4.1 Article

Shear Strength Response of a Geotextile-Reinforced Chlef Sand: A Laboratory Study

Journal

GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
Volume 34, Issue 6, Pages 1775-1790

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10706-016-9988-7

Keywords

Sand; Behaviour; Reinforcement; Geotextile; Cohesion; Friction angle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

During the last earthquake that occurred in Chlef (El Asnam 1980, Algeria), a significant decrease in the shear strength has caused major damages to several civil and hydraulic structures (earth dams, embankments, bridges, slopes and buildings), especially for the saturated sandy soil of the areas near Chlef valley. This paper presents a laboratory study of drained compression triaxial tests conducted on sandy soil reinforced with horizontal layers of geotextile, in order to study the influence of geotextile layer characteristics both on shear stress-strain and on volumetric change-strain. Tests were carried out on medium and dense sand. The experimental programme includes some drained compression tests performed on reinforced sand samples, for different values of the geotextile layers number (N (g)), of confining pressure () and relative density (D (r)). The test results have shown that the contribution of the geotextile at low values of the axial strain (epsilon (1)) is negligible, for higher values of (epsilon (1)); geotextile induces a quasi-linear increase in the deviator stress (q) and leads to an increase in the volume contractiveness within the reinforced samples. A negligible influence of geotextile layers number (N (g)) on the stress-strain behaviour and the volumetric change has been shown, when normalized with N (g). The results indicate that the contribution of geotextile to the stress-strain mobilization increases with increasing confining pressure, while its contribution to the volume contraction decreases with the increase in the confining pressure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available