ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Experimental and theoretical investigation of strength of soil reinforced

with multi-layer horizontalvertical orthogonal elements
M.X. Zhanga,, H. Zhoua, A.A. Javadib, Z.W. Wanga
a

Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai University, 149 Yanchang Road, Shanghai 200072, China
Department of Engineering, School of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QF, UK

Received 24 November 2006; received in revised form 28 May 2007; accepted 4 June 2007
Available online 7 August 2007

Abstract
In conventional reinforced soil structures, the reinforcements are often laid horizontally in the soil. In this paper, a new concept of soil
reinforced with horizontalvertical (HV) orthogonal reinforcing elements is proposed. In the proposed method of soil reinforcement,
HV orthogonal elements instead of conventional horizontal inclusions are placed in the soil. A fundamental difference between the HV
orthogonal reinforcing elements presented in this paper and other forms of inclusions is that the soil enclosed within the HV orthogonal
reinforcing elements will provide passive resistances against shearing that will increase the strength and stability of the reinforced soil.
A comprehensive set of triaxial tests were carried out on sand reinforced with multi-layer HV orthogonal elements and vertical ones.
The behavior of sand reinforced with different HV orthogonal elements was studied in terms of stressstrain relationship and shear
strength. Based on experimental results, a strength model of the soil reinforced with HV orthogonal elements was developed by means
of the theory of limit equilibrium. The results of proposed strength model are compared with those obtained from the triaxial tests. It is
shown that the results of prediction are in good agreement with those of the triaxial tests.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Horizontalvertical (HV) orthogonal element; Vertical reinforcement; Reinforced soil; Triaxial test; Strength model; Limit equilibrium

1. Introduction
Reinforced soils have been widely used in geotechnical
engineering. Numerous papers have examined the reinforcement of soil (e.g. Fleming et al., 2006; Iizuka et al., 2004;
Katarzyna, 2006; Latha and Murthy, 2006; Park and Tan,
2005; Patra et al., 2005; Varuso et al., 2005; Yang, 1972;
Yetimoglu et al., 2005). Current researches mainly focus on
soil reinforced with conventional horizontal inclusions
(Haeri et al., 2000; Ingold, 1983; Michalowski, 2004;
Moraci and Recalcati, 2006). Schlosser and Long (1972)
conducted a more detailed study on reinforced sand using
triaxial tests and proposed pseudo-cohesion concept and
strength relationship. Broms (1977) tested a dry ne sand
reinforced with geotextile in a triaxial apparatus and
proposed an equation for calculating the ultimate load in a
reinforced soil. Rajagopal et al. (1999) carried out a large
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 56331972; fax: +86 21 56331971.

E-mail address: mxzhang@shu.edu.cn (M.X. Zhang).

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.06.001

number of triaxial compression tests on granular soil

encased in single and multiple geocells to study the
inuence of geocell connement on the strength and
stiffness behavior of granular soils. Model tests and
centrifuge modeling test were performed on model
geosynthetic retaining walls to examine the reinforcing
effect and the failure mechanism. Smith and Brigilson
(1979) used model tests to study the strength and bearing
capacity of earth retaining walls reinforced with inclined
reinforcements. Lawton et al. (1993) carried out a series of
CBR, triaxial and permeability tests on soil reinforced with
multioriented geosynthetic inclusions to compare the
effectiveness of the multioriented elements with bers.
Irsyam and Hryciw (1991) performed theoretical analysis
of stress transfer between sand and ribbed reinforcement
and laboratory investigations to evaluate the individual
contributions of friction and passive resistance to overall
pullout resistance. The effects of reinforcement form on
strength improvement of geosynthetic-reinforced sand were
studied through triaxial compression tests, in which

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

Nomenclature
A
Cu
Cc
c
cr
fu
H
Hi
DH
h
Kp
M
n
R
DRi

RT
T
th
tv
r

area of specimen section (m2)

coefcient of uniformity (dimensionless)
coefcient of curvature (dimensionless)
cohesion of soil (kPa)
apparent cohesion of reinforced sand (kPa)
frictional coefcient between reinforcement and
soil (dimensionless)
height of vertical reinforcement (m)
height of vertical reinforcements at each
layer (m)
spacing between reinforcements (m)
height of specimen (m)
coefcient of passive earth pressure (dimensionless)
secant modulus of the membrane of the hoop at
axial strain of ea (kPa)
the number of reinforcing layers (dimensionless)
resultant of the shear and normal forces on the
failure surface (kN)
additional resultant of the shear and normal
forces on the failure surface for specimen at
each vertical reinforcement (kN)
tensile strength of reinforcement per unit width
(kN/m)
resultant of tensile forces acted on all reinforcements pulled out (kN)
thickness of horizontal reinforcements (m)
thickness of vertical reinforcement (m)
radius of specimen (m)

