AGENDA Michael Close, PE

Review of Geosynthetics
Geotextiles or Fabrics
Woven Geotextiles
Non-woven Geotextiles
Geogrids
Geogrids used in MSE Walls & Slopes
Geogrids used for Stabilization

Stabilization and Pavement

Reinforcement Geogrid Applications
Research and Relevant Proof
Support Options
Different Types of Geosynthetics

Geocomposites

Geotextiles

GeoCell
AASHTO M288
Generic Geotextile Specification

Filtration
Drainage
Erosion Control
Silt Fence
Separation

But Not Reinforcement!

Fabric Uses
Under Rip Rap French Drains
Fabrics Used in Pavements

WITH FABRIC WITHOUT

They Separate
They do NOT Reinforce!
Design Criteria for Protective Filters
Geogrids

Differences between Geogrids used for

MSE Walls & Reinforced Soil Slopes

Soil Stabilization & Pavement

Reinforcement
Geogrids in MSE Walls & Reinforced Slopes
Allowable Long Term Design Strength (Ta)
Ta = Tult / (Fscreep + Fsaging + Fsinst. + Fsunc.)

Tult Ultimate Tensile Strength

Fscreep Factor of safety for creep of the
polymer
Fsaging Factor of safety for chemical and
biological degradation
Fsinst Factor of safety for installation damage
Fsunc Factor of safety for uncertainties
USE THE SAME SOURCE for Factors of Safety
Consider NTPEP
Geogrids in MSE Walls & Reinforced Slopes
Other Important Factors

Quality of the PVC Coating of Polyester

Geogrids
HDPE Geogrids can be cast into concrete
HDPE Geogrids are capable of surviving higher
and lower pH soils than other types of
Geogrids
HDPE Geogrids can make mechanical
connections
Soil Stabilization and Pavement
Reinforcement Geogrids

2008 FHWA Geosynthetic Design and

Construction Guidelines

Section 5.5 Stabilization

Section 5.7 Pavement Design with

Geogrids
2008 FHWA Geosynthetic Design
and Construction Guidelines

Section 5.5 2 Methods for

Stabilization of Soft Soil for use in
Temporary and Unpaved Roads
Giroud and Han Method published in
the August 2004 ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering
Modified Seward published in US
Army Corp of Engineers ETL 1110-1-
189
 How Do Geogrids for Soil Stabilization
and Pavement Reinforcement Work?

How Properly Designed Geogrids Work

3 Fundamental Reinforcement Mechanisms

(Listed in order of decreasing significance)

Lateral Restraint

Improved Bearing Capacity

Tension Membrane Effect

Source: USACOE ETL 1110-1-189

 USACE ETL1110-1-189

The tensioned membrane effect was

thought to be the primary
reinforcement mechanism. However,
subsequent investigations have shown
that reinforcement benefits are
obtained without significant
deformation of the pavement section.
Thus, lateral restraint has been
identified as the primary reinforcing
mechanism

Source: USACOE ETL 1110-1-189

 TENSIONED MEMBRANE EFFECT

Tensioned Membrane Effect

Improved vertical stress
distribution resulting from
tensile stress in the
deformed membrane.

Source: USACOE ETL 1110-1-189

 IMPROVED BEARING CAPACITY
Improved Bearing Capacity
Shifting failure envelope
Reinforced Shear from the weak subgrade to
Surface
the stronger base material
Results in enhanced bearing
capacity of the subgrade
without soil treatment or
undercutting

Unreinforced Shear
Surface

Figure 2. Improved bearing capacity reinforcement

mechanism.

Source: USACOE ETL 1110-1-189

IMPROVED BEARING CAPACITY
Critical Failure Mechanism:
Failure/deformation of subgrade
Principle Benefits:
Aggregate thickness reduction Soft Subgrade
Cheaper roads
Faster construction
 LATERAL RESTRAINT

Lateral Restraint
Confinement of the
Lateral Shear
Flow
aggregate base during
loading
Results in increase in
modulus of the base
material (Residual Stress)
Improved/reduced vertical
stress distribution applied to
Lateral Restraint Due to
Friction pavement subgrade
Figure 1. Lateral restraint reinforcement mechanism.

Source: USACOE ETL 1110-1-189

BX & TX APPLICATIONS
Range of Applications
Range of Applications
Range of Applications
Range of Applications
Range of Applications
Range of Applications
Site Access
Fire Access Lanes
Unstable Subgrade for RCP
Support Beneath Utilities

Unstable Subgrade for RCP

Utility Trenches
Geogrid Reinforced Foundation
Geogrid Reinforced Foundation
Embankment Stabilization

Conventional Design

1.5

Reinforced Design With Tensar

Structural Geogrids
Subgrade Improvement
 Pavement Reinforcement

Life Cycle Cost Savings Reduced Initial Cost

Service Life Extension Pavement Component
Reduction

50,000 ESALs 100,000 ESALs 100,000 ESALs 50,000 ESALs

50,000 ESALs 50,000 ESALs
University of Illinois Stiffness
Enhancement and Damage (TBR)

Trenching of Full-Scale Sections

RESEARCH AND RELEVANT PROOF
 Proven Performance:
Pavement Testing

Plate loading Moving wheels Full scale Composite

Gourc et al (1983) Brown et al (1982) Ruddock et al (1982) Kennephol et al

U of Waterloo (1984) Barker (1987) Halliday & Potter (1984) (1985)
Milligan et al (1986) Barksdale et al Milligan et al (1986) Cancelli et al (1996)
Haas et al (1988) (1989) Delmas et al (1986) Al-Qadi et al (1998)
Chaddock (1988)
Alenowicz et al (1996) Collin et al (1996) Miura et al (1990)
Anderson & Killeavy (1989)
Beretta et al (1994) Moghaddas et al Yarger et al (1991) Perkins (1998 - )
Abdulijauwal et al (1994) (1996) Webster (1991)
Palmeira & Ferreira (1994) Watts et al (2004) Webster (1992)
Ho (1996) Perkins (2004) Dawson et al (1994)
Collin et al (1996) Freeman & Ahlrich (1996)
Gabr 2001 Austin & Knapton (1996)
Brandon et al (1996)
Huntington & Ksaibati
(1999)
Morvant & Holm (1999)
Pavement Management
Services (2000)
Beland & Konrad (2002)
Tingle & Webster (2003)
Iowa State Study Direct Proof

Do we have any direct proof from instrumented

pavements?

14.5 osy W-PP-GT

BX1200
Control
TX160
 Total Stress Versus Time - SUBGRADE
25
Lift 1 Lift 2
Case Case CAT Truck
20
CAT

Truck
Total Stress (kPa)

15

10 TX160
5

0
0 50 100 150

Roller/Test Vehical Cumulative Pass Count

14.5 osy W-PP-GT
BX1200
Control Section
TX160

Horizontal Stress within the

subgrade layer after roller compaction and
test vehicle passes
 Total Stress Versus Time - AGGREGATE
25
Lift 1 Lift 2
Case Case CAT Truck

20 CAT
TX160
Truck
Total Stress (kPa)

15

10

0
0 50 100 150

Roller/Test Vehical Cumulative Pass Count

14.5 osy W-PP-GT

BX1200
Control Section
TX160

Horizontal Stress within the

subbase layer after roller compaction
and test vehicle passes
USACE Full Scale Accelerated
Pavement Testing
Purpose / Objective:
Provide full-scale paved APT performance
data for TriAx for base reinforcement
design following AASHTO '93 and/or
mechanistic-empirical approaches.
Combine this study with all previous BX
research and TX research to establish a
Tensar performance database
Utilize database to validate design
approaches selected for commercial
and/or technical purposes.
Project in 2 phases of 5 sections each.
Phase 1 at CBR 3, Phase 2 at CBR 8.

Status:
Trafficking complete on thin AC control,
thick AC control versus TX140 and TX
sections.
TX7 data still being assessed by COE.
BX1200 section not yet tested (flood).
First Report February 5, 2010 on 2
controls & TX140

Results / Key Findings:

These results, along with results from
other research and field documentation
are the basis for the geogrid benefit
integration within the SP4 paved design
method.
USACE Full Scale Accelerated
Pavement Testing
Profile of Test Sections

Item 3
Prototype B
Accumulated Rutting to 100,000
ESALs
 1992 Corps of Engineers

 Application of 30,000 lb.

Wheel Load

 Installing Geogrid
on the Subgrade
1992 Corps of Engineers
Tested Six Different Geogrids
 1992 Corps of Engineers Results

TIF (Traffic Improvement Factor) = # of passes until failure

(1 rut depth) versus unreinforced (control) section.
2 Asphalt Concrete
14 Aggregate Base
Subgrade CBR = 3
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Webster, 1992)

Traffic Improvement Factor (TBR)

0.92 0.94 1.00 1.10 2.82 4.72
Tensile Strength at 5% Strain

1600

1340
(A STM D 4595-86) [lb/ft]

1400

1100
1200

920
1000
790

760
800
600
400
200 0
0
l

00

00
ro
1

3
rid
rid

rid
nt

12
11
G

Co
G

BX
BX
d
de
en

en

AR

AR
tr u
ov

ov

NS

NS
Ex
W

TE

TE
Compare tensile strengths of products
Performance is not a function of tensile strength alone
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Webster, 1992)

Conclusions
Ribs Thickness Thicker is better

Stiffness High stiffness is better

Shape Rectangular is better

Aperture Size Depends on fill used

Shape Round or square is better

Stiffness High stiffness is better

Joint Strength High compared to ribs

(>90%)
Overall Torsional Stiffness High is better

Stability Very high

Watts & Blackman (UK) 2004
Watts & Blackman (UK) 2004
Small-scale Trafficking Tensar (UK)
Subgrade Rutting Profiles - Unreinforced
Subgrade Rutting Profile - Tensar BX
Subgrade Rutting Profile - Tensar TriAx
SUPPORT OPTIONS
SUPPORT OPTIONS
Design Assistance Available In Your Office
Preliminary & Final Pavement Designs
Preliminary & Final Foundation Designs
Preliminary & Final Slope Designs
Roadway & Pavement Design Software
(SpectraPave4)
Foundation Design Software (Dimension)
Free Test Roll and Jobsite Demo
On-Site Installation Assistance
Specific Project Cost Analysis
Specifications & Material Samples
P.E. Sealed Designs are also available
QUESTIONS?
MICHAEL CLOSE, PE
CONTECH CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS INC.
CLOSEM@CONTECH-CPI.COM OR 704 502-2665