KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2015) 19(3):602-610 Geotechnical Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-013-0274-4 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Pullout Resistance of Geogrid Reinforcement with

In-plane Drainage Capacity in Cohesive Soil
Youngcheol Kang*, BooHyun Nam**, Jorge G. Zornberg***, and Yoon-Ho Cho****
Received May 14, 2013/Revised 1st: November 4, 2013, 2nd: November 25, 2013/Accepted March 5, 2014/Published Online November 21, 2014

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

This study presents the results of geogrid pullout tests conducted in wet and fine-grained soils. Failures of reinforced soil structures
have often involved inadequate drainage due to the use of fine-grained soils, which has led to stringent specifications for backfill
material in such structures although there are significant economic reasons for relieving the specifications. One approach to improve
the issue is to reinforce fine-grained soils with geosynthetic providing both reinforcement and lateral drainage. Although using
reinforcement with in-plane drainage capability is conceptually promising, transmissivity requirements for this application have not
been properly evaluated. Pullout tests were conducted on cohesive soils using geogrids with the same tensile strength but with and
without in-plane drainage channels. The results indicate that geogrids with in-plane drainage layers show higher pullout resistance
than conventional geogrids. The finding contributes to promoting the use of poorly draining soils as backfill material.
Keywords: pullout, geogrid, in-plane drainage, and cohesive soils
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction a proper design of drainage system, the pore pressure can be a

cause of system failure. In addition, lower hydraulic conductivity
Free draining granular materials have been conventionally can induce high moisture in the soil, which may cause volume
specified for the backfill material of reinforced soil structures. change issue due to freezing. For a steel reinforcement system
The gradation requirements of the backfill used in reinforced soil with poorly draining backfill materials, corrosion can be a
structures are often very restrictive, as most agencies in the U.S. problem because of high moisture. Second, time dependent
preclude the use of fine-grained backfill soils. This stringent deformation is another aspect of concern. It will take place when
requirement has significant economic implications. According to using poorly draining materials because of the creep effect.
Zeynep (1992), the use of granular fill has been reported to be However, these concerns can be addressed if good internal
the most expensive component of a reinforced soil retaining drainage is provided by using geosynthetic reinforcements with
system, typically corresponding to 40% of the total construction in-plane drainage capabilities when the backfill is saturated.
costs. However, there are concerns in relaxing these requirements Accordingly, the selected geosynthetic should have not only
since most failures in reinforced soil structures have involved the adequate tensile strength to satisfy external and internal stability
use of poorly draining backfills (Zornberg and Mitchell, 1994; requirements, but also adequate transmissivity to dissipate possible
Mitchell and Zornberg, 1994; Helwany, 1999). The Federal positive pore pressure. Benjamim et al. (2007) investigated using
Highway Administration (FHWA) permits maximum percent nonwoven geotextiles as reinforcements and drains and reported
fines of 15% for Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls. that nonwoven geotextiles have lower tensile strength but higher
There are several concerns regarding the use of fine-grained drainage capabilities.
soils as backfill materials. First, poorly draining materials have
lower hydraulic conductivity. For a retaining wall system constructed 2. Case Studies Involving Poor Drainage Backfills
with poorly draining backfill material, infiltration can generate
“positive” pore pressures (or referred as pore pressure). Without Usually, well graded, free draining granular material is used

*Assistant Professor, Dept. of Global Construction Management, International School of Urban Sciences, The University of Seoul, Seoul 130-743, Korea
(E-mail: ykang0123@uos.ac.kr)
**Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Construction Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando 32816, FL, USA (Correspond-
ing Author, E-mail: boohyun.nam@ucf.edu)
***Professor, Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering (GEO), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-1174, USA (E-mail: zorn-
berg@mail.utexas.edu)
****Member, Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Korea (E-mail: yhcho@cau.ac.kr)

− 602 −
 Pullout Resistance of Geogrid Reinforcement with In-plane Drainage Capacity in Cohesive Soil

for the construction of reinforced soil walls and embankments.