samples of sand reinforced with geosynthetics in horizontal

layers, geocells, and randomly distributed discrete bers
(Latha and Murthy, 2007).
Meanwhile, the behavior on ber-reinforced soils was
widely studied (e.g. Kumar et al., 2006; Michalowski and
Cermak, 2003; Prabakar and Sridhar, 2002; Yetimoglu and
Salbas, 2003). Gray and Ohashi (1983) considered a
reinforcement embedded perpendicularly or at an inclination to the shear zone in a shear box to study the behavior
of a dry sand reinforced with different types of bers.
Arenicz and Choudhury (1988) carried out a series of
laboratory investigations to study the effects of different
types of random reinforcements on soil strength. The
contributions related to new arrangements of reinforcement have played an active role in the development of
reinforced soil technology. Besides the study on conventional reinforced soil where the reinforcements are put
horizontally, some new congurations of inclusions were
developed. For example, Zhang et al. (2006) proposed a
new concept of soil reinforced with three-dimensional (3D)
elements and carried out a series of triaxial tests to study

r0
V
z

(initial) radius of vertical hoop reinforcement (m)

volume of the upper and lower parts of the
specimen on either side of the failure surface (m3)
vertical distance between bottom of specimen
and calculated section (m)

Greek letters
a
s1
s3
Ds3
st
[st]
ea
ec
o
j
mv
Z
l
x
z

angle of failure surface to the horizontal plane

(deg)
major principal stress (kPa)
minor principal stress (kPa)
additional conning pressure (kPa)
tensile stresses within vertical reinforcement (kPa)
tensile strength of vertical reinforcement (kPa)
axial strain of specimen at failure (dimensionless)
circumferential strain (dimensionless)
the total area of horizontal inclusions pulled
out (m2)
angle of internal friction (deg)
vertical reinforcing ratio parameter (dimensionless)
correction for the coefcient of friction between
reinforcements and soil (dimensionless)
correction coefcient for tensile strength of
vertical reinforcement (dimensionless)
correction coefcient for tensile strength of
horizontal reinforcement (dimensionless)
a variable dened as (dimensionless): z 1
(8/3p)ZfuKp(r/DH)

the behavior of sand reinforced with a single-layer 3D

inclusion.
In this paper, a new concept of soil reinforcement with
specic types of horizontalvertical (HV) orthogonal
reinforcing elements, as one specic example of 3D
inclusions, was proposed. A fundamental difference
between the HV orthogonal reinforcing elements presented in this paper and other forms of inclusions as well as
ber-reinforced soil is that in the presented HV orthogonal reinforced soil, the soil enclosed within the HV
orthogonal reinforcing elements will provide passive
resistances against shearing that will increase the strength
and stability of the reinforced soil. Typical soil structures
reinforced with HV orthogonal reinforcing inclusions for
in situ applications are shown in Fig. 1a. Most of
reinforced soil structures were built under (or close to)
plane strain conditions. However, triaxial test under
axi-symmetric conditions is one of the important methods
to investigate the effects of HV orthogonal reinforcing
inclusions on the mechanical behavior of reinforced sand.
So, 52 series of triaxial tests were carried out on sand

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

and stability of the reinforced soil, but the latter mainly

enlarges frictional resistance.
3. Experimental procedure
3.1. Test materials

reinforced with two-layer HV orthogonal inclusions

and vertical elements. The results of experiments are
presented and discussed. Comparison is made between
shear strength of the soil reinforced with horizontal
reinforcements and with HV orthogonal inclusions. Based
on experimental results, the interaction of HV orthogonal
reinforcing elements with soil is analyzed. Using the limit
equilibrium theory, a strength model is developed for soil
reinforced with multi-layer HV orthogonal inclusions.
The results of prediction by proposed model are compared
with those obtained from the triaxial tests. It is shown that
the results of analytical solution are in good agreement
with results of the triaxial tests.

2. Types of soil reinforced with HV orthogonal inclusions

In soils reinforced with HV orthogonal reinforcing
inclusions, besides conventional horizontal reinforcement,
vertical reinforcing elements are also laid in the soil. The
main congurations of HV reinforcements can be divided
into three categories:
(1) Vertical reinforcements are laid upon conventional
horizontal reinforcements in soil; these are typically
rectangular or hexagonal in shape, as shown in Fig. 1b.
(2) Vertical inclusions are laid in soil without any
horizontal reinforcements; these are grid and ring shape
reinforcements. Geocell is one special example of this type
of HV reinforcement. These vertical inclusions can be
connected to each other by a series of rigid bars, as shown
in Fig. 1c.
(3) Axial denti-reinforcements are laid in soil, as shown
in Fig. 1d; these are typically rectangular or hexagonal in
shape. The inuence of denti-reinforcements is different
from that of conventional ribbed inclusions. Besides
frictional resistances, the former will provide passive
resistance against shearing that will increase the strength

3.2. Test procedure

A set of triaxial compression tests was performed to
investigate the effects of HV orthogonal reinforcing
inclusions, and vertical reinforcing elements on the
mechanical behavior of reinforced sand. The results were
used to compare the behavior of unreinforced sand, sand
reinforced with horizontal inclusions and with HV
orthogonal ones. In order to evaluate the effects of HV
orthogonal reinforcements, a vertical reinforcing ratio
parameter, mv is introduced, which is dened by the ratio
of area of all vertical reinforcements at the radius r0 to the
lateral surface area of cylindrical specimen. It is expressed
by percent as follows:
r0

n
P

Hi

i1

 100%,
(1)
rh
where n is the number of reinforcing layers; Hi is the height
of vertical reinforcements at each layer; r0 is the radius of
mv

Percent finer (%)

Fig. 1. Typical horizontalvertical orthogonal reinforcing elements:

(a) reinforced soil structure; (b) single-sided; (c) vertical reinforcements;
(d) axial denti-hexagonal reinforcements.

