of the geotextile inclusion on the overall bearing capacity
of the soil-geotextile system is usually regarded in three different ways: (i)
increase of the subgrade bearing capacity by changing the failure mode,
i.e. geotextiles tend to force a general, rather than a local failure
(Fig. l(a)); (ii) reduction of the maximum applied stress due to a redis-
tribution of the applied surface load below the geotextile, i.e. the load is
redistributed over a wider area (Fig. l(b)); and (iii) supplementary support
due to membrane effect, i.e. the deformed geotextile provides an equiva-
lent vertical support (Fig. 1(c)).
One or more of the above three effects are usually considered in the
derivation of the different design procedures and they are summarized by
Hausmann (1987). In this comparison, the different effects that were
considered in the development of the various models are integrated,
somewhat veiling the influence of each hypothesis on the enhanced bear-
ing capacity of the reinforced soil; thus making it difficult to assess their
Soil-geotextile interaction 283

." with geotcxtile

/
Local Failure
\ General Failure
(a)

without geotextile Soil 2

(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).

actual influence on the overall soil-geotextile response. As several proce-


dures rely largely upon the geotextile membrane action, it is important to
independently asses the amount of membrane support furnished by the
different available models.
A review of several procedures shows that most of the commonly used
methods that consider membrane effect do not assure strict equilibrium
conditions. They are solely based on considerations regarding the deflec-
ted geometry of the geotextile and laboratory tests. In what follows, an
expression for the membrane effect based on equilibrium conditions is
derived. The membrane action is isolated from the other two effects and,
subsequently, for a meaningful comparison of the different membrane
284 R. David Espinoza

support expressions available in the literature, appropriate dimensionless


parameters are introduced.

EQUILIBRIUM EQUATIONS

Due to geometrical and mechanical characteristics, geotextiles can only


carry tension stresses. Assuming that no slippage occurs (i.e. appropriate
anchorage is provided or the interface friction is sufficiently large), the
deformed geotextile is able to support part of the applied load thus
decreasing the applied vertical stress on the underlying soil. Based on the
geometry of the deformed geotextile (Fig. 2(a)) the following relationship
can be established:

dy ( 1a)
tan fl(x) = -~x

Th = T(x) cos fl(x) (1 b)


Tv = T(x) sin fl(x) (lc)
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)

From force equilibrium in the vertical direction, the following equation is


obtained:
dTv - (qap - qs) d x + 217d/sin fl = 0 (5)
where qap is the surcharge applied pressure at the analyzed depth, d, and qs
is the soil reaction. Dividing eqn (5) by dx and grouping gives
dTv
qap : dx + qs + 17tan fl (6)

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)