The FHWA specifies the gradation and soundness limits for
mechanically stabilized earth walls (Christopher and Berg, 1990).
The plasticity index for the backfill is also specified; PI < 6 for
walls and PI < 20 for slopes. The maximum aggregate size is 19
mm (¾ in.) for extensible reinforcement unless field tests are
performed to evaluate potential strength reductions due to
reinforcement damage during construction.
Fig. 1. Schematic Diagram showing Deformation of Embankment:
On the other hand, poor drainage materials such as clays and (A) Rotation About the Toe, (b) Sliding along DE, (c) Settle-
silts are of major concern for the structure design, and they are ment due to Local Compression Failure at the Toe
referred as “poorly draining backfills” in this paper. Other terms,
such as low-quality, cohesive, fine-grained, or marginal backfills
have also been used in the technical literature to refer to these include permeable reinforcement in saturated clay. The reinforcement
substandard fill materials (Zornberg and Mitchell, 1994). Some included geotextile and gravel-filled bag placement. After the
concerns about the use of poorly draining soils for reinforced soil artificial rainfall, several large cracks appeared in the embankment,
construction are summarized as following (Mitchell, 1991; in particular in the unreinforced fill behind the reinforced zone.
Jewell and Jones, 1981): Based on the full-scale embankment study, three modes of
• Buildup of positive pore pressures can reduce the strength of deformation observed were: (1) rotation about the toe, (2) sliding
backfill soils. In addition, the shear strength of cohesive soils along a shear band, and (3) local compression near the toe.
is lower than that of cohesionless soils. Displacements due to the rotational mode were considered to be
• Poorly draining cohesive soils have less permeability than the largest of the three modes. These three deformation modes
cohesionless soils, thus this may result in higher rate of cor- are shown in Fig. 1. Many highway embankments are constructed
rosion of metallic reinforcements. with compacted clays but the reinforcement to be required for
• Due to the higher creep potential in poorly draining soils, stability may be overly conservative. However, in many cases,
post-construction movements may occur under sustained buildup of excess pore pressures can be avoided by adopting
load. drainage systems with permeable reinforcements and suitable
• Compacting the poorly draining soils is usually more diffi- construction techniques. In relation to the long-term performance
cult than cohesionless soils. issues of geotextile degradation and creep deformations, the
Elias and Swanson (1983) reported a problem related to cases reported in the literature have shown encouraging results
reinforced earth walls of which significant wall movement (Zornberg and Mitchell, 1994). Table 1 summarizes several case
occurs after normal precipitation. Typical movements consisted studies illustrating the performance of geosynthetic reinforcement
of tilting 250 to 300 mm out of plumb, which caused the wall on poorly draining soils as backfill materials.
facing to apply a lateral force on some adjacent piers. The
investigation indicated that the reinforced walls with the most 3. Material Characterization
severe damage were composed of excessively wet fill with a
high fine content. Yamauchi et al. (1987) conducted a full-scale 3.1 Soil Properties
embankment study. The constructed full-scale embankments The soil used for this research was identified as Rocky

Table 1. Research for using Poorly Draining Soil as Backfill Materials

Structure Reinforcement Soil Comments Reference
Reinforced Various Various fine-Grained Poorly draining soils can be used as backfill Zornberg and Mitchell
soil structure Geosynthetics soil material if reinforced properly (1994)
Reinforced soil Various fine-grained Case histories and applications of poorly draining Mitchell and Zornberg
Various Geosynthetics
structure soil soils for backfill (1994)
The ultimate height of embankment can be
Reinforced
Nonwoven Geotextile Soft Bangkok clay increased if using high strength nonwoven Bergado (1994)
embankment
geotextiles as reinforcement material
Reinforced High-strength geotextiles can reduce the plastic
Geotextile Soft clay Bergado (1994)
embankment deformations significantly
Retaining wall Geotextile with lime Cohesive soil Centrifuge modeling performed Porbaha (1996)
Geosynthetic The type of backfill had the most profound effect
reinforced retaining on the behavior of the geosynthetic reinforced Helwany et al. (1999)
wall retaining wall
The dissipation of pore water pressure was much
Composite geotextile
Lab test Residual soil faster with geotextile reinforcement than with Tan et al. (2001)
and geogrid
geogrid

