Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Centrifuge modeling of geotextile-reinforced cohesive slopes

Yun Hu, Ga Zhang*, Jian-Min Zhang, C.F. Lee
State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 20 January 2009 Received in revised form 18 June 2009 Accepted 18 September 2009 Available online 31 October 2009 Keywords: Slope Cohesive soil Reinforcement Geotextile Centrifuge modeling

a b s t r a c t
Geosynthetics are widely used to reinforce slopes due to their successful performance and economical efciency. A series of centrifuge model tests was conducted in order to investigate the behavior of the geotextile-reinforced cohesive slopes and to compare their behavior to unreinforced slopes. The displacement history of the slopes was measured using an image analysis system. The failure process of an unreinforced slope can be categorized into three stages: (1) uniform deformation stage; (2) strain localization stage; and (3) post-failure stage. The geotextile has a signicant effect on the deformation of the slope and increases the stability level while affecting the failure modes. On a reinforced slope, two surfaces can result from the distribution of the displacement difference between the unreinforced and the corresponding reinforced slopes; thus, the slope can be categorized into three zones. The front zone is characterized as a restricted region that is subjected to a backward tension via the geotextile while the middle zone is mainly subjected to a forward tension (like a support body). The back zone is unaffected by the geotextile. The reinforcement can take effect when its length is longer than the effective reinforcement length. The effective reinforcement length usually increases with increasing elevation and is signicantly affected by the inclination of the slope. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Geosynthetic-reinforced structures have been used worldwide due to their successful performance and economical efciency. They include such structures as the reinforcing element in the stabilization of steep slopes and embankments and reinforcement at sandclay interfaces that improve the bearing capacity of footings on soft clay (Giroud and Noiray, 1981). Accordingly, such a structure has attracted great interest among researchers and thus, has been comprehensively investigated (e.g., Li and Rowe, 2008). Both prototype observations and full-scale tests could obtain rsthand information and have often been selected as the most appropriate option from the experimental point of view (e.g., Fishman and Desai, 1993). However, high costs and the questionable data that have been collected (Zomberg and Arriaga, 2003) restrict their broad application in the investigation of the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforcement soils. Centrifuge model tests conducted in a small-scale model have the advantage of reproducing the same stress level with similar deformation and failure mechanisms as those that are presented in

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: 86 10 6279 5679. E-mail addresses: huyun02@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (Y. Hu), zhangga@tsinghua. edu.cn (G. Zhang), zhangjm@tsinghua.edu.cn (J.-M. Zhang), leecf@tsinghua.edu.cn (C.F. Lee). 0266-1144/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.001

a prototype (Schoeld, 1980). It could be an effective supplement to research data and has been widely used in the study of geosynthetic-reinforced soils (e.g., Bolton et al., 1978; Goodings and Santamarina, 1989; Guler and Goodings, 1992; Mahmud and Zimmie, 1998; Zornberg et al., 1997; Viswanadham and Mahajan, 2007). Digital image analysis was used to obtain the strain distribution of geosynthetic-reinforced slopes in the centrifuge model tests (Zornberg and Arriaga, 2003), while sigmoid functions were used to estimate the reinforcement distribution. The study of clayey, vertical, geotextile-reinforced earth walls indicated that there is a reinforcement length threshold, which is referred to as the critical reinforcement length, beyond which no further reduction in deformation can be achieved (Chen et al., 2007). It was also indicated that if the reinforcement length is longer than a critical reinforcement length, the reinforcement provided no further benet to the slope. Most previous research has focused on the response of the geosynthetic-reinforced slopes as well as the inuence factors. The reinforcement mechanism of the reinforced slope has not been systematically discovered. To this aim, the failure process should be carefully investigated to discover how the geosynthetic affects the deformation and thus, increases the stability of the slope under different conditions. Moreover, the studies of reinforcement slopes have usually been conducted on sand slopes (Sabermahani et al., 2009); however, in practice, the geotextile has also been widely used in cohesive soil slopes. The direct shear tests indicated that

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

13

inclusion of non-woven geotextiles resulted in a signicant strength increase in the wet cohesive soil reinforced with geotextiles (George, 1996). Thus, a further study of the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced cohesive soil slopes is necessary. A series of centrifuge model tests was performed on geotextilereinforced cohesive soil slopes. The deformation process of the slopes was measured and used to discuss the reinforcement mechanism and their inuence factors. The objectives of this paper are: (1) to give a brief introduction of the test and measurement system that can be used to obtain the deformation process of the overall slope; (2) to describe the model tests and present the typical test results; (3) to discover the reinforcement mechanism of the slopes by comparing the response of the reinforced and unreinforced slopes; and (4) to discuss several factors that inuence the reinforcement mechanism of the slopes. 2. Device and measurements 2.1. Device The centrifuge model tests were conducted by using the geotechnical centrifuge of Tsinghua University; the capacity of it is 50 g-ton with a maximum acceleration of 250 g (Pu et al., 1994). The soil container was a rectangular box made of aluminum alloy with internal dimensions of 600 mm in length, 200 mm in width and 520 mm in height. One of its sides is equipped with a transparent lucite window through which the deformation process of the soils can be observed and recorded. 2.2. Measurements A new measurement system termed GeoImage Analysis System for centrifuge (GIAS-c) was used to record the images of soils during the centrifuge model tests (Zhang et al., 2009). The captured image series was used to determine the displacement elds with a correlation-based image analysis method (Zhang et al., 2006). A colorful region with a random distribution was needed to assure the effectiveness of this system. Such a region can be easily obtained by using a diverse range of methods (Zhang et al., 2009). By using the GIAS-c system, the displacement history of arbitrary points on the soils can be measured without any disturbance to the soils. The sub-pixel accuracy of the measurement system was conrmed via the calibration tests. This system has been used to successfully test many centrifuge models. 3. Descriptions of tests 3.1. Scheme This paper focuses on the geotextile reinforcement mechanism in cohesive soil slopes. Therefore, both unreinforced and reinforced slopes were used in the centrifuge model tests. The results were compared in order to demonstrate the fundamental mechanism of the geotextile-reinforced slopes due to loading. Moreover, a series of centrifuge model tests was conducted in order to discuss the main inuence factors, such as the inclination of the slope and the reinforcement length. Table 1 lists the typical centrifuge model tests, and the meanings of the symbols are shown in Fig. 1a. 3.2. Materials The soil that was used in the tests was taken from the Xiongmaohuandao subway station in Beijing, China. The soil is a type of silty clay with a specic gravity of 2.71. The optimum moisture

Table 1 A list of the tests. i (H:V) 3:1 9:1 No. A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 L (mm) 0 78 0 78 150 300 S (mm) Null 50 Null 50 50 50

content and plasticity index of the soil were 18.4% and 14, respectively. The cohesion of the soil was 25 kPa, and the internal frictional angle was 29 .

Fig. 1. Layout of the model.

14

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

The following similarity criterion was used to choose the model geotextile:

Ep tp n; Em tm

acceleration increased during the test, we usually compared different tests at the same g level. All of the measurement results were presented on the model dimension. 4.1. Deformation analysis of the unreinforced slope Fig. 2 shows the photographs and displacement eld history of the 3:1 unreinforced slope (scheme A-1) at typical centrifugal accelerations. It indicates that the failure process of the slope can be categorized into three stages that include the following: (1) uniform deformation stage; (2) strain localization stage; and (3) post-failure stage. The displacement, both in the horizontal and vertical directions, was small before the 30-g level (Fig. 2a), which was regarded in the uniform deformation stage. During the uniform stage, the distributions of displacement were uniform; there was no signicant deformation localization or potential slip surface. By anatomizing the vertical displacements, the body that was near the slope surface exhibited a smaller deformation than the back part that was at the same elevation. This was consistent with the common knowledge of the distribution of the vertical stress. When the centrifugal acceleration approximately reached the 40-g level, there was a signicant concentration of deformation that was in both the horizontal and vertical directions at the position of about 1/8H (slope height) above the toe of the slope near the slope surface (Fig. 2b). This indicated that strain localization had occurred at that position and that the slope had entered the strain localization stage. From the photograph, a crack was also found; thus, it was concluded that the local failure rst initiated above the slope toe and near the slope surface. A close examination showed that increasing the centrifugal acceleration caused this crack to propagate upwards at approximately a 60 inclination. When the crack had extended a distance of approximately 1/6H away from the top of the slope, it turned back and extended straight to the crest. A slip surface through the slope occurred at the 45-g level (Fig. 2c), and a sudden slide consequently occurred. The height of the prototype slope was 16.2 m when the slide occurred. It can be seen that the contour lines concentrated across the slope in both the horizontal and vertical directions. The slide body can be easily distinguished from the base body via the contour lines. Fig. 2d shows the measurement results of the displacement at the 46-g level in the post-failure stage. Compared with Fig. 2c, the deformation of the base body was nearly stable; only rigid displacements occurred in the slide body. The displacement history of four typical points on a horizontal line of the slope was used to illustrate the three deformation stages in detail (Fig. 3). When the centrifugal acceleration was less than 30 g, the horizontal and vertical displacements of the four points exhibited a similar response, which is representative of uniform deformation. The strain localization stage began from 30 g. The horizontal displacements of points A and B exhibited larger increments than those of points C and D; this difference increased with increasing centrifugal acceleration. Once the centrifugal acceleration reached 40 g, the horizontal displacements of points C and D became stable with increasing centrifugal acceleration, while those of points A and B continuously increased. The displacements of points A and B exhibited a signicant increment at the 45-g level, which is when the landslide occurred, and successively increased thereafter. The displacement distributions along a horizontal line on three elevations were obtained at the 45-g level, which corresponds to the landslide time (Fig. 4). The distribution curves of the horizontal displacement can be divided into three zones: the at zone, the inectional zone, and the uniform zone. For example, the upper curve (Line 1 in Fig. 4) exhibited a at change near the surface; the

(1)

where n is the centrifugal acceleration, E is the geotextiles elastic tensile modulus, t is the geotextiles thickness, and the subscripts p and m represent the prototype and model materials, respectively. A type of medical bandage gauze with a thickness of 0.14 mm was used to simulate the geotextile in the tests. Its tensile strength and ultimate strain value were 3.15 kN/m and 7.78%, respectively, while the tensile elastic modulus was 39.71 kN/m. According to Eq. (1), it can be derived that the gauze was a reasonable substitute of the geotextile prototype, which has a typical thickness from 0.1to 5 mm, with an elastic modulus from dozens to hundreds of kN/m, at the working centrifugal acceleration from the 20-g level to the 100-g level. 3.3. Model In the model container, the soil was compacted to a dry density of 15.1 g/cc by layers with 60 mm in thickness, and had a water content of 18.5%. All of the slopes were 360-mm high and were obtained by cutting out the redundant soil. A 60-mm high horizontal soil layer was maintained under the slope in order to reduce the inuence of the bottom of the container on the deformation of the slope (Fig. 1a). Silicone oil was painted on both sides of the container to decrease the friction between the soil and the sidewalls of the container. As mentioned above, a transparent lucite window was used as one of the side walls of the box to enable inight visualization of the models during testing. The opposite wall of the box was overlaid with a double-layer of plastic lm with silicone oil between them to minimize side friction. The width of the gauze strip was equal to the width of the model slope in order to realize the plane strain condition. The gauze strips were laid at on the soil during the construction according to the design length and spacing, without wrapping back; the bottom strip was buried 40 mm from the slope toe in the vertical direction. The reinforcement spacing was 50 mm, which was about 0.14H (slope height); the reinforcement spacing that was used in the prototype was 1/21/50H, depending on a survey of the full-scale geosynthetic-reinforced soil slopes (Zornberg and Arriaga, 2003). In total, six layers of reinforcement were buried. The images of the slope were recorded and used to obtain the displacement elds via the GIAS-c during the centrifuge model tests. A number of white particles were randomly embedded on the side of the soil to increase the gray-level difference in the captured images (Fig. 1b). Fig. 1c shows the measurement area of the slope; the main area of the slope can be covered by the measurements. 3.4. Procedure In order to simulate the increase in the self-weight of the slopes, the centrifugal acceleration was increased in stages by adding 5 g each time. At each stage, it was maintained for several minutes before increasing to the next level so that the load was allowed to equalize. This loading process was terminated if signicant failure occurred or if the centrifugal acceleration reached 100 g. 4. Analysis of mechanism Two typical test results for 3:1 slopes of both geotextile-reinforced and unreinforced were compared to analyze the reinforcement mechanism of the cohesive slopes. Since the centrifugal

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

15

Fig. 2. Displacement elds in the unreinforced 3:1 slope.

0.08 0.06

uniform stage

localization stage

postfailure stage slide

u/H

0.04 0.02 0.00 0.04

0.08 0.12 0.16 20

horizontal displacement at this zone was the largest. This curve exhibited another insignicant change at the interior of the slope, which is dened as the uniform zone. Here the displacement was signicantly smaller than the at zone, and an inection zone connected these two zones. It can be seen in Fig. 4 that all of the curves showed the same distribution even though the elevations were different. The uniform zones and the starting points of the three curves in Fig. 4 were similar. However, the lengths of the at zones, which demonstrate the range of the slide body, were quite different. The vertical displacement also exhibited a similar mechanism as the horizontal displacement even though the difference between the at and uniform zone was smaller. The gradient of the horizontal displacement was used to analyze the shear zone:

v/H

ABCD

Y= 0.72H= 260mm
30 40 50

ur

ui uj ; Xti Xtj

(2)

a (g)

Fig. 3. Displacement history of typical points in the 3:1 unreinforced slope, where u is the horizontal displacement, v is the vertical displacement, a is the centrifugal acceleration, H is the slope height, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

where ur is the ratio of the horizontal displacement, ui and uj are the horizontal displacements, and Xti and Xtj are the corresponding horizontal distance from the slope toe. In this paper, it is specied that a point was in the shear zone if ur at this point is larger than 1.0, in the light of experience. Fig. 5 shows the horizontal displacement

16

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

0.10 0.08

u/H

0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.04

line 1 Y=0.78H=280mm line 2 Y=0.53H=190mm line 3 Y=0.28H=100mm

0.1

u/H
0.08

5 4 3 2

Shear zone

ur

u/H

0.06

flat part

v/H

0.08 0.12 0.16 0.0

uniform part inflection

0.04 1 0.02 40 50 60 Xt (mm) 70 0 80

0.1

0.2

0.3 Xs /H

0.4

0.5

0.6

Y=0.3H

0.1

Fig. 4. Displacement distribution of the horizontal lines in the 3:1 unreinforced slope, where u is the horizontal displacement, v is the vertical displacement, Xs is the horizontal distance from the surface, H is the slope height, and Y is the horizontal distance from the slope toe.

Shear zone
0.08

u/H ur

5 4 3 2

u/H

and gradient for both the 0.3H and 0.7H elevations. It can be seen that the thickness of the shear zone was about 5 mm at the 0.3H elevation, while it is about 4 mm at the 0.7H elevation. This demonstrated that the thickness of the shear zone was nonuniform along the potential slide surface. 4.2. Deformation analysis of the reinforced slope The behavior of a 3:1 geotextile-reinforced slope (scheme A-2) was discussed by comparing it with an unreinforced slope (scheme A-1). Fig. 6 shows the photographs and displacement distributions of the reinforced slope. From the 1-g level to the 30-g level, the horizontal and vertical displacements were small and exhibited a uniform distribution (Fig. 6a), which was similar to the unreinforced slope. When the centrifugal acceleration reached 40 g, the soil exhibited a signicant horizontal displacement between the bottom and adjacent geotextile strips at about 0.2H from the slope toe in the vertical direction (Fig. 6b). Signicant deformation also occurred on the unreinforced slope. Moreover, a crack also occurred here. The crack grew upwards and changed direction at the third geotextile strip (Y 140 mm). At the same time, another crack occurred just behind the end of the sixth geotextile strip (Y 290 mm). As the centrifugal acceleration increased to 45 g, this crack propagated upward to the slope top and downward to a position near the second geotextile strip (Y 90 mm) (Fig. 6c). Nevertheless, the magnitudes of the displacement in the reinforced slope were signicantly smaller than the displacements in the unreinforced slope. When the centrifugal acceleration reached 50 g, the distribution of displacements was still uniform except for a little regional strain localization between the rst (Y 40 mm) and second (Y 90 mm) geotextile strips, which were near the slope surface (Fig. 6d). This can be conrmed by a localized concentration of contour displacement lines that were in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Fig. 7 shows the displacement history of four typical points on a horizontal line in the reinforced slope, which provides further analysis of the deformation process. Unlike the unreinforced slope, it can be seen that there were only two deformation stages: the uniform stage and the strain localization stage. The displacements of the four points were nearly the same before the 30-g level; this

0.06

0.04 1 0.02 110 120 130 Xt (mm) 140 0 150

Y=0.7H
Fig. 5. The shear zone of the 3:1 unreinforced slope with a centrifugal acceleration of 45-g level, where u is the horizontal displacement, ur is the gradient of the horizontal displacement, Xt is the horizontal distance from the slope toe, H is the slope height, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

was consistent with the uniform deformation that was obtained from Fig. 6. With increasing centrifugal acceleration, the horizontal displacements of points A, B, and C exhibited a signicant increase, while that of point D exhibited a smoother change. It should be noted that the horizontal displacements of points C and D, which reached a stable state in the unreinforced slope (Fig. 4), continuously increased for the reinforced slope (Fig. 7). This indicated that the reinforcement of the geotextile had a signicant effect on the displacement elds of the slope, such as the process of strain localization and the range of the potential slide body. Fig. 8 shows the displacement distributions on horizontal lines at different elevations in the reinforced slope at the 50-g level. It shows that the vertical displacement exhibited a uniform distribution. The distribution curve of the horizontal displacement on the top line included a at segment, which was similar to the unreinforced slope. The at curve was about 80-mm-long, which was nearly equal to the length of the geotextile strip. However, on the medium and bottom lines, the horizontal displacement gradually decreased with increasing distance from the surface. This implied that the expansion of the potential slip surface was stopped by the fth geotextile strip (Y 240 mm). Fig. 9 shows the horizontal displacement and its gradient on the 0.3H and 0.7H elevations. The thickness of the shear zone was about 6 mm at the 0.3H elevation, while it was about 5 mm at the 0.7H elevation. A comparison with the unreinforced slope (Fig. 5) shows that the reinforcement increased the thickness of the shear zone

ur

ur

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

17

Fig. 6. Displacement elds of the 3:1 geotextile-reinforced slope.

0.06 uniform stage 0.04 localization stage

0.08 0.06

u/H

u /H

0.04 0.02 0 0.04

line 1 Y=0.78H line 2 Y=0.53H line 3 Y=0.28H

0.02 0 0.04

v/H

v/H

0.08

0.08 0.12 0.16 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Xs/H 0.5 0.6 0.7

ABCD
0.12 0.16 20

Y=0.81H=290mm
30 40 50

a (g)

Fig. 7. Displacement history of typical points in the 3:1 geotextile-reinforced slope, where u is the horizontal displacement, v is the vertical displacement, a is the centrifugal acceleration, H is the slope height, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

Fig. 8. Displacement distribution of the horizontal lines in the 3:1 geotextile-reinforced slope, where u is the horizontal displacement, v is the vertical displacement, H is the slope height, Xs is the horizontal distance from the surface, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

18

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

0.16

0.025

u/H
0.14 0.12

30g
0.02 0.015

ur

5 4

40g 45g 50g 55g

u/H

0.1 2 0.08 0.06 1 0 100

d/H
0.01 0.005 0

Shear zone

40

50

60

70 Xt (mm)

80

90

ur

Y=0.3H

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4 Xs /H

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.16

u/H
0.14 0.12

ur

5 4

Fig. 10. Displacement of the fth (Y 240 mm) geotextile in the 9:1 30-mm-long reinforced cohesive slope, where d is the horizontal displacement relative to the reference point at the slope surface, H is the slope height, and Xs is the horizontal distance from the slope surface.

u/H

3 0.1 0.08 0.06 100 120 140 160 Xt (mm) 180 200

Shear zone
2 1 0 220

Y=0.7H
Fig. 9. Shear zone of the 3:1 reinforced slope at the 45-g level, where u is the horizontal displacement, ur is the gradient of the horizontal displacement, Xt is the horizontal distance from the slope toe, H is the slope height, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

started at 40 g, increased; this demonstrated that the reinforcement effect of the geotextile became signicant at higher centrifugal accelerations, which was when the unreinforced slope exhibited noticeable deformation. Moreover, the relative rates between the slopes were different at different locations. For example, in the case of the unreinforced slope, the increase in the horizontal displacement rate at point E, which was near the slope surface, became fairly larger from the 40-g level, while it was signicantly smaller in the case of the reinforced slope. On the contrary, the horizontal displacement of point G, at the interior of

ur

0.06 0.04

reinforced slope unreinforced slope

and changed the position of the shear zone, which moved forward to the slope surface at a lower elevation and moved backward at a higher elevation. Fig. 10 shows the horizontal displacement relative to the reference point at the slope surface for the fth geotextile of the B-4 test scheme with a reinforcement length of 30 mm and reveals the displacement distribution of the reinforcement. It can be concluded that the geotextiles displacement in the reinforced slope had the distribution of two at regions that were connected by a steep increasing region, which was similar to the sand slopes (Zornberg and Arriaga, 2003). 4.3. Analysis of the reinforcements effect It has been revealed that the geotextile rst delays the lateral displacement of the slope and thus, indirectly inuences the vertical displacement. In other words, the horizontal displacement can be an appropriate index that reects the inuence of the reinforcement. Fig. 11 shows the horizontal displacement history of three typical points along the sixth geotextile strip (Y 290 mm). It can be seen that the reinforced and unreinforced slopes both exhibited small horizontal displacements (with a small difference) before the 30-g level. The horizontal displacements of both slopes increased by a similar rate from the 30-g level to the 40-g level. However, they increased at dissimilar rates as the centrifugal acceleration, which

0.02

point E
0 0.06 0.04

Y=0.81H=290mm Xs = 1.5cm, 4cm, 6cm E F G point F

u/H
0.02 0 0.06 0.04 0.02

point G
0 0 10 20 a (g) 30 40 50

Fig. 11. Horizontal displacement history of typical points along the top geotextile in the 3:1 reinforced and unreinforced slopes, where u is the horizontal displacement, a is the centrifugal acceleration, Xs is the horizontal distance from the slope surface, H is the slope height, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

19

the slope, increased steadily at a constant rate for the reinforced slope, while that of the unreinforced slope did not change beyond the 43-g level. Signicantly, the horizontal displacement of point F, at the middle of the slope, seemed to increase at a consistent rate for both of the slopes. It can be concluded that the inuence of the geotextile became more evident at the ultimate time for the unreinforced slope, which was the 45-g level in these tests; thus, the displacement distribution along three horizontal lines at the 45-g level was carefully examined to further analyze the reinforcement mechanism (Fig. 12). Hereafter, the abbreviation displacement difference is used to indicate the difference between the horizontal displacement of the reinforced slope and the corresponding unreinforced slope. The displacement difference is positive if the reinforcement decreases the horizontal displacement. The displacement differences above and below the geotextile strip are equal; thus, either one can be used. A close examination showed that the displacement difference was positive in the front zone, where the distance was less than 35 mm away from the surface. This implied that the displacement of the front part of the slope was reduced by the geotextile. However, the displacement difference in the back part of the slope was negative, which means that at that position, the geotextile increased the horizontal displacement. Similar phenomena can be found near the fourth geotextile strip except for the fact that the inexion positions were a bit different (line b, Fig. 12). It can be concluded that the front part of the reinforced slope was subjected to a backward tension because of the geotextile; accordingly, the back part created a forward tension. In this case, the forward direction is dened as the direction from the inner slope to the slope surface while backward means the opposite direction. Fig. 13 shows the displacement difference for different elevations at the 45-g level. It should be noted that the start of each curve was 5 mm away from the slope surface in the horizontal direction. It can be seen that all of the curves intersected the zero line twice, which means that the horizontal displacements of both of the slopes were equal. These two intersections divided a curve into three segments; thus two surfaces, the H1-surface and the H2-surface, can be obtained by connecting the intersections at

Fig. 13. Displacement difference in the 3:1 slopes at the 45-g level, where Xt is the horizontal distance from the slope toe, Du is the difference displacement, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

different elevations. Therefore, the slope can be categorized into three zones (I, II, III) according to the two surfaces (Fig. 13). Zone I is characterized as a restricted region that is subjected to a backward tension via the reinforcement while the horizontal displacement decreased accordingly. Opposite to this region, Zone II is mainly subjected to a forward tension; this indicates that Zone II provides a backward tension to Zone I and acts as a support body via the geotextile. It should be noted that Zone II covers several centimeters away from the end of the reinforcement. The displacement differences in Zone III were very close to zero; this

12 8 4 0 -4

above reinforcement below reinforcement

u (mm)

line a Y=0.81H=290mm

-8 8 4 0 -4 -8 -12 0

line b Y=0.53H=190mm
20 40 Xs (mm) 60 80

Fig. 12. Displacement difference in the 3:1 slope along the geotextile strip, where Du is the displacement difference (the reinforced subtracted from the unreinforced); Xs is the horizontal distance from the slope surface, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

Fig. 14. Photograph of the 9:1 slope that is reinforced with a 78-mm-long geotextile at the ultimate state.

20

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

Fig. 15. Displacement difference of the horizontal lines in the 9:1 slopes at the 25-g level, where Xt is the horizontal distance from the slope toe, Du is the difference displacement, and Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe.

demonstrated that the reinforcement had a small effect on the deformation of the soil. In other words, the H2-surface can be used as a boundary where the reinforcement has a signicant effect on the slope. The H1-surface has been indicated to be similar to the slip surface of the unreinforced slope. Thus, the slip surface of the unreinforced slope, which can be obtained by limit equilibrium methods, can be used as an important reference in the design of the reinforcement.

5. Inuence of slope inclination An unreinforced (scheme B-1) and a reinforced 9:1 slope with a 78 mm-long geotextile (scheme B-2) were used to discuss how slope inclination affects the reinforcement behavior by comparing the results with the corresponding results of the 3:1 slopes. The 9:1 geotextile-reinforced slope slid at the 25-g level. A crack rst appeared near the slope toe, between the rst and second geotextile strips. The origin of the crack was at 0.16H from the slope

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

21

0.04

0.03

L/H=0.22 L=78 mm L/H=0.42 L=150mm L/H=0.83 L=300mm

inuence on the reinforcement effect of the geotextile. In order to achieve a similar reinforcement effect, a steeper slope may need a longer reinforcement length than a gentler slope.

6. Inuence of reinforcement length

u/H

0.02

J
0.01

Y=0.56H Xs= 10mm

0 0 10 20 a (g) 30 40

Displacement histories of point J

100 80 60 40 20 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Reinforcement Length Ratio, L/H 1

Y=0.56H J K Xs= 10mm , 50mm

The inuence of the reinforcement length was discussed by using the 9:1 reinforced slopes (schemes B-2, B-3, B-4). Fig. 16a shows the horizontal displacement history of a typical point near the surface with the same reinforcement spacing of 50 mm and different reinforcement length ratios of 0.22, 0.42, and 0.83, respectively. It can be seen that an evident inexion occurred in each curve. Such an inexion can be used to determine when this point entered the localization stage. It can be concluded that the increase in the reinforcement length delayed the occurrence of the inexion and decreased the horizontal displacement rate. The distributions of displacement differences at the 25-g level were examined for the 9:1 slopes with different reinforcement length ratios (Fig. 15). When the reinforcement length ratio was 0.22, the H1-surface only locally appeared at the bottom of the slope (Fig. 15a), which indicated that the geotextile had a small effect on the deformation of the slope. If the reinforcement length ratio increased to 0.42, the H1-surface and the H2-surface became evident (Fig. 15b). This demonstrated that the effect of the reinforcement was signicant and that the geotextile was long enough for the slope. If the reinforcement length ratio increased to 0.83, the H1-surface signicantly moved to the interior of the slope and nearly became vertical (Fig. 15c). In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the reinforcement length in reducing the deformation of the slope, an improvement ratio, Ir, is dened as follows:

Improvement Ratio of Horizontal Displacement, (%)

Improvement ratios at the centrifugal acceleration of 25-g level

Ir
Fig. 16. Displacement history and improvement ratios of the horizontal displacement at points in the 9:1 slope, where u is the horizontal displacement, a is the centrifugal acceleration, Xs is the distance from the slope surface, H is the slope height, Y is the vertical distance from the slope toe, and L is the reinforcement length.

D Dr 100%; D

(3)

toe in the vertical direction, which was lower than in the case of the 3:1 reinforced slope with the same reinforcement length and spacing. The crack propagated through two geotextile strips to approximately 0.4H from the slope toe in the vertical direction. At almost the same time, another crack appeared near the end of the fourth geotextile strip (Y 190 mm, 0.53H from the slope toe). It propagated upwards to the top of the slope and downwards to meet the rst crack, which nally formed the slip surface (Fig. 14). The process and development of the localization stage was quite similar to the case of the unreinforced slope, which indicates that reinforcement was invalid under such reinforcement arrangement in the 9:1 slope. Fig. 15a shows the distribution of the displacement difference along the horizontal lines of the 9:1 slopes at the 25-g level. It has been indicated that the 78-mm-long geotextile exhibited a signicant reinforcement effect on the 3:1 slope (Fig. 13); however, the geotextile, which had the same length, did not signicantly affect the 9:1 slope. For instance, the displacement difference was almost zero near the fth geotextile strip (Y 240 mm), and the distribution was quite different from that of the 3:1 slope. It can be seen that the 78-mm-long geotextile had a small effect on the deformation and failure progress of the 9:1 slope. This demonstrated that the inclination of the slope has a signicant

where D and Dr are the horizontal displacement of a point that has the same location in the unreinforced and reinforced slopes, respectively. The improvement ratios for the horizontal displacement at the 25-g level were computed from the test results (Fig. 16b). It can be seen that for a given reinforcement spacing, all of the improvement ratios increased with an increased reinforcement length ratio. However, the magnitude of the improvement ratios was signicantly different at different positions. Thus, it can be concluded that there was a critical reinforcement length for the geotextile-reinforced slope, which is termed the effective reinforcement length in this paper. If the reinforcement length is shorter than the effective reinforcement length, the reinforcement can only locally affect the slope and has an insignicant effect on the failure behavior or the deformation distribution of the slope. On the other hand, if the reinforcement length is longer than the effective reinforcement length, the geotextile can restrict the deformation, prevent the development of a slip surface, and increase the stability level of the slope. These effects can be increased by increasing the reinforcement length. A similar effective reinforcement length was found in the study of vertical geotextile-reinforced earth walls (Chen et al., 2007). In that investigation, the effective reinforcement length was 1.35H, which is larger than the lengths of the reinforced cohesive soil slopes. It should be mentioned that the effective reinforcement length may be different at different elevations of a slope. For example, the position of the H1-surface at the bottom of the slope (Y 90 mm), with a reinforcement length of 0.22H, was similar to that of the

