Golden Jubilee Conference of theIGS Bangalore Chapter, Geo-Innovations, 30-31 October 2014

Shaking Table Studies on Geotextile Reinforced Soil

Slopes

​ , ​Madhavi Latha.G 2​ ​and ​Puttappa C.G.​3

Srilatha.N 1*​

1​
Assistant professor, MSRIT, Bangalore,

srilatha@civil.iisc.ernet.in

2​
Associate Professor, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore,

madhavi@civil.iisc.ernet.in

3​
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, MSRIT,

Bangalore​,puttappacg@gmail.com

Abstract. ​This paper studies the performance of unreinforced and reinforced soil slopes through
series of laboratory shaking table tests. Construction of model soil slopes in the laminar box mounted
on shaking table, instrumentation and results from the shaking table tests are discussed in detail. The
model tests were conducted to study the effect of the frequency and effect of number of reinforcing
layers under different ground shaking conditions. Slopes were constructed to angle of 45° in all the
model tests. Frequency of base shaking is varied from 1 Hz to 7 Hz in different tests. Acceleration of
base shaking kept as 0.3 g in all the tests. The soil used in the present study is poorly graded sand.
Geotextile is used as reinforcement and the slope is constructed in lifts with geotextile placed at
different heights. The response of model slope is compared in terms of the displacements of the slope
and acceleration amplifications measured at different elevations. The benefit of reinforcement in
reducing the slope displacements are discussed in detail.

Keywords: ​shaking table tests, frequency, seismic response, reinforcement, geotextile, soil
slopes

Introduction ​Geosynthetic soil slopes and walls have shown effective performance against
earthquake loading than conventional structures in the past earthquakes [4]. Physical
modeling using reduced scale models is often used by researchers for investigating the
behavior of reinforced soil slopes and walls during seismic loading [1,2,3 and 5]. This paper
aims at understanding the seismic performance of unreinforced and reinforced model slopes
through series of laboratory shaking table tests. The performance is compared in terms of the
displacements of the slope and the acceleration amplifications measured at different
elevations. It is observed from these tests that the variation in frequency and number of
reinforcing layers has significant influence on the performance of the model slopes.

Shaking table ​A computer controlled servo hydraulic single axis shaking table is used to
simulate the horizontal shaking action. The pay load capacity of this shaking table is 1000 Kg
and the loading platform is of size 1 m × 1m.The operating frequency range is 0.05 Hz to 50
Hz. Accelerometers and ultrasonic non-contact displacement transducers are used to
measure the response of the model slope during shaking. Accelerometers are of analog
voltage output type with a full-scale acceleration range of ±2g along both the x and y axes,
with sensitivity of 0.001g. The sensing range of the ultrasonic displacement transducers is 30
mm to 300 mm and output response time of 30 ms. The laminar box used in this study is
rectangular in cross section with inside dimensions of 500 mm ×1000 mm and 800 mm deep
made up of fifteen rectangular hollow layers machined from solid aluminium separated by
linear roller bearings arranged to permit relative movement between the layers with minimum
friction and the bottom most layer is rigidly connected to the solid base of 15 mm thickness.

1
Golden Jubilee Conference of theIGS Bangalore Chapter, Geo-Innovations, 30-31 October 2014
MATERIALS USED
Soil ​The soil used to construct the model slopes is classified as poorly graded sand
according to the Unified soil classification system. The properties of the soil are listed in
Table 1 below.
Table 1. Properties of the test sand
Parameter Value
Specific Gravity, G 2.65
D​10 ​0.22 mm
D​30 ​0.425 mm
D​60 ​1.1 mm
Coefficient of uniformity, Cu 5
Coefficient of curvature, Cc 0.74
Reinforcement ​The material used for reinforcing the slopes is woven geotextile. This is
a polypropylene multifilament woven fabric. The individual multifilaments are woven
together in such a manner as to provide ​dimensional stability relative to each other. Ultimate
tensile strength of the geotextile is determined by the wide-width strip method as per ASTM
D-4595.The properties of the geotextile are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Properties of the geotextile
Parameter Value
Breaking strength
55.5 and 46.0 kN/ m ​
( warp and weft ) ​ Elongation at break
38 % and 21.3%
( warp and weft ) ​
1 mm
Thickness ​
Mass per unit area 230 gm/m​2
2
Golden Jubilee Conference of theIGS Bangalore Chapter, Geo-Innovations, 30-31 October 2014
MODEL CONSTRUCTION
A polyethylene sheet was used to cover the inside of the laminar box to cover the gap
between the rectangular panels and also to minimize the friction between the model and
the laminar box. The soil was compacted in layers of equal height of size 850 mm × 500
mm in plan and 600 mm in height in the laminar box. The unit weight and water content
were kept as 17 kN/m3 and 10 % respectively in all the model tests. A mass of 5 kg was
dropped from a height of 450 mm on 150 mm × 150 mm square steel base plate with
fixed guide rod at the centre of the base plate to achieve the desired unit weight for
each layer. Reinforcement was placed at the interface of the compacted soil layers.
During the process of compaction the accelerometers, A1, A2 and A3 were embedded
in soil at elevations 170 mm, 370 mm and 570 mm from the base of the slope, whereas
one accelerometer, A0, was fixed to the bottom of the shaking table to measure base
acceleration. Three displacement transducers, U1, U2 and U3, were positioned along
the face of the slope at elevations 200 mm, 350 mm and 500 mm from base of the slope
to measure the horizontal displacements. Fig.1 shows the schematic diagram of a
typical reinforced soil slope model constructed in the laminar box.
T-Shaped bracket made of angle section ​A:Accelerometer

250
U:USDT
U3

A3 Geogrid ​800
U2
A2
Z U1
A1 ​45°

150
Fig. 1 Schematic of typical two layer reinforced Slope
MODEL TESTS AND RESULTS
A Series of model tests were conducted by varying the frequency of base shaking and number
 of reinforcing layers. The frequency was varied from 1 Hz to 7 Hz in different tests. All the
model slopes were subjected to 40 cycles of dynamic motion of shaking table at the intended
base acceleration. Table 3 gives the details of model tests and the test parameters. Typical
response of Acceleration with number of cycles of base motion for the test UT2 shown in Fig 3.
3 ​A2 ​600
Laminar box
Shaking table

850
A0
Golden Jubilee Conference of theIGS Bangalore Chapter, Geo-Innovations, 30-31 October 2014
Table 3 ​Parameters varied in different model tests
Test Code Frequency
Acceleration (Hz)
(g)
4 ​no. of reinforcing layers
UT1 1 0.3 0 UT2 2 0.3 0 UT5 5 0.3 0 UT7 7 0.3 0 R1T2 2 0.3 1 R2T2 2 0.3 2 R3T2 2 0.3 3
R3T1 1 0.3 3 R3T5 5 0.3 3 R3T7 7 0.3 3
Fig. 3 Variation of base Acceleration A0 with number of cycles in test UT2
To simplify the presentation of acceleration response of the slope, RMS acceleration
amplification factors (RMSA amplification factors) are used to represent the acceleration. These
factors are calculated using the root mean square (RMS) method applied to the
acceleration-time history for each accelerometer device [6]. Horizontal displacements and
Acceleration amplification factors are presented after normalizing the elevation (z) by the total
height of the slope (H) in all the plots.RMSA amplification factors for different model slopes at
different elevations are presented in Fig. 4(a).
Golden Jubilee Conference of theIGS Bangalore Chapter, Geo-Innovations, 30-31 October 2014
 (b) Displacement profiles

Fig. 4 Response of unreinforced model slopes at various

frequencies

Maximum amplification occurred at the top of the slope and the acceleration response of the slope
increased with the increase in frequency from 1 Hz to 7 Hz and exhibiting maximum response at 7 Hz.
From Fig 4(b), it can be observed that slope displaced maximum under a frequency of 1 Hz and
corresponding displacements decreased with increase in frequency.

5
(a) RMSA amplification factors
Golden Jubilee Conference of theIGS Bangalore Chapter, Geo-Innovations, 30-31 October 2014
 (b) Displacement profiles

Fig. 5 Response of effect of number of layers at frequency of 2

Hz

The effect of reinforcement on the response of model slopes shown in Fig.5 for tests UT2, R1T2,
R2T2 and R3T2, for unreinforced, one, two and three layers of geotextile reinforcement as explained
earlier. There is no effect of reinforcement at higher elevations in case of acceleration response. The
displacement response decreased with increase in number of layers, displaced maximum at
unreinforced 2 Hz and reinforced slope is displaced less than that of unreinforced slope. Fig.6 shows
the variation in displacements and acceleration amplifications along the height of the three layered
geotextile reinforced model slopes at different frequencies (1, 2, 5 and 7 Hz). From Fig 6(a), it is
observed that, among the different frequency levels used in tests (1 to 7 Hz), the slope is amplified
more at 7 Hz frequency and amplification response decreased with decrease in frequency.

6
(a) ​RMSA amplification factors
(b)
Golden Jubilee Conference of theIGS Bangalore Chapter, Geo-Innovations, 30-31 October 2014
 (b) Displacement profiles

Fig.6 Response of 3 layered reinforced model slopes at

various frequencies after 40 cycles of shaking at 0.3g
dynamic motion

From Fig 6(b), it is observed that displacement response increased with decrease in
frequency for all reinforced three layered model slopes. The failure of the unreinforced model
slope is observed visually after 40 cycles of dynamic motion at frequency of 1 Hz shown in
Fig.7.

7
(a) RMSA amplification factors
Golden Jubilee Conference of theIGS Bangalore Chapter, Geo-Innovations, 30-31 October 2014

Fig. 7. Photograph showing failure of slope after 0.3g dynamic motion at frequency of 1
Hz.

Conclusions ​Seismic response of unreinforced and reinforced model slopes is studied.

Acceleration amplifications are much at the top of the slope and increased with increase in
elevation. Displacements increased drastically with the decrease in frequency for both
unreinforced and reinforced soil slopes. No significant effect on acceleration amplifications
with change in number of reinforcing layers. Reinforced slopes deformed less than the
unreinforced slopes for the same input excitation.

References
Book chapter

1. Bathurst RJ, Hatami K, Alfaro MC (2002a) Geosynthetic reinforced soil walls and slopes:
seismic Aspects, Chapter 14, Geosynthetics and their applications (ed. SK. Shukla), Thomas
Telford, London, pp. 327–392. 2. Perez A, Holtz RD (2004) Seismic response of reinforced
 steep soil slopes: results of shaking
table study, Geotechnical Engineering for Transportation Projects. ASCE. GSP
126:1664-1672.

Dissertation 3. Perez A (1999) Seismic response of geosynthetic reinforced steep slopes.

M.S. Thesis,
University of Washington, USA.

Journal article 4. Ling HI, Leshchinsky D, Chou NN (2001) Post-earthquake investigation on

several geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls and slopes during the Ji-Ji earthquake of
Taiwan. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 21(4): 297-313. 5. Srilatha N, Madhavi
Latha G, Puttappa CG (2012) Effect of frequency on seismic response of
reinforced soil slopes in shaking table tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 36:
27-32.

Book 6. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper

Saddle River,
NJ.

View View publication

publication stats stats