Uniform, clean, quartz beach sand from shores was

used. The particle size distribution curve for the sand is
shown in Fig. 2. The sand has a relatively uniform grainsize distribution with coefcients of uniformity (Cu) and
curvature (Cc) of 2.30 and 1.01, respectively. All the
specimens of sand were prepared at a unit weight of
16.79 kN/m3, a void ratio of 0.586, an angle of internal
friction of 31.91 and a specic gravity of 2.64, in dry
condition within a split cylinder mold. All samples were
carefully prepared to maintain a relative density of 79.8%.
Galvanized iron sheet with a thickness of 0.12 mm was used
to reinforce the sand specimen in the triaxial tests. The
friction coefcient between sand and reinforcements,
obtained from direct shear tests, is 0.47.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01

0.1

1
Particle size (mm)

Fig. 2. Grain size distribution curve (Zhang et al., 2006).

10

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

vertical reinforcements; h is the height of specimen; r is the

radius of specimen.
The values of the vertical reinforcement ratio parameter
mv for different congurations of HV reinforcement
shown in Fig. 3, are summarized in Table 1 for 13 cases
of triaxial experiments. The shear strength parameters of
the reinforced sands are also presented in the table. The
triaxial tests were conducted at four different conning
pressures of 50, 100, 150 and 200 kPa.
A standard medium-sized triaxial shear apparatus
was used for testing specimens of unreinforced sand and
sand reinforced with HV orthogonal reinforcing elements.

The specimens had a diameter of 61.8 mm and a height

of 135 mm. All dry specimens were subjected to triaxial
compression with a strain rate of 0.5% per minute. Most
of the tests were continued up to an axial strain level
of 8%.
A standard procedure was adopted for preparing dry
cohesionless samples and testing with triaxial apparatus as
recommended by Bishop and Henkel (1969) and Head
(1982). The samples were compacted in six layers through
tamping with a tamper consisting of a circular disk
attached to a steel rod. The HV orthogonal reinforcements with axial symmetry were composed of ring-shaped

Fig. 3. Congurations of HV orthogonal reinforcements (unit: mm): (a) vertical inclusions; (b) single-sided HV inclusions; (c) double-sided HV
inclusions.

Table 1
Experimental cases and strength parameters of HV reinforced sand
Case

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
a

Reinforcing type

Unreinforced
Horizontally
reinforced
Vertically reinforced

HV reinforced
(single-sided)
HV reinforced
(double-sided)

Height of vertical
reinforcementsa, H (cm)

0.0, 0.0
0.5, 0.5
1.0, 1.0
2.0, 2.0
2.0, 4.0
4.0, 4.0
0.5, 0.5
1.0, 1.0
0.5, 0.5
1.0, 1.0
2 (single-sided), 2 (double-sided)
2.0, 2.0

Vertical reinforcing
ratio, mv (%)

Apparent
cohesion, c (kPa)

Angle of internal
friction, j (deg)

0.00
0.00

0.00
0.00

31.9
42.30

4.79
9.59
19.18
28.77
38.36
4.79
9.59
9.59
19.18
28.77
38.36

0.00
0.00
5.00
9.00
11.30
3.36
13.91
0.00
6.23
8.70
8.90

39.60
42.10
45.00
46.60
50.90
43.90
44.40
48.40
49.20
52.20
56.27

The two numerals in this column denote heights of vertical reinforcements on the rst and second layer within the specimen, respectively.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

vertical elements with different heights and a horizontal

one, whose diameter was slightly less than that of the
specimen. The vertical elements were xed upon horizontal
ones. After compacting and leveling each layer of sand,
HV orthogonal inclusion was placed in the specimen
according to the congurations shown in Fig. 3.
4. Test results and discussions
4.1. Stressstrain curves and failure pattern
Typical stressstrain curves for sand reinforced with
HV orthogonal inclusions are presented in Fig. 4. These
gures indicate that the maximum deviator stress increases
with increasing the vertical reinforcing ratio. The peak
strength for most specimens occurs at an axial strain of
about 1.53%.
Typical photographs of failed specimens are shown in
Fig. 5. A close examination of the failed specimens reveals
that reinforced specimens failed by bulging between two
adjacent layers of reinforcement. Moreover, inspection of
the inclusions after failure shows that the vertical elements
appear to break at the joints, whereas HV elements show

frictional failure for horizontal elements and breakage of

vertical ones.