22

Y. Hu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (2010) 1222

slope with a reinforcement length of 0.42H while the position became signicantly different with increasing elevation. Thus, it can be concluded that the reinforcement length may vary according to the laying location in the reinforcement design of a slope. 7. Conclusions A series of centrifuge model tests was conducted to investigate the behavior of the cohesive soil slopes that were reinforced with geotextile and to compare them to unreinforced slopes. The displacement history of the slopes was measured with an image analysis system. The following conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the observations: (1) The failure process of an unreinforced slope can be categorized into three stages: (1) uniform deformation stage; (2) strain localization stage; and (3) post-failure stage. Reinforcement has a signicant effect on the deformation process in the strain localization stage and delays or even prevents the occurrence of a slide. The stability level is increased by the reinforcement and affects the failure modes. (2) The displacement of the geotextile exhibits a distribution of two at regions that are connected by a steep increasing region. (3) Reinforcement increases the thickness of the shear zone and changes the position of the shear zone, which moves forward to the slope surface at lower elevations while it moves backward at higher elevations. (4) Two surfaces, denominated as the H1-surface and the H2surface, can be obtained by comparing the displacement behavior of the reinforced and unreinforced slopes; this categorizes the slope into three zones. The front zone is characterized as a restricted region that is subjected to a backward tension, which is opposite to the slope surface via the geotextile. The middle zone is mainly subjected to a forward tension towards the slope surface and acts as a support body. The reinforcement has no signicant effect on the back zone. (5) Both the inclination of the slope and the reinforcement length have a signicant inuence on the deformation of the geotextile-reinforced slopes. The reinforcement can take effect if the reinforcement length is longer than the effective reinforcement length. The effective reinforcement length usually

increases with an increasing elevation and is signicantly affected by the inclination of the slope. Acknowledgements The project is supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (No. 2007CB714108) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 50823005). References
Bolton, M.D., Choudhury, S.P., Pang, P.L.R., 1978. Modelling reinforced earth. Ground Engineering 11 (6), 1924. Chen, H.T., Hung, W.Y., Chang, C.C., Chen, Y.J., Lee, C.J., 2007. Centrifuge modeling test of a geotextile-reinforced wall with a very wet clayey backll. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (6), 346359. Fishman, K.L., Desai, C.S., 1993. Field behavior of instrumented geogrid soil reinforced wall. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119 (8), 12931307. George, A.A., 1996. Results of direct shear tests on geotextile reinforced cohesive soil. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 14 (11), 619644. Giroud, J.P., Noiray, L., 1981. Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design. American Society of Civil Engineers. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 107 (9), 12331254. Goodings, D.J., Santamarina, J.C., 1989. Reinforced earth and adjacent soils. Centrifuge modeling study. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 115 (7), 10211025. Guler, E., Goodings, D.J., 1992. Centrifuge models of clay-lime reinforced soil walls. Geotechnical Special Publication 2 (30), 12491260. Li, A.L., Rowe, R.K., 2008. Effects of viscous behavior of geosynthetic reinforcement and foundation soils on the performance of reinforced embankments. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (4), 317334. Mahmud, M.B., Zimmie, T.F., 1998. Instrumentation and calibration of geotextiles used in centrifuge modeling of slopes. Transportation Research Record, n 1614, 37. Pu, J.L., Liu, F.D., Li, J.K., Li, S.Q., Yin, K.T., Sun, Y.S., Jin, P.F., 1994. Development of Medium-size Geotechnical Centrifuge at Tsinghua University. Proc.. of 1994 Int. Conference Centrifuge, Singapore 31 Aug2 Sept, pp. 53-56. Sabermahani, M., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Fakher, A., 2009. Experimental study on seismic deformation modes of reinforced-soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2), 121136. Schoeld, A.N., 1980. Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations. Geotechnique 30 (3), 227268. Viswanadham, B.V.S., Mahajan, R.R., 2007. Centrifuge model tests on geotextilereinforced slopes. Geosynthetics International 14 (6), 365379. Zhang, G., Liang, D., Zhang, J.-M., 2006. Image analysis measurement of soil particle movement during a soil-structure interface test. Computers and Geotechnics 33 (45), 248259. Zhang, G., Hu, Y., Zhang, J.M., 2009. New image-analysis-based displacementmeasurement system for centrifuge modeling tests. Measurement 42 (1), 8796. Zornberg, J.G., Arriaga, F., 2003. Strain distribution within geosynthetic-reinforced slopes. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 129 (1), 3245. Zornberg, J.G., Mitchell, J.K., Sitar, N., 1997. Testing of reinforced slopes in a geotechnical centrifuge. Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM 20 (4), 470480.