Vol. 19, No. 3 / March 2015 − 603 −

 Youngcheol Kang, BooHyun Nam, Jorge G. Zornberg, and Yoon-Ho Cho

Fig. 2. Gradation Curve for the RMA-II Soil

Fig. 3. Compaction Curve for the RMA-II Soil

Mountain Soil Type II (RMA-II). The soil was collected as

disturbed samples at the cover testing facility located the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal (RMA) in Denver, Colorado. The soil contains a
larger percentage of fine material, with a plasticity index of 14.9,
a liquid limit of 27, and an average of 65% passing the #200
sieve. Based on the granulametric curve and Atterberg limits, the
RMA-II soil can be classified as inorganic clay of low to medium
plasticity (CL) according to the Unified Soil Classification System:
• Gradation Curve – The particle size analysis test was con-
ducted according to ASTM D422. The gradation curve is
shown in Fig. 2. As shown in the figure, about 65% of soil
particles passed the #200 sieve. Accordingly, based on the
FHWA criteria for identifying backfill materials, this soil
cannot be employed as backfill materials.
• Atterberg Limit – Atterberg limit tests were carried out
based on ASTM D4318-93 procedures related to test
method for liquid limit and plastic limit. The liquid limit,
plastic limit, and plasticity index values were 28.74, 11.56,
and 17.18, respectively. Based on the gradation curve and
Atterberg limits, the RMA-II soil can be classified as inor-
ganic clay of low to medium plasticity (CL) according to the
Unified Soil Classification System.
• Specific Gravity – Specific gravity was determined by follow-
ing the procedures outlined in ASTM D854-92. Two tests
were carried out and the results were 2.70 and 2.71, respec-
tively. The average specific gravity of the soil was 2.705.
• Soil Compaction Characteristics – The compaction tests
were conducted using standard compaction effort. The test
procedures were based on ASTM D 1140-54 and D 2168-
Fig. 4. Results of Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Tests at various
90. The soil moisture was determined based on ASTM D Cell Pressures: (a) Deviator Stress vs. Strain Curves, (b)
2216-90. The optimum water content and maximum dry Pore Water Pressure vs. Strain Curves
unit weight are 12.9 % and 1,907 kg/m3, respectively. The
compaction curve is presented in Fig. 3.
• Shear Strength – According to AASHTO T 297, large- ship between pore pressure and strain is shown in Fig. 4(b).
scale Consolidated Undrained (CU) triaxial tests were con- • Hydraulic Conductivity – Hydraulic conductivity tests were
ducted at four effective cell pressures on the RMA-II soil in performed according to ASTM D 5084-03. Two tests were
order to characterize its shear strength. The soil was found to conducted at different levels of relative compaction. Table 2
have an effective friction angle of 29.5° and an effective illustrates the sample condition and hydraulic conductivity
cohesion intercept, c’, of 3.5 kPa. The relationship of devia- obtained from each test. The sample with higher relative
toric stress and strain is shown in Fig. 4(a) and the relation- compaction had the smaller value of hydraulic conductivity.

− 604 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Pullout Resistance of Geogrid Reinforcement with In-plane Drainage Capacity in Cohesive Soil

Table 2. Comparison of Two Hydraulic Conductivity Tests Table 3. Properties of the Geogrid Materials (Terram Geosynthet-
Test I Test II ics Ltd., 2001)
Initial water content (%) 10.26 11.39 Geogrid with
Geogrid by
Property in-plane drain-
Total unit weight (g/cm3) 1.942 2.06 itself
age layer
Dry unit weight (g/cm3) 1.762 1.849 Machine direction 100 100
Relative compaction (%) 92.4 97 Ultimate tensile
strength (kN/m) Cross-machine
13.8 2.70E-05 1.23E-06 15 15
direction
K Effective
27.6 2.08E-05 7.74E-07 Strain at rupture (machine direction) (%) 12 12
(cm/sec) Stress (kPa)
41.4 1.68E-05 7.33E-07 Transmissivity under 100 kPa (m2/s)
-- 1.06 × 10E-06
(Hydraulic gradient = 1.0)
Unit mass (g/m2) 490 525
Thickness (mm) 1.3 2.5
3.2 Geogrid Properties
The two types of geogrids used in this research were manufactured
by Terram Ltd. (see Fig. 5). The commercial name of the
conventional geogrid (Fig. 5(a)) is ParaGrid. It consists of
polyester filament core with a polyethylene sheath. The ultimate
tensile strength of this product is 100 kN/m in the machine
direction and 15 kN/m in the cross-machine direction. The strain
at rupture in the machine direction is 12%. The geogrid with in-
plane drainage layers (Fig. 5(b)) is also manufactured by Terram
Ltd. Its commercial name is ParaDrain. The ParaDrain has the
same tensile strength and strain at rupture as the ParaGrid. In
addition to these characteristics, ParaDrain has in-plane drainage
layers which consist of a polypropylene and polyethylene nonwoven
geotextile. The transmissivity under 100 kPa is 1.06 × 10−6 m2/s.
Table 3 summarizes the properties of these two geogrids as
provided by the manufacturer.