4.2. Strength behavior

Typical pq (mean stress versus deviator stress) diagrams
for the specimens of sand reinforced with vertical elements
and with HV orthogonal inclusions are shown in Fig. 6,
where p 1/3(s1+2s3) and q s1s3. The shear strength
parameters (apparent cohesion and angle of internal
friction) for different reinforcement congurations are
presented in Table 1. Linear shear strength envelopes
for sand reinforced with vertical elements and with
HV orthogonal inclusions are shown in Fig. 7. The
experimental results indicate that:
(1) For sand reinforced with vertical elements, the
reinforced soil specimens have exhibited a signicant
increase in angle of internal friction while the difference
in apparent cohesion is marginal. As compared with
unreinforced sand, the increase in angle of internal friction
for the sand reinforced with vertical elements is about
7.719.01.

1400
v=4.79%

v=9.59%

v=19.18%

v=28.77%

v=38.36%

1200
Deviator stress (kPa)

800
700

Unreinforced

600
500
400
300
200

1000
800
600
400

100

200

0
0

5
6
7
Axial strain (%)

10

11

12

900

2000

800

1800

700

1600
Deviator stress (kPa)

Deviatorstress (kPa)

900

Deviator stress (kPa)

600
500
400
300
200
100

H.reinforced

v=4.79%(S)

v=9.59%(S)

v=9.59%(D)

v=19.18%(D)

v=28.77%(S,D)

v=4.79%

v=9.59%

v=19.18%

v=28.77%

v=38.36%

4
5
6
Axial strain (%)

10

1400
1200
1000
800
600

H.reinforced

v=4.79%(S)

400

v=9.59%(S)

v=9.59%(D)

v=19.18%(D)

v=28.77%(S,D)

200

v=38.36%(D)

Unreinforced

v=38.36%(D)

0
0

4
5
6
Axial strain (%)

10

4
5
6
Axial strain (%)

10

Fig. 4. Deviator stressaxial strain curves for sand reinforced with vertical and HV reinforcing elements with different reinforcement ratios and conning
pressures: (a) vertically reinforced (s3 100 kPa); (b) vertically reinforced (s3 200 kPa); (c) HV reinforced (s3 100 kPa); (d) HV reinforced
(s3 200 kPa) (Note: S-single-sided and D-double-sided).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

Fig. 5. Typical photographs of failed specimens: (a) horizontally reinforcing (one-layer); (b) HV reinforcing (one-layer); (c) HV reinforcing (two-layer).

700

1400

1000
800

v=4.79%

600

Shear stress (kPa)

1200

q (kPa)

Unreinforced

Unreinforced
v=4.79%
v=9.59%
v=19.18%
v=28.77%
v=38.36%

600
400

v=9.59%
v=19.18%

500

v=28.77%
v=38.36%

400
300
200

200

100

0
0

100

200

300
400
p (kPa)

500

600

700
0
0

100

200
300
400
Normal stress (kPa)

500

600

500

600

2000
Unreinforced
Horizontally reinforced
v=4.79%(S)
v=9.59%(S)
v=9.59%(D)
v=19.18%(D)
v=28.77%(S,D)
v=38.36%(D)

1600
1400
q (kPa)

1200

800
Unreinforced
Horizontally reinforced
v=4.79%(S)
v=9.59%(S)
v=9.59%(D)
v=19.18%(D)
v=28.77%(S,D)
v=38.36%(D)

700
600
Shear stress (kPa)

1800

1000
800
600

500
400
300
200

400

100

200

0
0

100

200

300

400 500
p (kPa)

600

700

800

900

100

200
300
400
Normal stress (kPa)

Fig. 6. pq diagrams for sand reinforced with: (a) vertical elements

and (b) HV elements (two-layer) for different reinforcement ratios.
Note: S-single-sided and D-double-sided.

Fig. 7. Linear shear strength envelopes for sand reinforced with: (a)
vertical elements and (b) HV elements (two-layer) for different
reinforcement ratios. Note: S-single-sided and D-double-sided.

(2) For sand reinforced with HV elements, the angle of

internal friction has increased remarkably while displaying
a slight increase in apparent cohesion. As compared with
horizontally reinforced sand, the angle of internal friction
of the sand reinforced with HV elements increased about
1.613.971.

(3) It can be seen that the angle of internal friction for

sand reinforced with double-sided HV elements
(2  0.5 cm high) was greater than that for sand reinforced
with single-sided reinforcements (1 cm high). From this
observation, it can be concluded that with the same height
of vertical reinforcements (the same vertical reinforcing

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

ratio), the shear strength of sand reinforced with doublesided HV elements is signicantly greater than that with
single-sided reinforcement.
5. Strength model of soil-reinforced with HV orthogonal
inclusions

s1. If the cross sectional area of the specimen is A, the area

of the failure surface (which is elliptical in shape) will be
A/cos a, where a is the angle between the failure surface and
the horizontal (see Fig. 8a). The resultant R of the shear
and normal forces on the failure surface can then be
calculated as
R cos a  j s1 A  cA tan a

5.1. Strength model for soil

From the MohrCoulomb failure criterion for soils, the
relationship between the major and minor principal stresses
in a soil at failure can be expressed in the following form:
p
s1 s3 K p 2c K p ,
(2)
where s1 is the major principal stress (axial stress); s3 is the
minor principal stress (conning pressure); Kp is the
coefcient of passive earth pressure given by Kp
tan2(451+j/2); c is the cohesion; j is the angle of internal
friction.
Fig. 8a shows the free body diagram of a part of a
soil specimen (above the failure surface) sheared in a
triaxial test under a conning pressure s3 and axial stress

or
p
s3 K p 2c K p  c tan aA
R
,
cosa  j

(3)

where A pr2 and a 451+j/2.

5.2. Strength model for soil reinforced with horizontal
elements
5.2.1. Failure by breakage of reinforcement
Fig. 8b shows the free body diagram and the force
diagram for a soil specimen, reinforced with horizontal
inclusions, which has been sheared in a triaxial test.
According to the pseudo-cohesion concept, reinforcing a

Fig. 8. Free body and force diagrams for soil specimens: (a) unreinforced; reinforced with horizontal inclusions at (b) failure by breakage of reinforcement
and at (c) failure by pullout of reinforcement.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

soil with conventional horizontal reinforcements results in

an additional conning pressure of Ds3 or an apparent
cohesion of cr. Consequently, the relationship between the
ultimate vertical stress and conning pressure applied on
the specimen can be written as
p
s1 s3 Ds3 K p 2c K p .
(4a)
On the other hand, the above equation can also be
expressed to the Rankine equation for a cohesive-frictional
soil, that is,
p
s1 s3 K p 2c cr K p .
(4b)
The apparent cohesion is obtained as
Ds3 p
K p.
(5a)
cr
2
However, it is difcult to measure the additional
conning pressure Ds3. The apparent cohesion cr at
failure can be evaluated based on the MohrCoulomb
failure criterion (Schlosser and Long, 1974; Ling,
2003) as
p
RT K p
cr
,
(5b)
2DH
where RT is the tensile strength of reinforcement per unit
width and DH is the spacing between reinforcing layer,
DH h/(n+1).
Substituting Eq. (5b) into Eq. (4b) results in the
following relationship:
p
RT
s1 s3 K p 2c K p K p
.
(6)
DH
It should be noted that in a unit cell, non-uniform
stresses and strains may prevail inside the specimen.
Moreover, it is unlikely for all the reinforcements to be
ruptured simultaneously. As the total tensile strength of
reinforcements has been considered in Eq. (6), therefore, a
correction coefcient x has to be applied to the tensile
strength of reinforcements computed from Eq. (6). Based
on experimental results, the correction coefcient x can
adopt a value in the range of 0.20.4. Hence, Eq. (6) can be
written as
p
RT
s1 s3 K p 2c K p xK p
.
(7)
DH
5.2.2. Failure by pullout of reinforcement (frictional failure)
Fig. 8c shows a triaxial soil specimen failed due to
pullout of reinforcement. The force polygon is also
shown in the gure. When frictional failure occurs, it is
assumed that the horizontal reinforcements are pulled out
from the upper and lower parts of the specimen on either
side of the failure surface (shaded parts in Fig. 8c). The
volume of the both parts of the cylindrical specimen can be
determined as
Z p=2
Z r
Z r cos y tan a
V 2
dy
r dr
dz 43r3 tan a.
(8)
p=2

The total volume of horizontal inclusions pulled out

from both the parts can be obtained as
VR V

Anth
th
th
V
V
,
Ah
h=n
DH

(9)

where th is the thickness of horizontal inclusions.

Then, the total area of horizontal inclusions pulled out is
o

VR
V
4 r3

tan a.

DH 3 DH
th

(10)

The resultant of the tensile forces acted on all reinforcements pulled out is
8
Ar
s1 f u Z
tan a,
(11)
3p
DH
where fu is the frictional coefcient between reinforcement
and soil and Z is the correction for the coefcient of friction
between reinforcements and soil.
From the force polygon (see in Fig. 8c), the following
equation can be given:
T 2s1 of u Z

s1 A tana  j s3 A tan a 2cA

8
Ar
s1 f u Z
tan a.
3p
DH
(12a)

Eq. (12a) can then be written in the following form:

p
8
r
s1 s3 K p 2c K p s1 f u ZK p
(12b)
3p
DH
or
p
Kp
Kp
,
(13)
s1 s3
2c
z
z
8
r
where z 1  3p
Zf u K p DH
.
The resultant of the shear and normal forces on the
failure surface for the specimen reinforced with horizontal
inclusions can be expressed as

R cosa  j s1 A  cA tan a.

(14)

Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (14), the force limit

equilibrium condition for the specimen of soil reinforced
with horizontal inclusions for failure by breakage of
reinforcement can be expressed as
p
s3 K p 2c K p xK p RT =DH  c tan aA
.
(15)
R
cosa  j
Similarly, substituting Eq. (13) into Eq. (14), the force
limit equilibrium condition for the specimen of soil
reinforced with horizontal inclusions for failure by pullout
of reinforcement can be obtained as
p
s3 K p 2c K p 1=zA  cA tan a
.
(16)
R
cosa  j

5.3. Strength model for soil reinforced with vertical elements

The effect of vertical reinforcements is assumed as an
additional conning pressure Ds3, which will increase the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

strength of the soil. The relationship between the

additional conning pressure Ds3 and ultimate axial
stress s1 was established based on the theory of limit
equilibrium. Considering the vertical reinforcing effect,
the additional conning pressure Ds3 will result in the
additional resultant (DRi) of the shear and normal
forces on the failure surface at each reinforcing layer
for specimen reinforced with vertical reinforcement
(see Fig. 9).
Considering the forces acting on the free body ABDE
(see Fig. 10), DRi can be deduced from application of the
theory of limit equilibrium:

If H5DH, then preceding equation becomes

Ds3 r0
H
DRi
sina  j

s


i DH  r tan a 2
1
:
r tan a

(18)

Considering the forces acting on the upper part of the

specimen above the failure surface (see Fig. 9), the vertical
equilibrium equation can be written as
s1 A

n
X

!
DRi

cos a  j cA tan a.

(19)

i1

R iDHH R pb
DRi

iDH

Ds3 r0 sin y dy dz

sina  j

Ds3 r0 r tan a i DH H  r tan a

sina  j
r tan a
s


i DH H  r tan a 2 i DH  r tan a
 1

r tan a
r tan a
s

2
i DH  r tan a
 1
r tan a


i DH H  r tan a
arcsin
r tan a


i DH  r tan a
 arcsin
i 1; 2; . . . ; n, 17
r tan a

where n is the number of layers of vertical reinforcements

(in the experiments presented in this paper, n 2); H is the
height of vertical reinforcements; b arcsin((zr tan a)/
r tan a); z is the vertical distance between bottom of
specimen and calculated section.

Fig. 10. Free-body diagram: (a) 3D view of section ABDE and

(b) additional conning pressure.

Fig. 9. Forces on vertically reinforced specimen: (a) a specimen with stresses and forces acting on it and (b) free body diagram of section ABDE
shown in (a).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

10

5.3.1. Failure by breakage of vertical reinforcement

Fig. 11 shows the free body diagram for a vertical
reinforcing element subjected to radial stresses (Ds3)
and tensile stresses (st). Summing the components of
forces that act on the element in the vertical direction
yields
Z

st tv
H
DRi l
sina  j

Ds3 H sin y r0 dy;

s1 s3 K p 2c
where tv is the thickness of vertical reinforcements.
Integrating the term on the right-hand side of Eq. (20),
the following equation will be deduced:
2st tv 2Ds3 r0

(21)

or
st tv
.
r0

(22)

At failure by breakage of vertical reinforcement,

tensile stress (st) will reach the tensile strength of the
vertical reinforcement. Thus, Eq. (22) can then be rewritten as
Ds3

st tv
,
r0

(23)

where [st] is the tensile strength of vertical reinforcements.

Similarly, it is unlikely for all the vertical reinforcements
to be ruptured simultaneously, i.e., the total tensile strength
of reinforcements will not be fully mobilized at failure.
Consequently, a correction coefcient of l (0olo1) has to
be applied to the tensile strength of vertical reinforcements
computed from Eq. (23). The preceding equation can be
written as
Ds3 l

(25)

(20)

Ds3

s


i DH  r tan a 2
1
.
r tan a

Summing Eqs. (3) and (25) into Eq. (19) results in

2st tv H

Summing Eq. (24) into Eq. (18) leads to

st tv
.
r0

(24)

p
Kp

s


n
X
st tv
i DH  r tan a 2
1
H
l
r tan a
A tana  j i1
p
s3 K p 2c K p
v
!2
u
n
st tv p X u
i DH
t
1  p  1 :
26
H Kp
l
A
r Kp
i1

5.3.2. Soil failure

If the soil fails before the stress within vertical hoop
reinforcement reaches its tensile strength, the additional
conning pressure Ds3 on the soil due to the membrane
stresses will develop on lateral sides of the vertical
reinforcements (see Fig. 11). The additional conning
pressure Ds3 was calculated from the rubber membrane
theory (Rajagopal et al., 1999), which was originally
developed to correct for the effects of stiff rubber
membrane. The additional conning pressure due to the
membrane stresses can be expressed as (Henkel and
Gilbert, 1952)
p

2Mc
1
M 1  1  a
p
Ds3

,
2r 1  a r0
1  a

(27)

where r0 is the initial radius of vertical hoop reinforcement.

ea and ec are the axial strain and the circumferential
strain for the specimen at failure, respectively. M is the
secant modulus of the membrane of the hoop at axial
strain of ea.
Summing Eq. (27) into Eq. (18) leads to:
ps



M
1  1  a
i DH  r tan a 2
p
1
.
H
DRi
sina  j
r tan a
1  a

(28)
Summing Eqs. (3) and (28) into Eq. (19) results in

Fig. 11. Forces acting on vertical reinforcement.

