Experimental Investigation and Constitutive Modeling of Grout–Sand Interface
Publication: International Journal of Geomechanics
Volume 19, Issue 5
Abstract
The shear stress–displacement behavior and shear-strength parameters of the interface between the cement grout nail and surrounding soil are important factors in the design and safety assessment of a soil-nailing system. One of the most commonly used methods to measure the interface shear strength of a soil-grouting system is the direct shear testing method. This study aimed to investigate the behavior of the interface between the cement-grouted materials (soil nails) and sandy soil using direct shear test apparatus, make a comparison between the sand–sand interface and grout–sand interface, and calibrate an interface model to be used in simulations of soil-nailing systems. The effect of the water:cement ratio of the grout and the relative density of the sand on the interface behavior is also investigated. The findings show that, in general, the behavior of interfaces is similar to that of dense sand in terms of strain softening, and their peak and residual friction angles were found to be approximately 8 and 4% higher, respectively. The setting time of the grout and relative density of the sand were not found to affect friction angles significantly, whereas cohesion intercepts were affected by it. Finally, the model calibrated herein was found to have good agreement with experimental data and could be used for soil-nailing simulations.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
ASTM. 2011. Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. D3080M-11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2014. Standard practice for mechanical mixing of hydraulic cement pastes and mortars of plastic consistency. C305-14. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2016. Standard test method for flow of grout for preplaced-aggregate concrete (flow cone method). C939M-16a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017a. Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete. C494M-17. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017b. Standard specification for packaged dry, hydraulic-cement grout (nonshrink). C1107M-17. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018. Standard specification for Portland cement. C150M-18. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Bahadori, H., and A. Ghalandarzadeh. 2010. “Study of the cyclic behavior of saturated sand considering the effect of induced anisotropy.” Civ. Eng. Infrastruct. J. 44 (2): 151–163.
Chu, L. M., and J. H. Yin. 2005. “Comparison of interface shear strength of soil nails measured by both direct shear box tests and pullout tests.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131 (9): 1097–1107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:9(1097).
Desai, C. S. 2000. Mechanics of materials and interfaces: The disturbed state concept. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Desai, C. S. 2007. “Unified DSC constitutive model for pavement materials with numerical implementation.” Int. J. Geomech. 7 (2): 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2007)7:2(83).
Desai, C. S. 2015. “Constitutive modeling of materials and contacts using the disturbed state concept: Part 1—Background and analysis.” Comput. Struct. 146: 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruc.2014.07.018.
Desai, C. S., E. C. Drumm, and M. M. Zaman. 1985. “Cyclic testing and modeling of interfaces.” J. Geotech. Eng. 111 (6): 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:6(793).
Desai, C. S., and K. L. Fishman. 1991. “Plasticity-based constitutive model with associated testing for joints.” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 28 (1): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(91)93229-Y.
Desai, C. S., and Y. Ma. 1992. “Modelling of joints and interfaces using the disturbed-state concept.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 16 (9): 623–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610160903.
Desai, C. S., and D. B. Rigby. 1997. “Cyclic interface and joint shear device including pore pressure effects.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 123 (6): 568–579. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1997)123:6(568).
Desai, C. S., and M. Zaman. 2013. Advanced geotechnical engineering: Soil-structure interaction using computer and material models. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Desai, C. S., M. M. Zaman, J. G. Lightner, and H. J. Siriwardane. 1984. “Thin‐layer element for interfaces and joints.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 8 (1): 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610080103.
Hossain, M. A., and J. H. Yin. 2012. “Influence of grouting pressure on the behavior of an unsaturated soil-cement interface.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 138 (2): 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000585.
Hosseinali, M., and V. Toufigh. 2018a. “A plasticity-based constitutive model for the behavior of soil-structure interfaces under cyclic loading.” Transp. Geotech. 14: 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.10.001.
Hosseinali, M., and V. Toufigh. 2018b. “A simple model for various types of concretes and confinement conditions based on disturbed state concept.” Sci. Iranica 25 (2): 557–564. https://doi.org/10.24200/sci.2017.4193.
Kishida, H., and M. Uesugi. 1987. “Tests of the interface between sand and steel in the simple shear apparatus.” Géotechnique 37 (1): 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1987.37.1.45.
Lazarte, C. A., V. Elias, D. Espinoza, and P. J. Sabatini. 2003. Soil nail walls. FHWA0-IF-03-017. Washington, DC: FHWA.
Ouria, A. 2017. “Disturbed state concept–based constitutive model for structured soils.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (7): 04017008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000883.
Pun, W. K., and Y. K. Shiu. 2007. “Design practice and technical developments of soil nailing in Hong Kong.” In Proc., Geotechnical Advancements in Hong Kong since 1970s, 197–212. Causeway Bay, Hong Kong: Geotechnical Division, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers.
Su, L. J., T. C. F. Chan, J. H. Yin, Y. K. Shiu, and S. L. Chiu. 2008. “Influence of overburden pressure on soil–nail pullout resistance in a compacted fill.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 134 (9): 1339–1347. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:9(1339).
Toufigh, V., S. M. Shirkhorshidi, and M. Hosseinali. 2017. “Experimental investigation and constitutive modeling of polymer concrete and sand interface.” Int. J. Geomech. 17 (1): 04016043. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000695.
Xiao, Y., and C. S. Desai. Forthcoming. “Constitutive modeling for overconsolidated clays based on disturbed state concept: Part I. Theory.” Int. J. Geomech.
Xu, D. S., H. B. Liu, and W. L. Luo. 2018. “Evaluation of interface shear behavior of GFRP soil nails with a strain-transfer model and distributed fiber-optic sensors.” Comput. Geotech. 95: 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2017.10.005.
Yin, J. H., and W. H. Zhou. 2009. “Influence of grouting pressure and overburden stress on the interface resistance of a soil nail.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 135 (9): 1198–1208. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000045.
Zhang, G. A., and J. M. Zhang. 2006. “Monotonic and cyclic tests of interface between structure and gravelly soil.” Soils Found. 46 (4): 505–518. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.46.505.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
International Journal of Geomechanics
Volume 19 • Issue 5 • May 2019
Copyright
© 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jun 10, 2018
Accepted: Oct 5, 2018
Published online: Feb 22, 2019
Published in print: May 1, 2019
Discussion open until: Jul 22, 2019
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.