4. Pullout Testing Procedure

4.1 Description of Testing Setup

The pullout equipment consists of a box with a length of 152-
cm, a width of 61-cm and a height of 30.5-cm. It is made by
metal plates and metallic profiles and connected to a set of two
hydraulic cylinders for the application of the pullout forces to the
geogrids. Fig. 6(a) shows the photograph of pullout box used in
this research study. The force application system of this Fig. 6. Description of Pullout Equipment: (a) Photograph of Pullout
equipment is composed of hydraulic cylinders, a hydraulic pump Box, (b) Schematic Cross-Section of Pullout Box

Fig. 5. Geosynthetics: (a) Conventional Geogrid (ParaGrid), (b) Geogrid with In-plane Drainage Layers (ParaDrain)

Vol. 19, No. 3 / March 2015 − 605 −

 Youngcheol Kang, BooHyun Nam, Jorge G. Zornberg, and Yoon-Ho Cho

and a regulating valve of air pressure. The pump injects with a vibratory hammer with a 15.2-cm by 15.2-cm footing.
hydraulic oil to the cylinders and promotes the movement of the The geogrid was installed after finishing the compaction of the
pistons that generate the pullout force. The volume of oil that second layer. The geogrid was equipped with four LVDTs and
flows to the pump is such that the set of cylinders move at a clamping plastics that permits the string attached to the grid to
constant displacement rate of 2 mm/min. The pump generates move freely without being restrained by the soil. Four knots were
compressed air and is controlled by the regulating valve of air made on the geogrid with thread to install LVDTs to the geogrid
pressure. so that the internal displacements of the geogrid are measured
Clamps were used to connect the hydraulic cylinders and the during pullout. To protect the threads from the effects of normal
test specimen without slipping or breaking of the specimens. The pressure, the threads were encapsulated by PVC plastic tubes.
clamping device consisted of a sandwich of two 660-mm wide These tubes with threads are called tell-tales. The location of the
L-section steel pieces and two plastic plates, with a series of four LVDTs is shown in Fig. 6(b). Note that LVDT1 was the
holes where bolts and nuts are used in order to hold the test closest from the grip.
specimen between the sandwiches. The clamp allows the After finishing the placement of the geogrid, a pore pressure
specimen to remain horizontal during loading and not interfere transducer was installed below the center of the geogrid, far from
with the pullout/shear surface. Epoxy was used to attach the the opened end of the telltale. The distance between the geogrid
plastic plates with the geogrid. This provides uniform tension on and the pore pressure transducer was about 1-centimeter from
all of the stressed geogrid ribs extending from the clamp into the the geogrid longitudinal rib. Once the pore pressure transducer
pullout box. The external connecting device allows the pulling below the geogrid was installed, the soil for the third layer was
force to be distributed evenly throughout the width of the added into the pullout box. After compaction of the third layer,
sample. the pore pressure transducer above the geogrid was installed. The
A flexible pneumatic device was used to apply and maintain a distance between the geogrid and the pore pressure transducer
uniform normal stress, continuous over the entire pullout box above the geogrid was also about 1 cm. The soil close to the pore
area. This device consists of one manometer, one control valve, pressure transducer was compacted very carefully in order to
two rubber sheets, connections, and hoses. The air pressure is avoid damaging the transducer, but still remaining the same
controlled by the control valve, measured by the manometer and degree of compaction as other part of soils. After finishing the
applied between the two rubber sheets which are strongly jointed installation of the pore pressure transducer above the geogrid,
at their edges by the box cover. It is considered that the pressure another layer of soil was compacted to make the fourth layer.
measured by the manometer is the same applied to the soil by the The air bag to apply normal pressure was placed on the surface
air bag composed by the rubber sheets. This confining load is of the fourth layer. Heavy metal plates were placed on the air bag
applied on the surface of the soil sample from the inflatable air for confinement. During testing, the National Instruments
bag, placed between the soil surface and the cover of the box. Labview software was used to record the displacement, pore-
The instrumentation used in this equipment is composed of a water pressure, and force measurements.
load cell, four linearly variable displacement transformers (LVDTs),
and two pore pressure transducers. The load cell used to measure 5. Testing Results
the pullout force supplied by the movement of the hydraulic
cylinders is manufactured by Omega and commercialized under A total of six pullout tests were conducted on two types of
the name of Omega LCH-20K. Its maximum capacity is 89 kN. geosynthetics under three different normal pressures. Table 4
The LVDTs were used to measure the displacements of the outlines the testing plan. In this paper, the abbreviation ‘PD’
geogrid embedded in the soil. Three LVDTs were manufactured refers ParaDrain (geogrid with in-plane drainage layers) and the
by Sscaevitiz and one by RDP. The measurement range of the ‘PG’ refers ParaGrid (conventional geogrid). Testing results and
equipment is from one to three inches. The pore pressure their comparison are presented herein.
transducers used in this study are manufactured by Druck and
commercialized under the name of PDCR81. It is very small and
allowed its installation in the soil sample with a height of only Table 4. Scope of Pullout Tests
30.5 cm. Test
Type of Geosynthetic
Normal
Abbreviation
Number Pressure
4.2 Testing Procedure 1 Conventional geogrid 20 kPa PG20
The soil used for the pullout test was stored preventing water Geogrid with in-plane drainage
2 20 kPa PD20
layers
evaporation, and its water content was checked before testing. 3 Conventional geogrid 38 kPa PG38
The amount of water to be added into the soil sample was Geogrid with in-plane drainage
calculated so that the target water content and total unit weight, 4 38 kPa PD38
layers
(20% and 18 kN/m3) were achieved. The sample was divided 5 Conventional geogrid 86 kPa PG86
into four layers for evenly distributed compaction, and the 6
Geogrid with in-plane drainage
86 kPa PD86
volume of each layer was 0.07 m3. The compaction was performed layers

− 606 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Pullout Resistance of Geogrid Reinforcement with In-plane Drainage Capacity in Cohesive Soil

compacted soil.
The pullout force was measured as a function of displacement.
The displacements on these graphs were measured using LVDT1
(closest to the clamp). The pullout resistance is defined as the
pullout force measured at the break point in the pullout force –
displacement curve. As shown in Fig. 8, for a given normal
pressure, the PD geogrid provided a higher resistance than the
PG. The in-plane drainage layers are expected to have dissipated
“excess” pore pressure successively during the pullout procedure.
Specifically, most of the pullout resistance is mobilized before
the displacements reached 1.3-cm. Figs. 8 and 9 show the results
of pullout testing with the PG and PD. The summary of pullout
Fig. 7. Displacement Time History over Time
resistance for each test is presented in Fig. 10. As shown in Fig.
9, pullout forces from the PD stayed constant at large displacement
5.1 Pullout Force Measurement (exceeding 1.3-cm), whereas pullout forces from the PG still
Displacements at multiple locations were measured and the increased at large displacement. This may be attributed to a time-
four LVDT measurements are plotted in Fig. 7. LVDT1 was the dependent increase in resistance due to continued dissipation of
closest to the clamping and LVDT4 was the farthest. Once the pore pressure through the soil mass.
pullout force is transferred to the geogrid, both PD and PG Figure 10 compares the pullout resistance versus normal pressure
showed elongation between clamp and front of box. Even though for the two geosynthetics. A linear regression of the results led to
LVDT1 displayed displacement, LVDT2 had no displacement the following:
because the elongation of geogrid took place between LVDT1
Pr = 5.9 σn + 304.6 ………… for the PG (1)
and LVDT2. In addition, the rate of displacement is somewhat
different due to the ununiform contact between the geogrid and Pr = 8.2 σn + 311.1 ………… for the PD (2)

Fig. 8. Pullout Force at different Normal Pressures: (a) 20 kPa, (b) 38 kPa, (c) 86 kPa

Vol. 19, No. 3 / March 2015 − 607 −

 Youngcheol Kang, BooHyun Nam, Jorge G. Zornberg, and Yoon-Ho Cho

Fig. 9. Pullout Test Results at Different Normal Pressures: (a) PG Fig. 11. Pore Pressure during Initial Loading at varied Normal
(Conventional Geogrid), (b) PD (Geogrid with In-plane Pressures of: (a) 20 kPa, (b) 38 kPa
Drainage Layers)

are not presented in this paper because the transducer showed

unreasonable data due to a technical problem. One possible
reason is that the vibratory hammer disturbed the position of
transducer and the transducer was damaged. As shown in the
figure, it is found that the PD showed lower pore pressures than
the PG. This result is reasonable because some of pore pressure
might be dissipated through the drainage layers. This also can be
supported by the fact that pore pressures measured from the PG
still tended to increase after 20 minutes of initial loading,
whereas pore pressures from the PD remained constant. Fig. 12
shows the pore pressures measured during pullout testing. As
seen in Fig. 12(b), the sensor for ‘Above PG 38’ was malfunctioned
Fig. 10. Comparison of Pullout Resistance between the Two Types and continuous reading was not available. Measurement of pore
of Geogrids pressures during pullout testing was challenging because the
contact between the soil and pore pressure transducers was
where, Pr = the pullout resistance (kPa) and σn = the normal changed by the movement of geogrid during pullout. Two
pressure (kPa). findings can be drawn from the results presented in these figures.
First, at the beginning of pullout, initial pore pressures measured
5.2 Pore Pressure Measurement in the vicinity of PD were lower than those measured in the
Pore pressure measurements were made during initial loading vicinity of PG. This result is because drainage layers dissipated
and pullout testing. Fig. 11 shows the pore pressure measured pore pressure at the initial loading phase. Second, pore pressures
during initial loading. Data for the normal pressure of 86.2 kPa from the PG showed a peak, whereas pore pressure from the PD

− 608 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Pullout Resistance of Geogrid Reinforcement with In-plane Drainage Capacity in Cohesive Soil

#200 sieve with a plasticity index of 14.9. The pullout test

specimens were prepared at a water content of 20% and a total
unit weight of 17.92 kN/m3. The following conclusions can be
drawn based on the experimental results obtained in this study:
• For a given normal pressure, the pullout resistance measured
using geogrids with in-plane drainage layers was higher than
that measured using conventional geogrids.
• Pore pressures generated during initial loading can be dissi-
pated through in-plane drainage layers attached on the geo-
grid. Therefore, pullout using the geogrid with in-plane
drainage layers starts with lower pore pressures than pullout
using the conventional geogrid, even though they are at the
same total normal pressure.
• The pore pressure distribution obtained during pullout when
using geogrids with in-plane drainage layers show a peak,
while the pore pressure distribution obtained when using
conventional geogrids shows no peak. This response may be
due to the continued pore pressure dissipation through the
in-plane drainage layers.
Based on the above findings, it is concluded that the geogrid
with in-plane drainage layers has more pullout resistance than
the conventional geogrid because in-plane drainage layers
dissipated the pore pressure. However, the pullout resistance
difference between the two geogrids decreased with increase of
normal pressure, which means the effectiveness of the geogrid
with in-plane drainage layers decrease with increase of normal
pressure.
This study is subject to some limitations. The first one is
related with interface shear strength between soil and geotextile
being used in this study. The results from the lab tests revealed
Fig. 12. Pore Pressure during Pullout Testing at varied Normal that the geogrid with in-plane drainage capacity showed higher
Pressures of: (a) 20 kPa, (b) 38 kPa pullout strength than that without the capacity. It was
conjectured that the geotextile embedded contributed to
showed no peak. The pore pressures increased when the dissipating the pore pressure. Another possibility is that the
displacement of geogrid started to occur. On the other hand, geotextile portion has higher interface shear strength than the
most of pore pressures from the PD decreased when the geogrid portion, which contributes for the material (geogrid
displacement of the geogrids occurred. There might be pullout- with in-plane drainage capacity) to achieve higher pullout
involved pore pressure increases when the pullout procedure strength. This study is incapable of validating the speculation.
started. However, drainage layers dissipated the pressure and led Second, linear regression equations (Eq. (1) and Eq. (2)) are
to a higher pullout resistance than the PG. If conventional developed based on three samples each with three different
geogrids are installed in a project, the most critical timing will be confining pressures. Even though the equations have very high
when the installed geogrid starts to be pulled out. R square values, it is possible that the regression equations can
be somewhat changed with more samples. In order to address
6. Conclusions the limitations of this study, more laboratory tests for the
materials with different confining pressures are recommended
The feasibility of using poorly draining soils as backfill material for future studies.
was investigated. Geogrids with a dual function of reinforcement
and drainage was evaluated by conducting a series of pullout Ackowledgements
tests. Comparison of the behavior of the geogrid with in-plane
drainage layers and conventional geogrid allowed quantification The authors thank the Korea Institute of Construction &
of the benefits of using dual-function geogrids. The two types of Transportation Technology Evaluation and Planning who partially
geogrids used in this study had the same tensile strength and supported this study under the project titled “Development of
were manufactured of the same material. The soil used for this Construction and Operation Methods for Low-Carbon Green
research was silty soil which had an average of 60% passing the Airport Pavement”.

Vol. 19, No. 3 / March 2015 − 609 −

 Youngcheol Kang, BooHyun Nam, Jorge G. Zornberg, and Yoon-Ho Cho

References practice.” Géotechnique, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 299-340.

Mitchell, J. K. and Zornberg, J. G. (1994). “Reinforced soil structures
Benjamim, C. V. S., Bueno, B. S., and Zornberg J. G. (2007). “Field with poorly draining backfills. Part II : Case histories and applications.”
monitoring evaluation of geotextile-reinforced soil-retaining walls.” Geosynthetic International, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 265-307.
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 100-118. Porbaha, A. (1996). “Geotextile reinforced lime treated cohesive soil
Bergado, D. T., Long, P. V., Lee, C. H., Loke, K. H., and Werner, G. retaining walls.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 227-
(1994). “Performance of reinforced embankment on soft Bangkok 268.
clay with highstrength geotextile reinforcement.” Geotextiles and Porbaha, A. and Goodings, D. J. (1996). “Centrifuge modeling of geotextile-
Geomembranes, Vol. 13, Nos. 6-7, pp. 403-420. reinforced cohesive soil retaining walls.” Journal of Geotechnical
Bergado, D. T., Long, P. V., and Srinivasa Murthy, B. R. (2002). “A case Engineering.
study of geotextile-reinforced embankment on soft ground.” Geotextiles Tan, S. A., Chew, S. H, Ng, C. C., Loh, S. L., Karunaratne, G. P., and
and Geomembranes, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 343-365. Loke, K. H. (2001). “Large-scale drainage behavior of composite
Christopher, B. R. and Berg, R. R. (1990). “Pullout evaluation of geotextile and geogrid in residual soil.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
geosynthetics in cohesive soils.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp. 163-176.
Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Terram Geosynthetics Ltd. (2001). Paragrid and Paradrain for Soil
The Hague, Vol. 2, Netherlands, pp. 731-736. Reinforcement, www.terram.co.uk
Elias, V. and Swanson, P. (1983). “Cautions of reinforced earth with Yamauchi, H., Tatsuoka, F., Nakamura, K., and Iwasaki, K. (1987).
residual soils.” Transportation Research Record, Vol. 919, pp. 21- “Stability of steep clay embankments reinforced with a non-woven
26. geotextile.” Proceedings of the Post Vienna Conference on Geotextiles,
Helwany, S. M. B., Reardon, G., and Wu, J. T. H. (1999). “Effects of Singapore, pp. 370-386.
backfill on the performance of GRS retaining walls.” Geotextiles Zeynep, D. and Tezcan, S. (1992). “Cost analysis of reinforced soil
and Geomembranes, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 1-16. walls.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 29-43
Jewell, R. A. and Jones, C. J. (1981). “Reinforcement of clay soils and 82.
waste materials using grids.” Proceedings of the Tenth International Zornberg, J. G. and Mitchell, J. K. (1994). “Reinforced soil structures
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, with poorly draining backfills. Part I : Reinforcement interactions
Balkema, Vol. 2, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 701-706. and functions.” Geosynthetic International, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 103-
Mitchell, J. K. (1991). “Conduction phenomena: From theory togeotechnical 148.

− 610 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering