sensors

Article
Application of FBG Sensing Technology in Stability
Analysis of Geogrid-Reinforced Slope
Yijie Sun, Hongzhong Xu *, Peng Gu and Wenjie Hu
College of Transportation Science & Engineering, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing 210009, China;
sunnju@njtech.edu.cn (Y.S.); gupengkim@163.com (P.G.); stuwjhu@163.com (W.H.)
* Correspondence: hzhxu@163.com; Tel.: +86-25-8323-9749

Academic Editor: Christophe Caucheteur

Received: 15 December 2016; Accepted: 2 March 2017; Published: 15 March 2017

Abstract: By installing FBG sensors on the geogrids, smart geogrids can both reinforce and monitor
the stability for geogrid-reinforced slopes. In this paper, a geogrid-reinforced sand slope model test is
conducted in the laboratory and fiber Bragg grating (FBG) sensing technology is used to measure
the strain distribution of the geogrid. Based on the model test, the performance of the reinforced
soil slope is simulated by finite element software Midas-GTS, and the stability of the reinforced soil
slope is analyzed by strength reduction method. The relationship between the geogrid strain and the
factor of safety is set up. The results indicate that the measured strain and calculated results agree
very well. The geogrid strain measured by FBG sensor can be applied to evaluate the stability of
geogrid-reinforced sand slopes.

Keywords: FBG; geogrid; slope; numerical modeling; stability analysis

1. Introduction
It is common to improve the stability of a slope using reinforced geosynthetics such as geogrids
and geotextiles. This method is simple and convenient for construction with low cost, and has been
widely used in practical engineering [1]. Many researchers have conducted a variety of laboratory
and field tests on the geogrid reinforcement behavior. It is found that the internal stability of the
geogrid-reinforced slope is affected by the direct sliding and pullout resistance along the soil–geogrid
interface and the tensile resistance of geogrid layers [2–4]. Therefore, accurate deformation/force
measurement of the geogrid is important for the design and proper assessment of reinforced slopes [5,6].
Numerous investigations on the measurement of geogrid internal force have been carried out
by various methods. Bathurst et al. [1] used a high-elongation strain gauge and found a nonlinear
relationship between the local and global strain of the geogrid. Eekelen et al. [7] employed bicycle
gear cables to measure strains within the geosynthetic. Yang et al. [8] employed flexible displacement
sensors to study the field behavior of a geogrid-reinforced soil retaining wall. However, conventional
sensors are usually inconvenient to install in the field and are susceptible to electromagnetic interference
(EMI), affecting the accuracy of monitoring results.
In the last few decades, fiber Bragg grating (FBG) technology has developed quickly. The civil
engineering community has successfully used FBG sensors for structural health monitoring due to
their unique advantages over traditional electrical-based sensors, such as their light weight and small
size, immunity to EMI, waterproof property, high sensitivity, and excellent long term durability. Some
researchers have employed FBGs to geotechnical-related health monitoring. Pei et al. [9] improved
an FBG in-place inclinometer for slope movement and demonstrated its higher sensitivity compared
to conventional inclinometers. Zhu et al. [10] used FBGs to monitor the performance of a soil nailed
slope and found that the tensile forces of nails had a close relationship with rainfall infiltration and
soil mass movement. Zamara et al. [11] successfully applied FBGs to measure the geosynthetic

Sensors 2017, 17, 597; doi:10.3390/s17030597 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2017, 17, 597 2 of 9

with rainfall infiltration and soil mass movement. Zamara et al. [11] successfully applied FBGs
Sensors 2017, 17, 597
to
2 of 9
measure the geosynthetic reinforced landfills in the field. The FBG-based smart geogrids can achieve
both reinforcement and sensing capabilities.
reinforced landfills
The limit in the field.
equilibrium method The(LEM)
FBG-based smartmethod
is the main geogridsto can achievegeogrid-reinforced
investigate both reinforcementslope and
sensing capabilities.
stability. Blatz and Bathurst [12] conducted three large-scale laboratory model tests and analyzed the
The capacity
bearing limit equilibrium method
of the slope (LEM)
using is theHowever,
LEM. main method to investigate
LEM-based models geogrid-reinforced
do not achieveslope the
stability.
deformationBlatzsimulation.
and Bathurst The[12] conducted
finite elementthree
method large-scale laboratory
(FEM)-based modelapproach
numerical tests and is analyzed
often used the
bearing capacity
to simulate the of the slope using
laboratory. BasedLEM. However,
on FEM, LEM-basedet
Tanchaisawat models do investigated
al. [13] not achieve the thedeformation
reinforced
simulation.
behavior of The finitein
geogrids element
soft clay,method
and Li(FEM)-based numerical
et al. [14] studied approach
the viscous is oftenofused
behavior to simulate the
geogrid-reinforced
laboratory.
sand, providingBasedsatisfactory
on FEM, Tanchaisawat
prediction with et al.the
[13] investigated
test the reinforced
results. Recently, a strengthbehavior
reduction of geogrids
method
in soft on
based clay,
FEM andwas Li etdeveloped.
al. [14] studied the viscous
It is useful to getbehavior of geogrid-reinforced
the stability sand, providing
state and strain distribution of a
satisfactory
reinforced body,prediction
which with
arethe test results.
helpful for theRecently, a strength
investigation reduction
of the methodand
deformation based on FEM
failure lawswas of
developed. It is useful
geogrid-reinforced slopes. to get the stability state and strain distribution of a reinforced body, which are
helpful
In for
thisthe investigation
paper, of the deformation
a static loading and failure lawsgeogrid-reinforced
test on a medium-sized of geogrid-reinforced slopeslopes.
model was
In this in
conducted paper, a static loading
the laboratory. test on were
FBG sensors a medium-sized
installed along geogrid-reinforced slope model
the geogrid to measure was
its strain
conducted in the laboratory. FBG sensors were installed along the
distribution. Using the FEM-based numerical model, the relationship between the characteristic geogrid to measure its strain
distribution. Using the
strain of the geogrid andFEM-based
the factornumerical
of safety of model, the relationship
the model between the The
slope was established. characteristic strain
analysis results
of the geogrid
verify and the factor
the effectiveness of theofFBG safety of thetechnologies
sensing model slopeinwas theestablished.
performance The analysis results
monitoring verify
and stability
the effectiveness
elevation of the FBG
of a reinforced sensing technologies in the performance monitoring and stability elevation
slope.
of a reinforced slope.
2. Model Test
2. Model Test
In this paper, a laboratory geogrid-reinforced sand slope model test was conducted. The size of
In thismodel
the slope paper,was a laboratory
2.05 m long,geogrid-reinforced
1 m wide, and sand1.2slope model
m high. Thetest was inclination
slope conducted. was The size
45°. ofA
the slope model was 2.05 m long, 1 m wide, and 1.2 m high. The slope inclination was 45 ◦ . A hydraulic
hydraulic jack which rested on a thick iron plate of 0.3 m length was used to apply load on the slope
jack
crest.which
It wasrested
20 cmonaway a thick
fromirontheplate
slopeof shoulder.
0.3 m length was 1used
Figure showsto apply
more load onabout
details the slope
the crest.
setup Itofwas
the
20 cm away from the slope shoulder. Figure 1 shows more details about
model test. Figure 2 shows a photo of the geogrid installed with sensors and the reinforced slope the setup of the model test.
Figure
model.2 shows a photo of the geogrid installed with sensors and the reinforced slope model.

Figure 1. General arrangement of the geogrid-reinforced slope and locations of fiber Bragg grating
Figure 1. General arrangement of the geogrid-reinforced slope and locations of fiber Bragg grating
(FBG) sensors.
(FBG) sensors.
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 3 of 9
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 3 of 9

(a) (b)
Figure 2.2.Photographs
Figure Photographsofof thethe geogrid
geogrid andand slope
slope model:
model: (a) geogrid
(a) geogrid installed
installed with sensors;
with sensors; (b)
(b) upward
upward
view view
of the of the slope.
slope.

The slope consists of fine sand with two horizontal layers of bi-directional geogrid marked as
The slope consists of fine sand with two horizontal layers of bi-directional geogrid marked
geogrid A and geogrid B. The arrangement of the measurement point is presented in Figure 1. As
as geogrid A and geogrid B. The arrangement of the measurement point is presented in Figure 1.
illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2a, a total of seven FBG sensors were installed along the ribs of the
As illustrated in Figures 1 and 2a, a total of seven FBG sensors were installed along the ribs of the
geogrid. Wavelengths of FBGs were measured by interrogator type SM125. It should also be noted
geogrid. Wavelengths of FBGs were measured by interrogator type SM125. It should also be noted that
that seven electrical resistance strain gauges were installed in addition to the FBGs for contrast.
seven electrical resistance strain gauges were installed in addition to the FBGs for contrast. However,
However, only one electrical strain gauge at location A1 survived to completion of the experiment,
only one electrical strain gauge at location A1 survived to completion of the experiment, while none of
while none of the FBGs broke down. The properties of the soil used in this test are given in Table 1.
the FBGs broke down. The properties of the soil used in this test are given in Table 1. The load was
The load was applied in a direction perpendicular to the top surface of the model with an increment
applied in a direction perpendicular to the top surface of the model with an increment of 3 kN (i.e.,
of 3 kN (i.e., 10 kPa) under manual control.
10 kPa) under manual control.
Table 1. Properties
Table 1. Properties of
of the
the soil
soil in
in the
the model
model test.
test.

Bulk Density Density Elastic Modulus Poisson’s Internal Friction

Bulk Density
(kN/m 3) (kg/m Elastic(MPa)
Modulus Internal Friction
Density (kg/m3)3 ) Ratio
Poisson’s Ratio Angle (°)
(kN/m3 ) (MPa) Angle (◦ )
20 1549 100 0.3 36
20 1549 100 0.3 36

Each new step load was applied on the model as long as the monitoring data of the strain
Each
sensors new step
changed load
less was
than 10 applied on the model
με per minute. as long as the
The parameters monitoring
of the datashown
geogrid are of the in
strain sensors
Table 2.
changed less than 10 µε per minute. The parameters of the geogrid are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Properties of the geogrid.
Table 2. Properties of the geogrid.
Ultimate Longitudinal Tensile Strength Longitudinal Strain/MPa
Material
(kN/m)
Ultimate Longitudinal (%)
Material Longitudinal Strain/MPa (%)
Polypropylene Tensile Strength
83.5 (kN/m) 9.7
Polypropylene 83.5 9.7
3. Numerical Simulation of Slope Model
3. Numerical Simulation
In this paper, ofelement
the finite Slope Model
model is built by the software Midas-GTS, as shown in Figure 3.
The geometry size of the numerical model
In this paper, the finite element model is is built
consistent
by thewith that of
software the physical
Midas-GTS, as model.
shown inThe model
Figure 3.
has geometry
The two supporting constraints:
size of the numerical the left and
model right sides
is consistent withwere
thatfixed
of thewith the displacement
physical model. The modelin thehasx
direction,
two whileconstraints:
supporting both the xthe and
leftyand
directions
right sideswere fixed
were forwith
fixed the the
model’s bottom.inSurcharge
displacement load
the x direction,
increased by 3 kN per step. The parameters of the soil for the finite element analysis
while both the x and y directions were fixed for the model’s bottom. Surcharge load increased by 3 kN are presented in
Table
per 1, which
step. uses the of
The parameters Mohr–Coulomb
the soil for the model. The structural
finite element unitpresented
analysis are (1D) provided
in Tableby
1, Midas was
which uses
employed to simulate the geogrid. The weight of geogrid and its ability
the Mohr–Coulomb model. The structural unit (1D) provided by Midas was employed to simulate to bear compressive stress
were ignored. Springs connections between the geogrid and the soil were defined.
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 4 of 9

the geogrid. The weight of geogrid and its ability to bear compressive stress were ignored. Springs
connections
Sensors 2017, 17,between
597 the geogrid and the soil were defined. 4 of 9
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 4 of 9

Figure 3. Finite element model.

Figure 3. Finite element model.