p

p M p 1  1  a
p
s1 s3 K p 2c K p H K p
A
1  a
v
!2
u
n u
X
DH
t1  ip
 1 :

r Kp
i1

29

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

p

M p
1  1  a
p
K pH

A
1  a
v
!2
u
n u
X
i
DH
t1  p  1 .

r Kp
i1

5.4. Strength model for soil reinforced with HV orthogonal

elements
5.4.1. Failure by breakage of vertical reinforcements and
pullout of horizontal ones
Substituting Eqs. (16) and (25) into Eq. (19) and
rearranging the resulting equation gives
p
Kp
Kp
s1 s3
2c
z
z
v
!2
u
n
u
X
st tv p
i
DH
t1  p  1 .
30
l
H Kp
A
r Kp
i1
5.4.2. Failure by pullout of horizontal reinforcements
(vertical ones unfailed)
Substituting Eqs. (16) and (28) into Eq. (19) and
rearranging the resulting equation gives
p
Kp
Kp
s1 s3
2c
z
z

11

31

5.4.3. Failure by breakage of HV reinforcements

Similarly, substituting Eqs. (15) and (25) into Eq. (19)
and rearranging the resulting equation gives
p
RT
s1 s3 K p 2c K p xK p
DH
v
!2
u
n
u
X
st tv p
i
DH
t1  p  1 .
32
H Kp
l
A
r Kp
i1
6. Experimental validation of proposed model
To validate the developed analytical strength model, the
theoretical values obtained using Eq. (30) were compared

2000
1800
Deviatorstress (kPa)

1600
1400

Proposed Test
model
results

1200
1000

3=50kPa

800

3=100kPa

600

3=150kPa

400

3=200kPa

200
0
0

10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical reinforcing ratio (%)

40

45

2000
1800

Deviator stress (kPa)

1600
1400
Proposed Test
model
result

1200
1000

3=50kPa

800

3=100kPa

600

3=150kPa

400

3=200kPa

200
0
0

10 15 20 25 30 35
Vertical reinforcing ratio (%)

40

45

Fig. 12. Comparison between analytical results of proposed strength model and the experimental results for HV reinforced sand: (a) l 0.45, Z 0.60
and (b) l 0.45  (1.0+0.85  ((s3100)/100)+0.75  ((mv19.18%)/19.18%)), Z 0.48.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
12

M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113

Table 2
The soil and reinforcement parameters of soil and inclusions
Parameter

Value

Height of specimen, h (cm)

Radius of specimen, r (cm)
Radius of horizontal reinforcements, r1 (cm)
Radius of vertical reinforcements, r0 (cm)
Height of vertical reinforcements, H (cm)
Spacing between reinforcements, DH (cm)

13.5
3.09
3.0
2.0
0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0
4.5 (for vertical
reinforcements)
0.012
0.012
200

Thickness of horizontal reinforcements, th (cm)

Thickness of vertical reinforcements, tv (cm)
Tensile strength of vertical reinforcement [st]
(MPa)
Friction coefcient between reinforcement and
soil, fu
Cohesion of sand, c (kPa)
Angle of internal friction of sand, j (deg)

in the angle of internal friction of the soil as well as a slight

increase in the apparent cohesion.
(2) The strength of sand reinforced with HV orthogonal
elements increases with increasing height of the vertical
reinforcements.
(3) For sand reinforced with HV orthogonal elements
with the same vertical height, double-sided HV orthogonal elements will result in greater increase in strength than
single-sided ones.
(4) It is shown that the results of analytical predictions
by the proposed strength model for soil reinforced with
HV orthogonal elements are in good agreement with
results of triaxial tests.

0.47
0.0
31.9

with the experimental results of specimens of granular soil

reinforced with HV orthogonal elements, as shown in
Fig. 12. The parameters were presented in Table 2.
It is shown that the results calculated from strength
models presented in this paper are in good agreement with
those of triaxial tests. However, in case of higher vertical
reinforcement and at high conning pressure, it is found
that when l and Z are constant and height of the vertical
reinforcement is more than 2 cm, there is a deviator. The
main reason is that the assumption of uniformity distribution of the stress within specimen and between soil and
reinforcement is not valid at above condition. Moreover,
the stress distribution and failure mechanism may become
very complex. If Z 0.48 and l can be varied when the
vertical reinforcing ratio parameter is more than 19.18%
and conning pressure is more than 100 kPa, e.g.,

s3  100
l 0:45  1:0 0:85 
100

mv  19:18%
0:75 
,
33
19:18%
the agreement between predictions and measurements will
be improved signicantly.
7. Conclusions
In this paper, a new concept of soil reinforced with HV
orthogonal reinforcements has been proposed. A comprehensive set of triaxial tests were carried out on samples of
dry sand reinforced with HV orthogonal and vertical
elements. A strength model for soil reinforced with multilayer horizontalvertical orthogonal elements has been
proposed. The following conclusions are drawn from the
results:
(1) The experimental results in this paper show that the
inclusion of HV orthogonal reinforcing elements (especially the double-sided HV elements) leads to an increase

Acknowledgment
The nancial assistance from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 50678100
is herein much acknowledged.
References
Arenicz, R.M., Choudhury, R.N., 1988. Laboratory investigation of earth
walls simultaneously reinforced by strips and random reinforcement.
Geotechnical Testing Journal 11 (4), 241247.
Bishop, A.W., Henkel, D.J., 1969. The Measurement of Soil Properties in
the Triaxial Test. William Clowes and Sons Limited, London and
Beccles.
Broms, B.B., 1977. Triaxial tests with fabric-reinforced soil. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on the Use of Fabric in
Geotechnics, vol. 3, Paris, pp. 129134.
Fleming, I.R., Sharma, J.S., Jogi, M.B., 2006. Shear strength of
geomembranesoil interface under unsaturated conditions. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 24 (5), 274284.
Gray, D.H., Ohashi, H., 1983. Mechanics of ber reinforcement in sand.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE 109 (3), 335353.
Haeri, S.M., Nourzad, R., Oskrouch, A.M., 2000. Effect of geotextile
reinforcement on the mechanical behavior of sands. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 18 (6), 385402.
Head, K.H., 1982. Manual of Soil Laboratory Testing, vol. 2. Pentech
Press, London, UK.
Henkel, D.J., Gilbert, G.D., 1952. The effect of the rubber membrane
on the measured triaxial compression strength of clay samples.
Geotechnique 3 (1), 2029.
Iizuka, A., Kawai, K., Kim, E.R., Hirata, M., 2004. Modeling of the
conning effect due to the geosynthetic wrapping of compacted soil
specimens. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (5), 329358.
Ingold, T.S., 1983. Reinforced clay subjected undrained triaxial loading.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 109 (5),
738743.
Irsyam, M., Hryciw, R.D., 1991. Friction and passive resistance in soil
reinforced by plane ribbed inclusions. Geotechnique 41 (4), 485498.
Katarzyna, Z.A., 2006. Shear strength parameters of compacted y
ashHDPE geomembrane interfaces. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
24 (2), 91102.
Kumar, A., Walia, B.S., Mohan, J., 2006. Compressive strength of ber
reinforced highly compressible clay. Construction and Building
Materials 20 (10), 10631068.
Latha, M.G., Murthy, V.S., 2006. Investigations on sand reinforced with
different geosynthetics. Geotechnical Testing Journal 29 (6), 474481.
Latha, M.G., Murthy, V.S., 2007. Effects of reinforcement form on the
behavior of geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (1), 2332.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
M.X. Zhang et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 113
Lawton, E.C., Khire, M.V., Fox, N.S., 1993. Reinforcement of soil
by multioriented geosynthetic inclusions. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE 119 (2), 257275.
Ling, H.I., 2003. Unit Cell Testing of Reinforced Soils, Reinforced
Soil Engineering: Advances in Research and Practice. Marcel Dekker,
New York, pp. 3767.
Michalowski, R.L., 2004. Limit loads on reinforced foundation soils.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130 (4),
381390.
Michalowski, R.L., Cermak, J., 2003. Triaxial compression of sand
reinforced with bers. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE 129 (2), 125136.
Moraci, N., Recalcati, P., 2006. Factors affecting the pullout behaviour of
extruded geogrids embedded in a compacted granular soil. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 24 (4), 220242.
Park, T., Tan, S.A., 2005. Enhanced performance of reinforced soil walls
by the inclusion of short ber. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (4),
348361.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., Atalar, C., 2005. Bearing capacity of embedded
strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (5), 454462.
Prabakar, J., Sridhar, R.S., 2002. Effect of random inclusion of sisal ber
on strength behaviour of soil. Construction and Building Materials 16
(2), 123131.

13

Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N.R., Madhavi, L.G., 1999. Behaviour of

sand conned with single and multiple geocells. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 17 (3), 171184.
Schlosser, F., Long, N., 1972. Comportement de al terre armee dans les
ouvrages de soute`nement. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1. Madrid, pp. 299306.
Schlosser, F., Long, N., 1974. Recent results in French research on
reinforced earth. Journal of the Construction Division, ASCE 100
(CO3), 223237.
Smith, G.N., Brigilson, G.I., 1979. Inclined stripes in reinforced soil walls.
Civil Engineering, ICE 54 (6), 6061.
Varuso, R.J., Grieshaber, J.B., Nataraj, M.S., 2005. Geosynthetic
reinforced levee test section on soft normally consolidated clays.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (4), 362383.
Yang, Z., 1972. Strength and deformation characteristics of reinforced
sand. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Yetimoglu, T., Salbas, O., 2003. A study on shear strength of sands
reinforced with randomly distributed discrete bers. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 21 (2), 103110.
Yetimoglu, T., Inanir, M., Inanir, O.E., 2005. A study on bearing capacity
of randomly distributed ber-reinforced sand lls overlying soft clay.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (2), 174183.
Zhang, M.X., Javadi, A.A., Min, X., 2006. Triaxial tests of sand reinforced
with 3D inclusions. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (4), 201209.