Skip to main content
Log in

Axial Pullout Resistance and Interface Direct Shear Properties of Geogrids in Pond Ash

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Presently, pond ash is accumulated in large quantities in thermal power plants. There is potential for large-volume utilization of pond ash as a fill material. Applications involving mechanical stabilization of fills constructed with geogrid-reinforced pond ash is explored in the study. A systematic experimental program was carried out to evaluate the interface direct shear strength and axial pullout resistances of four to eight different uniaxial polyester geogrids embedded in pond ash. Geogrids of varying tensile strengths and opening area ratios were considered. No significant difference in the interfacial shear strengths was observed among the four different geogrids tested. Based on the interface direct shear strengths at peak and critical states, the efficiencies of geogrids were found to range from 62 to 83%. The axial pullout resistances of geogrids in pond ash were found to be high for grids with high tensile strength. Finally, based on extensive pullout test results, empirical equations were fitted to estimate the axial pullout resistance of uniaxial geogrids embedded in pond ash corresponding to two front-end axial pullout displacements of 30 mm and 60 mm. The proposed equations were found to agree very closely with the experimental results (R2 = 0.95).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sawe BE (2018) Coal usage by country. In: Economics. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/15-countries-most-dependent-on-coal-for-energy.html. Accessed 18 Oct 2020

  2. Seetharaman G (2020) Coal is here to stay despite India’s ambitious goals for renewable energy. In: Econ. Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/india-will-not-be-able-to-achieve-its-renewable-energy-targets-anytime-soon/articleshow/69286279.cms?from=mdr. Accessed 18 Oct 2020

  3. Jakka RS, Ramana GV, Datta M (2010) Shear behaviour of loose and compacted pond ash. Geotech Geol Eng 28:763–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-010-9337-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kumar S, Kumar K, Gupta M (2016) Environmental effects characterization of heavy metal trace elements in the fly ash from a thermal power plant. Energy Sour Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 38:2370–2376. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2015.1072601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kumar S, Gandhi BK, Mohapatra SK (2016) Environmental effects leaching characteristics of bottom ash from thermal power plants. Energy Sour Part A Recover Util Environ Eff 38:686–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2015.1010051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghosh P, Goel S (2017) Leaching behaviour of pond ash. Capital Publishing Company, New Delhi

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Mohanty S, Patra NR (2015) Geotechnical characterization of Panki and Panipat pond ash in India. Int J Geoeng 6:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40703-015-0013-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. CEA (2018) Fly ash generation at coal/lignite based thermal power stations and its utilization in the country. Central Electricity Authority report, India

  9. Bera AK, Ghosh A, Ghosh A (2009) Shear strength response of reinforced pond ash. Constr Build Mater 23:2386–2393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Singh SP, Sharan A (2014) Strength characteristics of compacted pond ash. Geomech Geoeng 9:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2013.772661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karnam Prabhakara BK, Guda PV, Balunaini U (2019) Optimum mixing ratio and shear strength of granulated rubber–fly ash mixtures. J Mater Civ Eng 31:04019018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Karnam Prabhakara BK, Guda PV, Balunaini U (2020) Interface shear stress properties of geogrids with mixtures of fly ash and granulated rubber. J Mater Civ Eng 32:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yoon S, Balunaini U, Yildirim IZ et al (2009) Construction of an embankment with a fly and bottom ash mixture: field performance study. J Mater Civ Eng 21:271–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tuna SC, Altun S (2012) Mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile interface. Sci Iran 19:1044–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.06.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hegde A, Roy R (2018) A comparative numerical study on soil–geosynthetic interactions using large scale direct shear test and pullout test. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0119-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Prashanth V, Murali Krishna A, Dash SK (2016) Pullout tests using modified direct shear test setup for measuring soil–geosynthetic interaction parameters. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0050-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Choudhary AK, Krishna AM (2016) Experimental investigation of interface behaviour of different types of granular soil/geosynthetics. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-016-0044-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bergado DT, Chai JC, Abiera HO et al (1993) Interaction between cohesive-frictional soil and various grid reinforcements. Geotext Geomembr 12:327–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(93)90008-C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Youwai S, Bergado DT, Supawiwat N (2004) Interaction between hexagonal wire reinforcement and rubber tire chips with and without sand mixture. Geotech Test J 27:260–268

    Google Scholar 

  20. Arulrajah A, Rahman MA, Bo MW et al (2013) Interface shear strength testing of geogrid-reinforced construction and demolition materials. Adv Civ Eng Mater 2:20120055. https://doi.org/10.1520/acem20120055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alfaro MC, Miura N, Bergado DT (1995) Soil-geogrid reinforcement interaction by pullout and direct shear tests. Geotech Test J 18:157–167. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10319J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumar KPB, Umashankar B (2018) Interface studies on geogrid and fly ash. Geotech Spec Publ IFCEE 297:119–129. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481608.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Balunaini U, Prezzi M (2010) Interaction of ribbed-metal-strip reinforcement with tire shred-sand mixtures. Geotech Geol Eng 28:147–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-009-9288-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Balunaini U, Yoon S, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2014) Pullout response of uniaxial geogrid in tire shred-sand mixtures. Geotech Geol Eng 32:505–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-014-9731-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Prasad PS, Ramana GV (2016) Feasibility study of copper slag as a structural fill in reinforced soil structures. Geotext Geomembr 44:623–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Prasad PS, Ramana GV (2016) Imperial smelting furnace (zinc) slag as a structural fill in reinforced soil structures. Geotext Geomembr 44:406–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pando M, Swan RJ, Park Y, Sheridan S (2014) Experimental study of bottom coal ash–geogrid interaction. Geocongr Tech Pap. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413272.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pant A, Datta M, Ramana GV (2019) Bottom ash as a backfill material in reinforced soil structures. Geotext Geomembr 47:514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pant A, Ramana GV, Datta M, Gupta SK (2019) Coal combustion residue as structural fill material for reinforced soil structures. J Clean Prod 232:417–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. IRC: SP:102 (2014) Guidelines for design and construction of reinforced soil walls

  31. Elias V, Christopher B, Berg R (2001) Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes design and construction guidelines. FHWA-NHI-00-043 Rep

  32. BS8006 (2010) Code of practice for strengthened/reinfroced soils and other fills. Br Stand

  33. Kim B, Prezzi M, Salgado R (2005) Geotechnical properties of fly and bottom ash mixtures for use in highway embankments. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131:914–924. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:7(914)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. ASTM C618 (2014) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use. ASTM Int Conshohocken, PA, USA 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0618

  35. ASTM G51 (2018) Standard test method for measuring pH of soil for use in corrosion testing. ASTM Int Conshohocken, PA, USA

  36. ASTM D2435 (2003) Standard test methods for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soils using incremental loading ASTM D2435. ASTM Stand 04:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1520/D2435

  37. Yaghoubi E, Disfani MM, Arulrajah A, Kodikara J (2018) Impact of compaction method on mechanical characteristics of unbound granular recycled materials. Road Mater Pavement Des 19:912–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1283354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Carrier WD (2000) Compressibility of a compacted sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 126:273–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jamshidi Chenari R, Fatahi B, Akhavan Maroufi MA, Alaie R (2017) An experimental and numerical investigation into the compressibility and settlement of sand mixed with TDA. Geotech Geol Eng 35:2401–2420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0255-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. ASTM D3080 (2011) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. ASTM Int Conshohocken, PA, USA 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1520/D3080

  41. ASTM D5321 (2013) Standard test method for determining the shear strength of soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic–geosynthetic interfaces by direct shear. ASTM Int Conshohocken, PA, USA, pp 1–11

  42. Arulrajah A, Rahman MA, Piratheepan J et al (2014) Evaluation of interface shear strength properties of geogrid-reinforced construction and demolition materials using a modified large scale direct shear testing apparatus. J Mater Civ Eng 26:974–982. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hariprasad C, Umashankar B (2018) Transverse pullout response of smooth-metal-strip reinforcements embedded in sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 144:06017020. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Palmeira EM, Milligan GWE (1989) Scale effects in direct shear tests on sand. In: XIII International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, pp 739–742

  45. Lopes ML, Ladeira M (1996) Role of specimen geometry, soil height and sleeve length on the pull-out behaviour of geogrids. Geosynth Int 3:701–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hariprasad C, Rajashekhar M, Umashankar B (2016) Preparation of uniform sand specimens using stationary pluviation and vibratory methods. Geotech Geol Eng 34:1909–1922. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0064-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. ASTM D6706 (2001) Standard test method for measuring geosynthetic pullout resistance in soil. pp 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1520/D6706-01R13.2

  48. Karnam Prabhakara BK, Balunaini U, Arulrajah A (2021) Development of a unique test apparatus to conduct axial and transverse pullout testing on geogrid reinforcements. J Mater Civ Eng 33:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Sarsby R (1985) The influence of aperture size/particle size on efficiency of grid reinforcement. In: Proceedings of 2nd Canadian Symposium on geo-textiles and geomembranes. Edmonton, Canada, pp 7–12

  50. Artidteang S, Bergado DT, Tanchaisawat T, Saowapakpiboon J (2012) Investigation of tensile and soil-geotextile interface strength of kenaf woven limited life geotextiles (LLGS). Lowl Technol Int 14:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tanchaisawat T, Bergado DT, Voottipruex P, Shehzad K (2010) Interaction between geogrid reinforcement and tire chip-sand lightweight backfill. Geotext Geomembr 28:119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Namjoo AM, Soltani F, Toufigh V (2021) Effects of moisture on the mechanical behavior of sand–geogrid: an experimental investigation. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00243-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sieira ACCF (2003) Experimental Study on Soil–Geogrid Interaction Mechanisms. Dissertation. Pontifical University of Rio de Janeiro

  54. Farrag K, Acar YB, Juran I (1993) Pull-out resistance of geogrid reinforcements. Geotext Geomembr 12:133–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Lopes MJ, Lopes ML (1999) Soil–geosynthetic interaction-influence of soil particle size and geosynthetic structure. Geosynth Int 6:261–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Esfandiari J, Selamat MR (2012) Laboratory investigation on the effect of transverse member on pull out capacity of metal strip reinforcement in sand. Geotext Geomembr 35:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the officials at Narla Tatarao Thermal Power Plant Station (NTTPS), Vijayawada, for their support in providing the pond ash samples. Authors would also like to extend thanks to geogrid manufacturers (Strata Geosystems Pvt. Ltd., India and Techfab India) for providing the geogrid reinforcements used in the present study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Umashankar Balunaini.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karnamprabhakara, B.K., Balunaini, U., Arulrajah, A. et al. Axial Pullout Resistance and Interface Direct Shear Properties of Geogrids in Pond Ash. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 7, 22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-021-00266-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-021-00266-x

Keywords

Navigation