Figure 3 shows the numerical model of slope, in which the red lines represent two horizontal
Figure 33 shows
Figure shows the numerical
numerical model of of slope,
slope, in
in which
which the
the red lines
lines represent
represent two
two horizontal
horizontal
layers of geogrid, thethe
blue rectanglemodel
represents the loading area. red
The stability of geogrid-reinforced
layers
layers of geogrid,
of geogrid, the blue
the by
blue rectangle
rectangle represents
represents the loading
the loading area. The
area.ofThe stability
stability of geogrid-reinforced
soil slope is analyzed strength reduction method. The factor safety of the of geogrid-reinforced
slope is calculated.
soil slope
soil slope is
is analyzed
analyzed by
by strength
strength reduction
reduction method.
method. TheThe factor
factor of
of safety
safety of
of the
the slope
slope is
is calculated.
calculated.
4. Test Results and Analysis
4. Test
4. Results and
Test Results and Analysis
Analysis
4.1. Strain Monitoring Results
4.1. Strain Monitoring Results
Figure 4 shows the monitoring results of the FBG and the electrical resistance strain gauge at
Figure 4 shows the monitoring results of the FBG and the electrical
electrical resistance
resistance strain gauge at
location A1 under different surcharge loads. The data agree well with each other, indicating that the
location A1 under different surcharge loads. The data agree well with each other, indicating that the
FBG could measure the strain of geogrid accurately. The strain value increment rate of both FBG
FBG could
could measure
measurethethestrain
strainofofgeogrid
geogridaccurately.
accurately.The strain
The value
strain increment
value incrementraterate
of both FBG FBG
of both and
and electrical resistance strain gauge decreased when the load was larger than 33 kN.
electrical resistance
and electrical strainstrain
resistance gauge decreased
gauge whenwhen
decreased the load was larger
the load than than
was larger 33 kN.33 kN.
500
500 electrical resistance strain gauge
electrical resistance strain gauge
FBG strain sensor
FBG strain sensor
400
400
/
Strain/

300
300
Strain

200
200

100
100

0
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42
Loading /kN
Loading /kN
Figure 4. Comparison between FBG and electrical resistance strain gauge test results.
Figure 4. Comparison
Figure 4. Comparison between
between FBG
FBG and
and electrical resistance strain
electrical resistance strain gauge
gauge test
test results.
results.

When the load increased from 33 kN to 36 kN, some visible cracks appeared on the slope
When the load increased from 33 kN to 36 kN, some visible cracks appeared on the slope
When
surface, andthethese
load increased from 33 kN
cracks developed to 36 kN, When
gradually. some visible cracks
the load appeared
increased to on
39the slope
kN, thesurface,
cracks
surface, and these cracks developed gradually. When the load increased to 39 kN, the cracks
and these cracks
connected to eachdeveloped
other andgradually.
the slope When
movedthe loadthe
along increased to 39 kN,asthe
failure surface, cracksinconnected
shown Figure 5. to each
connected to each other and the slope moved along the failure surface, as shown in Figure 5.
other and the slope moved along the failure surface, as shown in Figure 5.
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 5 of 9
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 5 of 9

Sensors 2017, 17, 597 5 of 9

Figure 5. Crack development and damage of slope in the test.

Figure 5. Crack development and damage of slope in the test.
Figure 5. Crack development and damage of slope in the test.
Figure 6a,b shows the strain distribution of the geogrid under different loads in geogrid A and
Figure
geogrid Figure 6a,b
B. The6a,b shows
shows
results the
thestrain
strain
indicate distribution
distribution
that of the
of
the FBG strain the geogrid
geogrid
values underA2
of under
point different
different
and B6 loads
loads in in
under geogrid
geogrid
the A area
A and
loading and
geogrid
geogrid
are B.B.The
the largest results
Theinresults indicate
indicatethat
the horizontal that the
the FBG strain
FBGand
direction, strain
that values
values ofofpoint
the strain point A2and
A2
decreasedandB6B6 under
under
gradually thethe loading
toloading
both areaarea
sides. A
are
morethe largest
are the
sharply in
largest the horizontal
in the horizontal
decreasing direction,
rate was and
direction,
seen onand that
the that the
side the strain decreased
strain
close decreased
to the gradually
gradually
front surface to both
to slope
of the sides. A
both sides. more
A
compared
sharply
tomore decreasing
sharply
that near backrate
the decreasing was
edge. seen
rate wason theon
seen side
theclose
side to theto
close front
the surface of theofslope
front surface compared
the slope to that
compared
near the back
to that edge.
near the back edge.
3 kN A2 2500 3 kN 2500
3 kN A2 2500 3 6kN
kN 2500
6 kN
6 kN
9 kN 6 9kN
kN
2000 B6 2000
12kN9 kN 912kN
kN
2000 B6 2000
12kN
15kN 12kN
15kN
15kN
18kN 15kN
18kN B7

Strain /
/

18kN 1500 18kN 1500

B7

Strain /
21kN 21kN
Strain/

1500 1500
21kN 21kN
24kN
24kN A3
24kN 24kN
Strain

27kN A3 27kN
27kN 1000 27kN 1000
30kN 1000 30kN 1000
30kN 30kN
33kN 33kN B5
33kN 33kN B5
36kN A1A1
36kN 36kN
36kN 500
500
500 500
39kN
39kN 39kN
39kN
B4
B4
00 0 0
140140 120120 100
100 8080 60
60 40
40 20
20 140
140 120
120 100
100 80 80 60 60 40 40 20 20
Distance
Distancefrom
frombackwall
backwallof slope //cm
ofslope Distancefrom
Distance from backwall
backwall of slope /cm/cm
of slope
(a)
(a) (b)(b)
Figure6.6.FBG-measured
Figure FBG-measured strain
strain distribution
distribution of
of geogrid
geogrid under
underdifferent
differentloads.
loads.(a)(a)
Geogrid A; A;
Geogrid
Figure 6. FBG-measured strain distribution of geogrid under different loads. (a) Geogrid A;
(b)(b) GeogridB.B.
Geogrid
(b) Geogrid B.

4.2.
4.2. Comparisonbetween
Comparison betweenthe theTest
Test and
and the
the Numerical
Numerical Simulation
Simulation
4.2. Comparison between the Test and the Numerical Simulation
Figure7 7shows
Figure showsthe thevertical
vertical load–displacement
load–displacement results
resultsininthe
themiddle
middleofofthetheloading
loadingplate forfor
plate thethe
testFigure
and 7 shows
the numericalthe vertical load–displacement
simulation. The settlement results
in the in the
slope middle
crest of theapproximately
increases loading plate for the test
linearly
test and the numerical simulation. The settlement in the slope crest increases approximately linearly
and the numerical
during theinitial simulation.
initialloading
loadingperiod,The settlement
period, and the in the slope crest increases
the numerical approximately linearly during
during the and numericalsimulation
simulationand andmonitoring
monitoring results areare
results in good
in good
theagreement
initial loading period,
with each andHowever,
other. the numerical simulation
the deviation and monitoring
increases results arecritical
when approaching in good agreement
loads. The
agreement with each other. However, the deviation increases when approaching critical loads. The
with each other.
numerical However,
simulation thedo
results deviation increases
not converge when when approaching
the load increases critical
to 36 kN, loads. The numerical
indicating that a
numerical simulation results do not converge when the load increases to 36 kN, indicating that a
simulation results
certain scale of do
slipnot converge
surface whenand
formed the became
load increases to 36 kN,
continuous. indicating
However, the that a certaingauge
settlement scale of
certain scale of slip surface formed and became continuous. However, the settlement gauge
increased
slip gradually
surface formed anduntil 39 kN.
became The heterogeneity
continuous. However, and
thecrack propagation
settlement gauge of the soil gradually
increased led to some until
increased gradually until 39 kN. The heterogeneity and crack propagation of the soil led to some
39local
kN. failure of the soil mass.
The heterogeneity andThis
crack may be one of the
propagation main
of the reasons
soil led tofor the local
some deviation
failurebetween
of the the
soiltest
mass.
local failure
andmay
of the
simulation
soil mass.
results during
This mayloading
the late
be one stages.
of the main reasons for the deviation between the test
This be one of the main reasons for the deviation between the test and simulation results during
and simulation results during the late loading stages.
the late loading stages.
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 6 of 9
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 6 of 9
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 6 of 9
8
8 measured displacement
7 measured displacement
7 calculated displacement
calculated displacement
6

Displacement/mm
6

Displacement/mm
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42
Loading/ kN
Loading/ kN
Figure 7. The load–displacement curves for the test and numerical simulation.
Figure
Figure 7. The
7. The load–displacement
load–displacement curves
curves forfor
thethe
testtest
andand numerical
numerical simulation.
simulation.
The comparison of test and numerical simulation results between measurement point A2 and
The comparison of test and numerical simulation results between measurement point A2 and
B6 is depicted in Figure 8. At the beginning of the loading, the strain value and the increment rate of
B6 At the beginning of the loading, the strain value and the increment rate of
theisgeogrid
depicted in Figureby
measured 8. FBG was larger than that of geogrid B, meaning that the geogrid A played
the
a major role in the reinforcement oflarger
geogrid measured by FBG was than that
the slope. Withofthe
geogrid B, meaning
increase that the
of load, their geogrid
values showA aplayed
trend
major role in the reinforcement of the slope. With
asuggesting the
the increase
increase ofeffect.
With reinforcement load, their values show a trend
that geogrid B begins to perform a better
better reinforcement
suggesting that geogrid B begins to perform a better reinforcement effect.
effect.
3000
3000 A2 FBG
A2
A2 FBG
MIDAS
2500 A2 MIDAS
B6 FBG
2500 B6
B6 FBG
MIDAS
B6 MIDAS
2000
2000
//