Replacing eqns (7) and (4) in eqn (6), yields


qap = qs + qg (8a)
where
qg = Th (x) d2y(x)
dx 2 (8b)
286 R. David Espinoza

where qg is the additional bearing capacity due to membrane effect provided


by the geotextile. Equation (8a) represents the equilibrium conditions of the
applied stress (qap) and the resisting ones (i.e. qs and qg). In addition to
membrane effect (qg), the presence of the geotextile in the soil system influ-
ences the load distribution (qap) and the mode of failure (qs). These
phenomena have been recognized and different hypotheses have been
assumed to model each of the three different components of eqn (8a).
Several models have been proposed to evaluate the additional bearing
capacity due to the geotextile (Baremberg, 1980; Giroud & Noirey, 1981;
Bourdeau et al., 1982; Raumman, 1982; Love et al., 1987; Milligan et al.,
1989). The improved behavior of the soil-geotextile system is usually
modeled taking into consideration one or more of the following phenomena:
change in the failure mode (i.e. increase of qs), increase in the load lateral
spreading (decrease of qap) and fabric membrane effect (introduction of qg).
It is noted from eqn (8b) that the value of qg varies along the fabric
length and depends on the second derivative of the fabric deflection and
the horizontal component of the tensile force, Th (x). A similar expression
was obtained by Sellmeijer et al. (1982) and was used along with a
numerical scheme. Invoking the theory of linear elasticity, the tensile force
is related to the extensional strain along the fabric (e):
T(x) = Ee (x) (9)
where E is the fabric stiffness modulus (kN/m). Replacing eqn (9) in eqn
(lb), the horizontal component (Th) can be expressed as
Th = eEcosfl (10)
The angle fl can also be written in terms of the first derivative of the fabric
deflection:
1
cos(3) = (11)
~/1 + (dy/dx) 2
Placing eqn (11) into eqn (10) and the resulting expression into eqn (8b), a
simple expression for the additional bearing capacity due to membrane
effect is obtained:
E e (x) y"(x) (12)
qg (x)
V/I + (y' (x)) 2
Equation (12) furnishes the distribution of the membrane support as func-
tion of the geotextile strain, Young's modulus, and the first and second
derivative of the geotextile deformation. It is, however, for design purposes,
more convenient to define an average membrane effect (qavg) as follows:
Soil-geotextile interaction 287

L/2 qg (X) dx (L/2 d2 y(x)


qavg= d-L~2 L = -zl d-L/2 T h (x) ~ dx (13)

or
2E fL/2 e (X) y" (X)
dx (14)
qavg T /ao ~/1 + (y' (x)) 2

where L is the effective horizontal length of the geotextile providing


membrane support. It is emphasized that eqn (14) holds true only if slip-
page along the soil-geotextile interface is prevented, i.e. tensile failure in
the geotextile occurs first. The average support (qavg) provided by the
inclusion of the geotextile due to membrane effect can be regarded as an
additional bearing capacity for a footing of width L. Different from most
commonly used expressions, eqn (14) ensures equilibrium conditions in
the horizontal and vertical directions, providing a unifying framework for
the different membrane support models currently available. In addition,
the definition given by eqn (14) will prove useful when comparing with
existing procedures.

EVALUATION OF THE AVERAGE MEMBRANE SUPPORT

Constant strain

Common to most available procedures is the assumption of a constant


strain, e, along the deformed geotextile. Thus, to evaluate the average
membrane support (qavg), the deformed geotextile geometry is only
required (Giroud & Noirey, 1982), and the geotextile strain is computed
by dividing the length of the deformed geotextile geometry by the original
length. The integration of eqn (14), assuming e(x) to be constant, after
some algebraic manipulations, yields

qavg - eln ( tanfl0 +


(2E/L) V/1 + tan2fl0) (15)

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

The geometric characteristics of the deformed geotextile can be described


in terms of a dimensionless parameter 0~= r/L, where r is the rutting depth
occurring below the applied load. The rutting factor decreases for increas-
ing thickness of granular fill due to both an increase of the effective hori-
zontal length (L) and a decrease of the subgrade deformation (r). Simple
deformed geometries, such as circles and parabolas, can be easily expressed
in terms of this dimensionless parameter. F o r instance, the geotextile strain
for an assumed parabolic deformation can be c o m p u t e d by
1 [ ln(tan/% + sec rio) ]
= sec + Vaan J (16a)

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

As mentioned before, most c o m m o n l y used procedures assumed the


geotextile strain deformation to be constant. In order to assess the effect
that such an assumption has on the evaluation of q,vg, a variable strain is
subsequently assumed. The extensional strain along the fabric can b e
evaluated assuming that any point on the geotextile remains on the same
Soil-geotextile interaction 289

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)

Fig. 3. Additional bearing capacity due to membrane effect.

vertical plane prior to the deflection. Based on the above kinematic


consideration (Fig. 2(b)), the variation of strain can be computed by
d/-dx ~(dy'~ 2
e- d~- \dxxJ + 1 - 1 (18)

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.

COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT MEMBRANE SUPPORT


MODELS

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

Method qavg Geotextile


( 2E/L ) deformation

Baremberg (1980) (0.225~- 1+ 0-625~) Circular

Giroud & Noirey (1981) (1 + (46)-2)I/2 Parabolic

16~e
Raumann (1982) Parabolic
1+~/1+(46) 2

Constant strain e In(tanfl0 + sec~o) None

Variable strain tan/~0 - In(tanfl0 + v/1 + tan2fl0) None


Soil-geotextile interaction 291

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)

Fig. 4. Membrane support assuming a parabolic geotextile deformation.

Figure 5 compares the variation of the membrane support given by


Baremberg's model and the ones derived using eqns (15) and (19). It is
noted that no significant differences are observed between the two models
derived herein for constant and variable strain for rutting factors up to
0.15. Baremberg's model agrees better with the variable strain model (Eq.

--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)

Fig. 5. Membrane support assuming a circular geotextile deformation.


292 R. David Espinoza

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

By making an appropriate normalization of the membrane support


expressions, it has been shown that, regardless of whether the geotextile
deformation is assumed to be parabolic or circular, with constant or
variable strain along the geotextile, the different expressions for
membrane support give similar results for rutting factors (~) smaller than
0-15. In general, the contribution of the geotextile due to membrane
support is quite low and can be increased only by increasing the geotextile
modulus assuming that the applied pressure at the soil-geotextile interface
is sufficiently large so as to prevent any slippage at this interface, thus,
allowing a maximum tensile stress to be developed.
On the contrary, for large rutting factors the choice of a particular
model and a given geotextile deformation shape will influence significantly
the final value of the membrane action. Models assuming the geotextile
deformation to be circular furnish the larger values of membrane support
as compared to the parabolic ones. The influence of the model choice (for
a given geotextile deformation shape) is smaller than the influence of the
geotextile deformation choice (for a given model). Thus, caution should be
exercised when evaluating the membrane support for large deformations,
and in absence of better information regarding the applicability of the
different models, models using parabolic fabric deformation, such as the
Giroud and Noirey's model, should be preferred.

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

Bourdeau, P. L., Harr, M. E. & Holtz, R. D. (1982). Soil-fabric interaction - - An


analytical model. In Second International Conference on Geotextiles, Vol. 2,
pp. 387-91.
Giroud, J. P. & Noirey, L. (1981). Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design.
Geotechnical Division, ASCE, 107, 1233-54.
Hausmann, M. R. (1987). Geotextiles for unpaved roads - - A review of design
procedures. Geotext. Geomernb., 5, 201-33.
Holtz, R. D. & Sivakugan, N. (1987). Design charts for roads with geotextiles.
Geotext. Geomemb., 5, 191-9.
Koerner, R. (1990). Designing with Geotextiles. Prentice Hall, Englewood Inc,
N J, USA.
Love, J. P., Burd, H. J., Milligan, G. W. E. & Houlsby, G. T. (1987). Analytical
and model studies of reinforcement of a layer of granular fill on a soft clay
subgrade. Can. Geotech. J., 24, 611-22.
Milligan, G. W. E., Jewell, R. A., Houlsby, G. T. & Burd, H. J. (1989). A new
approach to the design of unpaved roads - - Part I. Ground Engng, April,
25-9.
Rausmann, G. (1982). Geotextiles in unpaved roads: Design considerations. In
Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Geotextiles (Vol. 2). Industrial Fabrics Association
International, St. Paul, MN, USA, pp. 417-22.
Rowe, R. K. & Soderman, K. L. (1987). Stabilization of very soft soils using high
strength geosynthetics: The role of finite element analyses. Geotext.
Geomemb., 6, 53-80.
Sellmeijer, J. B., Kenter, C. J. & Van den Berg, C. (1982). Calculation method for
fabric reinforced road. In Proc. Second Int. Conf. on Geotextiles (Vol. 2).
Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, MN, USA, pp. 393-8.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen