See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322357520

Laboratory Investigation of the Influence of

Geotextile on the Stress–Strain and Volumetric
Change Behavior of Sand

Article in Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · January 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-018-0446-6

CITATIONS READS

0 101

4 authors:

Brahim Abdelkader Ahmed Arab

Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef Hassiba Benbouali University of Chlef
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 59 PUBLICATIONS 192 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marwan Sadek Isam Shahrour

Lebanese University (en détachement de Pol… Université des Sciences et Technologies de Li…
55 PUBLICATIONS 228 CITATIONS 277 PUBLICATIONS 1,587 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Geo-Environmental Engineering View project

Risk management of construction site View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brahim Abdelkader on 10 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0446-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Laboratory Investigation of the Influence of Geotextile
on the Stress–Strain and Volumetric Change Behavior
of Sand
Brahim Abdelkader . Ahmed Arab . Marwan Sadek . Isam Shahrour
Received: 5 June 2016 / Accepted: 3 January 2018
 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract This paper presents the results of triaxial
tests conducted for the investigation of the influence of
geotextile on both the stress–strain and volumetric
change behavior of reinforced sands. Tests were
carried out on loose sand. The experimental program
includes drained compression tests on samples rein-
forced with different values of both geotextile layers
(1 B Ng B 3) and confining pressure (r0c ) varying
from 50 to 200 kPa. Tests show that the contribution
of geotextile is negligible until an axial strain thresh-
old that range between 2.5% for a confining pressure
of 50 kPa to lower than 1% for 100 and 200 kPa
confining pressure. At higher values of ea, geotextile
induces a quasi-linear increase in the stress deviator
(q) and volume contraction in the reinforced sand.
Tests show a negligible influence of the number of
geotextile layers (Ng) on the contribution of geotextile
to both stress–strain and volumetric change, when
normalized with Ng. Tests also show that the
B. Abdelkader  A. Arab
Laboratory of Materials Sciences and Environment,
Hassiba Ben Bouali University of Chlef,
02000 Ouled Fares, Algeria
M. Sadek (&)  I. Shahrour
Laboratory of Civil Engineering and géo-Environmental
(LGCgE), University of Lille 1, Cité Scientifique,
59655 Villeneuve d’Ascq, France
e-mail: Marwan.Sadek@polytech-lille.fr
M. Sadek
Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon
contribution of geotextile to the stress–strain mobi-
lization augments with the increase in the confining
pressure, while its contribution to the volume con-
traction decreases with the increase in the confining
pressure. The reinforced soil becomes contracting in
the case of 2 and 3 geotextile layers.
Keywords Geotextile  Reinforcement  Sand 
Stress  Strain  Triaxial  Volumetric-change
1 Introduction
Geotextile is widely used in geotechnical engineering
for the improvement of soft soils, slops stabilization
and construction of embankments and retaining walls
for infrastructure facilities such as roads, highways
and railways. The use of geotextile in soil reinforce-
ment results in the construction of geo-composite
system with enhanced engineering properties, such as
strength, ductility and permeability.
The design of geotechnical structures using geo-
textile requires a good understanding of the interaction
between geotextile and the soil material during the
deformation process. Wide experimental researches
were conducted for the investigation of the role of
geotextile in the improvement of the engineering soil
properties (McGown and Andrawes 1978; Chan-
drasekaran et al. 1989; Athanasopoulos 1993; Gray
and Al-Refeai1986; Ling and Tatsuoka 1993;
123

Krishnaswamym and Isaac 1994; Vercueil et al. 1997;
Haeri et al. 2000; Unnikrishnan et al. 2002; Madhavi
and Murthy 2007; Tang et al. 2007). They showed that
geotextile improves soil strength, reduces post-peak
loss in strength and increases the axial strain at failure;
consequently it enhances the ductility of the rein-
forced-soil composite. The soil improvement mainly
results from the geotextile-soil friction and interlock-
ing between the soil and geotextile. The triaxial device
was used for the investigation of the influence of
geotextile on the stress–strain and volumetric behavior
of the soil reinforced by geotextile (Athanasopoulos
1993; Haeri et al. 2000; Madhavi and Murthy 2007;
Ashmawy and Bourdeau 1998). Experimental inves-
tigations showed that the stiffness of the reinforced
soil depends on the geotextile type, which could lead
to either increase or decrease in the stiffness of the
reinforced-soil. Friction between the soil and geotex-
tile largely influences the increase in the peak strength
of the reinforced soil.
Triaxial tests showed also that the soil reinforce-
ment by geotextile reduces the dilatancy of the
reinforced soils. This reduction is due to the role of
geotextile in increasing the sand confinement, which is
largely depending on the ratio of geotextile aperture
size to the sand mean diameter. Undrained cyclic tests
showed that the use of geotextile in soil reinforcement
provides advantageous for construction in seismic
area, in particular a significant reduction in the
liquefaction potential of the reinforced sand (Vercueil
et al. 1997; Haeri et al. 2000).
This paper presents results of drained triaxial tests
on Chlef sand, which aim to a better understanding of
the influence of geotextile on the stress–strain and
volumetric change behavior of the reinforced soils.
Tests are conducted on loose sand reinforced with
different geotextile layers. Analyses of these results
lead to interesting results concerning the influence of
the confining pressure and the number of geotextile
layers on the enhancement of the soil behavior. The
paper presents first the materials used in the study, the
experimental procedure, followed by the analysis of
the experimental results.
2 Material Used and Experimental Procedure
Laboratory tests were carried out on loose medium-
grained sand from the Chlef River in Algeria. This
123
Geotech Geol Eng
sand is composed of rounded particles with a mean
grain size D50 = 0.61 mm, D10 = 0.225 mm and a
uniformity coefficient D60/D10 = 3.38. The granular
distribution of this sand is illustrated in Fig. 1. Tests
were conducted with a propylene non-woven geotex-
tile (BidimS72). The characteristics of this geotextile
are summarized in Table 1. The tensile axial strength
is equal to 25 kN/m, while the axial strain at the
maximum axial tension is equal to 80%. The filtration
opening size is equal to 85lm, which is equal to 13%
of the mean grain size of the Chlef sand used in the
study. The behavior of Chlef sand has been widely
studied under monotonic and cyclic loading (Ahmed
2009; Arab et al. 2011, 2014; Della et al. 2009;
Belkhatir et al. 2011, 2013).
The experimental program consisted in the realiza-
tion of drained triaxial compression tests on sand
samples 70 mm in diameter and height. Tests were
conducted for three values of the confining pressure
(r0c = 50, 100 and 200 kPa) with three values of the
number of geotextile layers (Ng = 1, 2 and 3) (see
Fig. 2). These tests were compared to tests conducted
on unreinforced soil (Ng = 0).
The experimental procedure included two phases.
The first one concerns the preparation of the reinforced
sand sample, while the second consists in the realiza-
tion of the compression drained triaxial tests using the
Bishop cell apparatus. The sample was prepared in
equal layers. Geotextile layers were placed in the sand
at the specific heights. Tests were conducted with a
Fig. 1 Granular distribution of the sand of Chlef used in this
study
Geotech Geol Eng

Table 1 Properties of the geotextile used in the experimental values of the number of geotextile layers. For the
program (BidimS72) unreinforced sand, a moderate peak is observed at an
Geotextile property Value axial strain ea = 15%. For the reinforced sand, the
variation the stress deviator (q) shows a continuous
Axial tensile strength (kN/m) 25 increase during the triaxial loading. This result
Strain at the maximum axial tension (%) 80 indicates a mobilization of the geotextile up to high
Area weight (g/m2) 305 values of both axial strain (ea = 25%) and lateral
Thickness under 2 kPa (mm) 2.7 strain (between 20 and 25%), which are small,
Filtration opening size (lm) 85 compared to the strain at the maximum axial tension
of the geotextile (80%).
Concerning the volumetric change, results show an
important influence of the number of geotextile layers
backpressure of 400 kPa, at a strain-controlled rate of
on the soil response. Geotextile reduces the lateral
0.0017 per minute.
deformation of the reinforced sand and consequently
reduces the soil dilatation. The reinforced soil
becomes contracting with Ng = 2; the increase in
3 Presentation and Discussion of Results
Ng accentuates the soil contracting behavior. Note that
at low strain, the presence of geotextile have no effect,
3.1 Geotextile Effect on Shear Strength
since they are mainly mobilized at relatively high
and Volumetric Strain
strain level.
Figure 4 shows the pattern of the sample deforma-
Figure 3 shows results of the triaxial test conducted at
tion at failure. It can be observed that failure occurs par
an effective confining pressure r0c = 50 with different

Fig. 2 Geotextile arrangement used in the experimental program

Fig. 3 Drained 350 5

compression tests conducted
Volumetric strain, εv (%) (%)

on reinforced Chlef sand (r0c 300 Ng= 0 0

Deviator stress, q (kPa)

Ng= 1
= 50 kPa)
250 Ng= 2 -5
Ng= 3
200 -10

150 -15

100 -20 Ng= 0

Ng= 1
50 -25 Ng= 2
Ng= 3
0 -30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axial strain, ε1(%) Axial strain, ε1(%)

123

Fig. 4 Deformation pattern of the reinforced sand sample at failure
bulging between layers. This result is similar to that
obtained by Madhavi and Murthy (2007).
In order to understand the contribution of geotextile
to the stress–strain behavior; we present in Fig. 5 the
variation of the ratio of the stress deviator excess to the
number of geotextile layers (Rq):
Rq ¼ ðqNg  q0 Þ=Ng ð1Þ
qNg and q0 denote the value of the stress deviator of
reinforced sand and unreinforced sand, respectively.
Figure 5a shows the variation of Rq with the axial
strain ea. It can be observed that tests conducted with
the three values of Ng (Ng = 1, 2 and 3) give close
results. Two zones can be distinguished, with a linear
variation between Rq and ea. The first zone corre-
sponds to small values of the axial strain (up to 2.5%; it
shows a negligible contribution of geotextile to the soil
Fig. 5 Drained compression tests (r0c = 50 kPa)—variation of the ratio of the stress deviator excess (Rq)
123
Geotech Geol Eng
improvement. The slope of the second zone is equal to
SRq = 365 kPa. Similar results are observed for the
variation of the ratio of the stress deviator Rq with the
lateral strain.
Figure 6 shows the influence of geotextile on the
ratio of the volumetric change variation (Rv):
Rv ¼ ðevNg  ev0 Þ=Ng ð2Þ
evNg and ev0 denote volumetric change of reinforced
sand and unreinforced sand, respectively.
It can be observed that the influence of geotextile on
the variation of Rv is similar to that observed with the
stress deviator excess. Two zones can be distin-
guished, with quasi-linear variation. The first zone
indicates low influence of geotextile on the volumetric
change. The slope of the second zone is equal to SRv =
0.47.
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 6 Drained
compression tests (r0c =
50 kPa)—Variation of the
ratio of the volumetric
change variation (Rv)

Figures 7, 8 and 9 show the results obtained at the
confining pressure r0c = 100 kPa. It can be seen that the
influence of the number of geotextile layers is similar
to that observed at the confining pressure r0c = 50 kPa
but with a reduction in the limit of the first zone
(Fig. 8). The limit of this zone is equal to eao = 1%, to
be compared to that observed at r0c = 50 kPa (eao =
2.5%). The slope of the second zone is equal to SRq =
380 kPa, which is higher than that observed with r0c =
50 (SRq = 365 kPa). This result indicates an increase in
the contribution of geotextile with the increase in the
soil confining pressure.
Concerning the volumetric change (Fig. 9), the
slope of the second zone is equal to SRv = 0.23, which
is smaller than that obtained at the confining pressure
r0c = 50 kPa (SRv =0.47). This result indicates a
diminution in the contribution of the geotextile to the
soil contraction with the increase in the soil
confinement.
Figures 10, 11, and 12 show results obtained at a
confining pressure r0c = 200 kPa. A small negative
variation ratio of the stress deviator excess (Rq) is
observed in the first zone (Fig. 11), which indicates
that at high confining pressure, geotextile reduces the
initial axial stiffness of the reinforced soil. In the
second zone, results of these tests are similar to those
observed with lower values of the confining pressure
(r0c = 50 and 100 kPa). The slope of the stress deviator
(SRq) is equal to 440 kPa, which is higher than that
observed at lower confining pressures (365 kPa for r0c
= 50 kPa and 380 for r0c = 100 kPa). These results
indicate enhancement of the geotextile efficiency with
the increase in the confining pressure.
Concerning the volumetric change (Fig. 12 and
Table 2), the slope of the second zone is equal to SRv =
0.18, which is smaller than that obtained at lower
confining pressures (0.47 kPa for r0c = 50 and 0.23 for
r0c = 100 kPa). This result indicates a diminution in the

Fig. 7 Drained 500 5

compression tests conducted Ng= 0 Ng= 0
on reinforced Chlef sand (r0c 0
Ng= 1
Deviator stress, q (kPa)

Volumetric strain, ε v (%)

400 Ng= 1
= 100 kPa) Ng= 2
-5 Ng= 2
Ng= 3
300 Ng= 3
-10

-15
200

-20
100
-25

0 -30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axial strain, ε1(%) Axial strain, ε1(%)

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 8 Drained
compression tests (r0c =
100 kPa) Variation of the
ratio of the stress deviator
excess (Rq)

Fig. 9 Drained
compression tests (r0c =
100 kPa) Variation of the
ratio of the of the volumetric
change variation (Rv)

Fig. 10 Drained 500 5

compression tests conducted Ng= 0
on reinforced Chlef sand (r0c 0 Ng= 0
Ng= 1
Deviator stress, q (kPa)

400
Volumetric strain, ε v(%)

= 200 kPa) Ng= 2 Ng= 1

-5
Ng= 3
Ng= 2
300
-10 Ng= 3

-15
200

-20
100
-25

0 -30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Axial strain, ε1(%) Axial strain, ε1(%)

contribution of geotextile to the soil volume contrac- 3.2 Geotextile Effect on Shear Strength
tion with the increase in the soil confinement. and Mechanical Properties

Figure 13 shows the variation of the shear strength

versus the confining pressure r0c and the number of
geotextile layer Ng. It can be seen a significant

123
Geotech Geol Eng

Fig. 11 Drained
compression tests r0c =
200 kPa) Variation of the
ratio of the stress deviator
excess (Rq)

Fig. 12 Drained
compression tests r0c =
200 kPa)—Variation of the
ratio of the of the volumetric
change variation (Rv)

Table 2 Influence of geotextile on the stress–strain and volumetric change behavior of Chlef sand
Confining pressure r0c (kPa) 50 100 200

SRq (kPa): Slope of variation of the ratio of the stress deviator excess (Rq) with the axial strain 365 380 440
SRv: Slope of variation of the ratio of volumetric change excess (Rv) with the axial strain 0.47 0.23 0.18

influence of these two parameters on the shear strength
that increases with the increase of r0c and Ng. It can
also be noted a linear variation of the shear strength
with the confining pressure. Regarding Ng, the
logarithm of Shear strength could be correlated
linearly to Ng; the following expressions are proposed
to correlate the drained shear strength at the peak (qss)
(Ng) (0 B Ng B 3):
• Log (qss) = 0.58 9 Ng ? 4.10 for r0c = 50 kPa
• Log (qss) = 0.42 9 Ng ? 4.76 for r0c = 100 kPa
• Log (qss) = 0.26 9 Ng ? 5.41 for r0c = 200 kPa
(R2 = 0.98 for r0c = 50 kPa, R2 = 0.99 for r0c =
100 kPa and R2 = 0.99 for r0c = 200 kPa).
Figure 14 shows the variation of the mobilized
angle of internal friction with effective mean pressure
r0c and for several layer number Ng. When increasing
Ng, It can be noted a decrease of the angle of internal
friction when increasing the effective mean pressure.
When increasing the soil.

123
 Geotech Geol Eng

500 500

Shear strength, qss(kpa)

400 400

Shear strength, (kPa)

300 300
Ng =
200 0 200 Chlef Sand
1
50 kPa
2
100 kPa
100 3 100
200 kPa

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 1 2 3 4 5

Confining pressure (kPa) Number of Geotextile,Ng

(a) (b)

Fig. 13 Variation of shear strength versus confining pressure (a) and versus number of geotextiles (b)

60 • Ratio of the stress deviator excess to the number of

Ng=
geotextile layers:
Internal Frictional Angle, ϕ (°)

0
50 1
2
Rq ¼ ðqNg  q0 Þ=Ng:
3
40
• Ratio of the volumetric change excess to the
number of the geotextile layers:
30

20
Rv ¼ ðevNg  ev0 Þ=Ng:

10 However, these results should be taken carefully and

0 50
Effective Mean Pressure, σ'c(Kpa)
Fig. 14 Variation of Internal frictional angle versus effective
mean pressure
4 Conclusions
This paper included a laboratory investigation of the
influence of geotextile on both the stress–strain and
volumetric change behavior of loose medium-grained
sand. Tests were conducted using the Bishop triaxial
device. Results show that the contribution of geotex-
tile at low values of the axial strain is negligible; the
limit of this zone depends on the confining pressure
(2.5% for r0c = 50 kPa and 1% for r0c = 100 kPa). At
higher values of the axial strain, geotextile induces a
quasi-linear increase in the mobilized stress deviator.
Tests show a negligible influence of the number of
geotextile layers (Ng) on both of the:
100 150 200 250
verified for other geotextile properties that could be
find in engineering practice.
Tests conducted at various values of the confining
pressure show that the contribution of geotextile to the
stress–strain mobilization increases with the augmen-
tation in the confining pressure, while its contribution
to the soil volume contraction decreases with the
increase in r0c .
The tests results show that the presence of geotex-
tile leads to an increase of the shear strength with the
increase of confining stress (r0c ) and number of
geotextile (Ng). The reinforced soil becomes con-
tracting when Ng C 2.
The following relations are proposed to correlate
the drained shear strength at the peak (qss) and the
number of geotextile layers (Ng):
• Log (qss) = 0.58 9 Ng ? 4.10 for r0c = 50 kPa
• Log (qss) = 0.42 9 Ng ? 4.76 for r0c =100 kPa
• Log (qss) = 0.26 9 Ng ? 5.41 for r0c = 200 kPa

123
Geotech Geol Eng
Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the financial
support provided by the research fund of PHC Tassili program
for the Franco-Algerian bilateral scientific cooperation.
References
Ahmed Arab (2009) Monotonic and cyclic behaviour of silty
sand. C R Mec 337:621–631
Arab A, Shahrour I, Lancelot L (2011) A laboratory study of
liquefaction of partially saturated sand. J Iber Geol
37(1):29–36
Arab A, Sadek M, Belkhatir M, Shahrour I (2014) Monotonic
preloading effect on the liquefaction resistance of silty
sand: a laboratory study. Arab J Sci Eng 39:685–694.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-013-0700-4
Ashmawy AK, Bourdeau PL (1998) Effect of geotextile rein-
forcement on the stress–strain and volumetric response of
sand. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference
on geosynthetics, Atlanta, vol 2, pp 1079–1082
Athanasopoulos GA (1993) Effect of particle size on the
mechanical behavior of sand-geotextile composites. Geo-
text Geomembr 12:255–273
Belkhatir M, Arab A, Schanz T, Missoum H, Della N (2011)
Laboratory study on the liquefaction resistance of sand-silt
mixtures: effect of grading characteristics. Granul Matter
13(5):599–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-011-0269-
0 Vercueil D, Billet P, Cordary D (1997) Study of the liquefaction
Belkhatir M, Schanz T, Arab A (2013) Effect of fines content
and void ratio on the saturated hydraulic conductivity and
undrained shear strength of sand–silt mixtures. Environ
Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2289-z
View publication stats
Chandrasekaran B, Broms BB, Wang KS (1989) Strength of
fabric reinforced sand under axisymmetric loading. J Geo-
text Geomembr 8:293–310
Della N, Arab A, Belkhatir M, Missoum H (2009) Identification
of the behavior of the Chlef sand to static liquefaction. C R
Mec 337:282–290
Gray DH, Al-Refeai T (1986) Behavior of fabric vs. fiber-re-
inforced sand. J Geotech Eng ASCE 112(8):804–820
Haeri SM, Noorzad R, Oskourouchi AM (2000) Effect of geo-
textile reinforced on the mechanical behavior of sand.
Geotext Geomembr 18:385–402
Krishnaswamym NR, Isaac NT (1994) Liquefaction potential of
reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 13(1):23–41
Ling HI, Tatsuoka F (1993) Laboratory evaluation of a non-
woven geotextile for reinforcing on site soil. Proc Geo-
synth 93(2):533–546
Madhavi Latha G, Murthy VS (2007) Effects of reinforcement
form on the behaviour of geosynthetic reinforced sand.
Geotext Geomembr 25:23–32
McGown A, Andrawes KZ, Al-Hasani MM (1978) Effect of
inclusion properties on the behavior of sand. Geotechnique
28(3):327–347
Tang C, Shi T, Gao W, Chen F, Cai Y (2007) Strength and
mechanical behavior of reinforced and cement stabilized
clayey soil. Geotext Geomembr 25(3):194–202
Unnikrishnan N, Rajagopal K, Krishnaswamy NR (2002)
Behavior of reinforced clay under monotonic and cyclic
loading. Geotext Geomembr 20:117–133
resistance of a saturated sand reinforced with Geosyn-
thetics. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 16:417–425
123