1500
Strain

1500
Strain

1000
1000

500
500

0
00 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42
0 3 6 9 12 15 Loading
18 21 24/ kN
27 30 33 36 39 42
Loading/ kN
Figure 8. The comparison of test and numerical simulation results.
Figure 8. The comparison of test and numerical simulation results.
Figure 8. The comparison of test and numerical simulation results.
5. The Evaluation of Reinforced Sand Slope Stability
5. The Evaluation of Reinforced Sand Slope Stability
5. The Evaluation
According to of Reinforced
numerical Sand Slope
simulation, Stability
it was found that the stress/strain state as well as the
According to numerical simulation, it was found that the stress/strain state as well as the
stability condition
According of the geogrid
to numerical reinforced
simulation, slope changed
it was found under the action
that the stress/strain state asofwell
surcharge loads.
as the stability
stability condition of the geogrid reinforced slope changed under the action of surcharge loads.
condition of the geogrid reinforced slope changed under the action of surcharge loads. With the
With the propagating of the plastic zones, strains of the geogrid will accumulate. Additionally,
With the propagating of the plastic zones, strains of the geogrid will accumulate. Additionally, the
monitoring results
propagating demonstrate
of the plastic zones, that theofstrain
strains state ofwill
the geogrid geogrid has a good
accumulate. correlationthe
Additionally, with the load
monitoring
monitoring results demonstrate that the strain state of geogrid has a good correlation with the load
increment. Therefore, there should be a close relationship between the geogrid
results demonstrate that the strain state of geogrid has a good correlation with the load increment. strain and the factor
increment. Therefore, there should be a close relationship between the geogrid strain and the factor
of safety ofthere
Therefore, the slope.
should be a close relationship between the geogrid strain and the factor of safety of
of safety of the slope.
Zhu et al. [15,16] found that the average maximum horizontal strain of soil mass at different
the slope.
Zhu et al. [15,16] found that the average maximum horizontal strain of soil mass at different
elevation
Zhu et hasal.a [15,16]
good empirical
found that relationship
the average with
maximum the factor of safetystrain
horizontal of theofunreinforced
soil mass at fill slope.
different
elevation has a good empirical relationship with the factor of safety of the unreinforced fill slope.
Analogously,
elevation characteristic
has a good empirical geogrid strain is
relationship introduced
with the factorhere, whichofisthe
of safety defined as the average
unreinforced of
fill slope.
Analogously, a characteristic geogrid strain is introduced here, which is defined as the average of
maximum strains
Analogously, of geogrid; i.e.,
a characteristic geogrid strain is introduced here, which is defined as the average of
maximum strains of geogrid; i.e.,
maximum strains of geogrid; i.e.,
(ε gi) ) 
n
max(
∑in=ni 11max
 
 i 1 max(gigi )
ε gg =
nn
 (1)
(1)
(1)
g
n
 Sensors 2017, 17, 597 7 of 9
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 7 of 9
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 7 of 9
where  gi is the measured geogrid strain at the i-th strain monitoring section (i = 1, 2, …, n), and
where  gi is the measured geogrid strain at the i-th strain monitoring section (i = 1, 2, …, n), and
 g is the
ε giaverage of measured geogrid strain.
where is the measured geogrid
g is the average of measured geogrid strain.
strain at the i-th strain monitoring section (i = 1, 2, . . . , n), and ε g is
Equation
the average (2) is usedgeogrid
of measured to describe the empirical relationship between the geogrid strain and the
strain.
Equation
factor of safety. (2) is used to describe the empirical relationship between the geogrid strain and the
Equation (2) is used to describe the empirical relationship between the geogrid strain and the
factor of safety.
factor of safety.
a a((εgg)b)b
b
K (2)
K g  a( g )
K gg =
(2)
(2)

where
where K Kggisisthe
thefactor
factorofof safety
safety calculated
calculated withwith strength
strength reduction
reduction method
method andab and
and aand b are
are two two
fitting
where
fitting Kparameters.
parameters.g is the factor of safety calculated with strength reduction method and a and b are two fitting

parameters.
According
According to to the
the results
results ofof the
the test
test model
model in in this
this paper,
paper, parameters
parameters are
are fitted as aa =
fitted as 402.3,
= 402.3,
bb = According
−0.796.The
= −0.796. to the results
Thecorrelation of the
correlationcoefficient test 2 model
coefficientRR2 isisfound in
foundto this
to be paper,
be 0.9816 parameters
0.9816 (Figure
(Figure 9). are
9). As fitted
As the
the value as
value ofa = 402.3,
of geogrid
geogrid
bstrain
= −0.796. The
increases, correlation
the factor coefficient
of safety of R 2 is found to be 0.9816 (Figure 9). As the value of geogrid
the slope decreases
strain increases, the factor of safety of the slope decreases gradually. gradually.
strain increases, the factor of safety of the slope decreases gradually.
5
5
-0.796
y=402.3x-0.796
4 y=402.3x
2
4 R2 =0.9816
R =0.9816
safety
safety

3
3
of of
Factor
Factor

2
2

1
1

0
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Strain of Geogrid /
Strain of Geogrid /
Figure
Figure9.9. Relationships between
Relationshipsbetween
9.Relationships the
betweenthe factor
thefactor
factorofof safety
ofsafety and
safetyand geogrid characteristic
andgeogrid
geogrid characteristic strain.
strain.
Figure characteristic strain.
Figure 10 shows the good relationship between the loading, the factor of safety, and the strain
Figure
Figure
of the 10shows
10
geogrid. shows thegood
the
It illustrates good relationship
thatrelationship
as the loading between
between the
on thethe loading,
loading,
slope thefactor
the factorthe
crest increases, ofsafety,
of safety,of
factor and
and the strain
the
safety strain
of the
of
of the
the geogrid.
geogrid. ItIt illustrates
illustrates that
that as
as the
the loading
loading on
on the
the slope
slope crest
crest increases,
increases, the
the factor
factor
slope decreases as the geogrid strain increases gradually. Therefore, the strain state of geogrid can of
of safety
safety ofthe
of the
be
slope
slope decreases
decreases asas the
the geogrid
geogrid strain
strain increases
increases gradually.
gradually. Therefore,
Therefore, the
the strain
strain state
state
used to evaluate the factor of safety of this model slope as well as the surcharge load condition. of
of geogrid
geogrid can
can be
be
used
usedtotoevaluate
evaluatethethefactor
factorof
of safety
safety of
of this
this model
model slope
slope asas well
well as
as the
the surcharge
surcharge load condition.

Figure 10. Relationship between loading, characteristic maximum strain, and the factor of safety.
Figure 10. Relationship between loading, characteristic maximum strain, and the factor of safety.
Figure 10. Relationship between loading, characteristic maximum strain, and the factor of safety.
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 8 of 9

6. Conclusions
A geogrid-reinforced sand slope model test was conducted. A static loading test was carried out.
A quasi-distributed optical fiber sensing system for measuring the longitudinal strain of the geogrid
was installed based on FBG sensing technology. The conclusions are summarized as follows:

1. The FBG sensors were employed to measure the strain distribution of the geogrid effectively.
2. There was an empirical relationship between the geogrid strain and the factor of safety for the
model slope. This result indicates that the geogrid strain can be applied to evaluate the stability
of the slope.

This study shows the potential of FBG-based monitoring technology in the analysis of
slope stability.
However, it is worth pointing out that the temperature effect on the FBG monitoring data is
overlooked in the present paper because of the short test period. In the long-term monitoring of
the actual slope, the temperature influence on the monitoring results should be considered seriously
by using different temperature compensation methods according to the field conditions. Another
important factor that was neglected is the scale factor effect. Full-scale and field tests are critical to
improve the understanding of the behavior of reinforced soil slopes. Therefore, further studies will
be conducted to determine the feasibility of applying this technology-based method to evaluate the
stability of a reinforced slope in real situations considering these the factors.

Acknowledgments: The research of this paper is supported by Qing Lan Project, the National Science Foundation
of China (No. 41072217), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20160997) and Natural science fund
for colleges and universities in Jiangsu Province (16KJB410001).
Author Contributions: Yijie Sun, Hongzhong Xu, Peng Gu and Wenjie Hu do all the work of this paper together
under the leadership of Hongzhong Xu.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bathurst, R.J.; Blatz, J.A.; Burger, M.H. Performance of Instrumented large-scale unreinforced and reinforced
embankments loaded by a strip footing to failure. Can. Geotech. J. 2003, 40, 1067–1083. [CrossRef]
2. Balakrishnan, S.; Viswanadham, B.V.S. Evaluation of tensile load-strain characteristics of geogrids through
in-soil tensile tests. Geotext. Geomembr. 2016, 45, 35–44. [CrossRef]
3. Abdi, M.R.; Zandieh, A.R. Experimental and numerical analysis of large scale pull out tests conducted on
clays reinforced with geogrids encapsulated with coarse material. Geotext. Geomembr. 2014, 42, 494–504.
[CrossRef]
4. Latha, G.M.; Murthy, V.S. Effects of reinforcement form on the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced sand.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2007, 25, 23–32. [CrossRef]
5. Gnanendran, C.T.; Selvadurai, A.P.S. Strain measurement and interpretation of stabilizing force in geogrid
reinforced. Geotext. Geomembr. 2001, 19, 177–194. [CrossRef]
6. Chen, R.P.; Wang, Y.W.; Ye, X.W.; Bian, X.C.; Dong, X.P. Tensile force of geogrids embedded in pile-supported
reinforced embankment: A full-scale experimental study. Geotext. Geomembr. 2016, 44, 157–169. [CrossRef]
7. Eekelen, S.; Bezuijen, A.; Lodder, H.J.; Tol, A.F. Model experiments on piled embankments. Part I.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2012, 32, 69–81. [CrossRef]
8. Yang, G.; Ding, J.; Zhou, Q.; Zhang, B. Field Behavior of a Geogrid Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall with
a Wrap-Around Facing. Geotechn. Test. J. 2010, 33, 96–101.
9. Pei, H.; Cui, P.; Yin, J.; Zhu, H.; Chen, X.; Pei, L.; Xu, D. Monitoring and Warning of Landslides and Debris
Flows Using an Optical Fiber Sensor Technology. J. Mt. Sci. 2011, 8, 728–738. [CrossRef]
10. Zhu, H.H.; Ho, A.N.L.; Yin, J.H.; Sun, H.W.; Pei, H.F.; Hong, C.Y. An optical fibre monitoring system for
evaluating the performance of a soil nailed slope. Smart Struct. Syst. 2012, 9, 393–410. [CrossRef]
11. Zamara, K.A.; Dixon, N.; Jones, D.R.; Fowmes, G. Monitoring of a landfill side slope lining system:
Instrument selection, installation and performance. Geotext. Geomembr. 2012, 35, 1–13. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2017, 17, 597 9 of 9

12. Blatz, J.A.; Bathurst, R.J. Limit equilibrium analysis of large-scale reinforced and unreinforced embankments
loaded by a strip footing. Can. Geotech. J. 2003, 40, 1084–1092. [CrossRef]
13. Tanchaisawat, T.; Bergado, D.T.; Voottipruex, P. Numerical simulation and sensitivity analyses of full-scale
test embankment with reinforced lightweight geomaterials on soft Bangkok clay. Geotext. Geomembr. 2008,
26, 498–511. [CrossRef]
14. Li, F.L.; Peng, F.L.; Tan, Y.; Kongkitkul, W.; Siddiquee, M.S.A. FE simulation of viscous behavior of
geogrid-reinforced sand under laboratory-scale plane-strain-compression testing. Geotext. Geomembr. 2012,
31, 72–80. [CrossRef]
15. Zhu, H.H.; Shi, B.; Zhang, J.; Yan, J.F.; Zhang, C.C. Distributed fiber optic monitoring and stability analysis
of a model slope under surcharge loading. JMS 2014, 11, 979–989. [CrossRef]
16. Zhu, H.H.; Wang, Z.Y.; Shi, B.; Wong, J.K.-W. Feasibility study of strain based stability evaluation of locally
loaded slopes: Insights from physical and numerical modeling. Eng. Geol. 2016, 208, 39–50. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright of Sensors (14248220) is the property of MDPI Publishing and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.