2006Unpublished venueRequires access

Comparisons on the Interface Shear Strength of Geosynthetics Evaluated by Using Various Kinds of Testing Methods

Min‐Woo Seo, Myounghak Oh, Hyunsuk Yoon, Junboum Park

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The shear behavior of four different interfaces consisting of four types of geosynthetics was investigated, and both static and dynamic test for the geosynthetic interfaces were conducted. The monotonic shear experiments were performed by using an inclined board apparatus and large direct shear device. The interface shear strength obtained from the inclined board test was compared with calculated values from large direct shear tests. The comparison results indicated that direct shear tests show high possibility to over-predict the shear strength in the low normal stress range where direct shear tests are not performed. Curved failure envelopes were also obtained for interface cases where two static shear tests were conducted. By comparing the friction angles measured from three tests, i.e. direct shear, inclined board, and shaking table test, it was found that the friction angle might be different depending on the test method and normal stresses applied in the research. Therefore, it was concluded that the testing method should be determined carefully by considering the type of loads and the normal stress expected in the field with using the geosynthetic materials installed in the site.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The shear behavior of four different interfaces consisting of four types of geosynthetics was investigated, and both static and dynamic test for the geosynthetic interfaces were conducted. The monotonic shear experiments were performed by using an inclined board apparatus and large direct shear device. The interface shear strength obtained from the inclined board test was compared with calculated values from large direct shear tests. The comparison results indicated that direct shear tests show high possibility to over-predict the shear strength in the low normal stress range where direct shear tests are not performed. Curved failure envelopes were also obtained for interface cases where two static shear tests were conducted. By comparing the friction angles measured from three tests, i.e. direct shear, inclined board, and shaking table test, it was found that the friction angle might be different depending on the test method and normal stresses applied in the research. Therefore, it was concluded that the testing method should be determined carefully by considering the type of loads and the normal stress expected in the field with using the geosynthetic materials installed in the site.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The shear behavior of four different interfaces consisting of four types of geosynthetics was investigated, and both static and dynamic test for the geosynthetic interfaces were conducted. The monotonic shear experiments were performed by using an inclined board apparatus and large direct shear device. The interface shear strength obtained from the inclined board test was compared with calculated values from large direct shear tests. The comparison results indicated that direct shear tests show high possibility to over-predict the shear strength in the low normal stress range where direct shear tests are not performed. Curved failure envelopes were also obtained for interface cases where two static shear tests were conducted. By comparing the friction angles measured from three tests, i.e. direct shear, inclined board, and shaking table test, it was found that the friction angle might be different depending on the test method and normal stresses applied in the research. Therefore, it was concluded that the testing method should be determined carefully by considering the type of loads and the normal stress expected in the field with using the geosynthetic materials installed in the site.

Key concepts: Direct shear test, Shear (geology), Geotechnical engineering, Geosynthetics, Materials science, Shear stress, Shear strength (soil), Triaxial shear test

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparisons on the Interface Shear Strength of Geosynthetics Evaluated by Using Various Kinds of Testing Methods — Research Paper | ScholarLens