Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Performance
of Tensar Biaxial
Geogrids
The essential guide to the
properties and performance of
Tensar Biaxial Geogrids
2
Tensar Technology -
proven practical
solutions and the
know-how to get
them built
Based on the characteristic
properties of Tensar geogrids,
Introduction to this guide
Tensar Technology is widely This is your essential guide to the discussed, and information
adopted for ground properties and performance of presented from actual testing or
stabilisation and soil Tensar biaxial geogrids when trials. The important features are
reinforcement problems, reinforcing unbound aggregates. highlighted.
delivering real savings in cost The major topics of importance are:
and time. We can help you interlock, load spread and pavement
apply Tensar Technology to performance. Each topic is
improve the bottom line on
your project.
Brief history of Tensar Biaxial Geogrids
In the 1970s Netlon extruded biaxial geogrids, in a wide variety of
meshes were successfully introduced conditions and climates.
into civil engineering as a technique FEATURES
for stabilising soils. In the 1980s
Tensar biaxial geogrids were • High quality durable polymers
developed from these early ideas, • Unique interlock mechanism
specifically for reinforcing unbound between geogrid and aggregate
aggregates. They have been used
• High angle of load spread through
extensively in the construction of
reinforced granular layers
road pavements, trafficked areas,
foundations and load transfer • Improved pavement performance
platforms. During the last 25 years a • Confidence from extensive third
huge number of projects have been party trials and records of
completed successfully using Tensar performance
Tensar design consultation or workshop www.tensar-international.com
Settlement (mm)
Single Multiple path Single path layer
path
200
After filling rut and several passes
300
First
pass Tensar SS2 Soft clay subgrade
Woven PP geotextile
400 Reinforcement layers
Figure 2a: Crane used in trial. Figure 2b: Comparative trafficking trial of heavy crane over reinforced granular platform.
Interlock
Tensar biaxial geogrids work, as The apertures of Tensar biaxial
demonstrated above. This is because geogrids are very much like the
they interlock very efficiently with snooker rack. The Tensar
granular materials. When granular manufacturing process produces a
material is compacted over these unique grid structure, consisting of
grids, it partially penetrates and full strength junctions and stiff ribs,
projects through the apertures to which present a square, thick
create a strong and positive leading edge to the aggregate for
interlock. The interlocking effective mechanical interlock.
mechanism is similar to the effect of Interlock helps prevent dilation of
a snooker ball rack. aggregate particles, so that a very
The snooker ball rack confines the high effective angle of shearing
balls above due to its high stiffness resistance is mobilised. Vertical load
and the strength at the corners applied through aggregate particles
(junctions). Also, to confine the above the grid can generate tensile
snooker balls effectively, the rack has resistance in the ribs with very small
high, flat sides. If cyclic load is deflection. The combination of these
applied to the top ball, there will be features ensures that, in Tensar
negligible settlement. However, if geogrid reinforced granular layers:
the rack is very flexible, or the • Tensile load in the grid is
corners are weak, then cyclic load generated at very small deflections
will cause the stack of balls to settle. of an applied vertical load
A further important feature of this
• Reinforcement benefit can be
analogy is that the rack stabilises the
generated within the loaded area
snooker balls above without relying
on support from neighbouring racks.
Thus interlock is localised.
Figure 3: The snooker ball analogy.
applied force
tensile restraint 3
Figure 4a: The importance of the shape of Tensar biaxial Figure 4b: The unique cross sectional shape of Tensar ribs provides bearing points for fill particles
geogrid ribs. unlike other grid types with thinner or more rounded profiles.
Comparison with geotextiles
4 Provided that they are sufficiently Based on these points, the only types
robust to resist damage, both woven of application likely to benefit from
and non-woven geotextiles can the tensioned membrane approach
improve pavement performance by will be roads where fixed wheel
providing a separation function. paths are followed, and large rut
They can prevent contamination of depths are acceptable, for example
the granular fill by intermixing with narrow unsurfaced haul roads. It is
the subgrade soil. The only unlikely that the required conditions
mechanism which allows geotextiles can be met in the construction of
to offer a structural contribution to permanent pavements.
a road pavement or trafficked area is As shown on Figure 5, the interlock
as a tensioned membrane under the mechanism of Tensar geogrids is
wheel paths. For this mechanism to distinctly different to the tensioned
work effectively, the geotextile must membrane. By interlocking with the
be anchored outside the wheel path particles, Tensar geogrids confine the
and then deform sufficiently so that aggregate layer and prevent lateral
it can carry tension. displacement. Load is distributed
For the tensioned membrane from the wheel to the subgrade
mechanism to develop adequately, within the loaded area. Unless the
the following should occur: formation and maintenance of deep
• Relatively deep ruts should form to ruts is acceptable, geotextiles can
permit the membrane to develop only act as a separator. The two
materials are not directly
• The geotextile should be anchored interchangeable without design
outside the rutted area and load review and amendment.
transferred by friction
As part of a literature review of the
• The ruts should be maintained, use of geosynthetics in pavements,
implying that fixed wheel paths Webster (1) described a pavement
must be followed trafficking trial, which compared
• Formation of the ruts will deform four geotextiles and a geogrid with
and remould the subgrade soils a control section. The results are
summarised on Figure 6, which
• The ruts can act as invisible sumps,
shows rut depth versus the number
providing a water source to soften
of passes of a 5t military truck over
the subgrade
an unsurfaced granular pavement
• Performance above the ruts will consisting of six different sections
differ from performance between as shown.
the ruts
Tensar design consultation or workshop www.tensar-international.com
Tensar
geogrids Geotextile
5t military truck
Number of passes
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0
Control G2
10 Control G2 G4 G5 G6 SS grid
Tensar SS grids G4
20 G5 G6
6000
30 8.4 kN/m at
Rut depth (mm)
60
3000 1100N
70
2000 580N
2100N
80
4450N
1000
90
100 0
Control G2 G4 G5 G6 Tensar SS
Figure 6: Comparison of geotextile and geogrid in USACE trafficking trial.
Trial section
Load (kPa)
Tensar design consultation or workshop www.tensar-international.com
0 40 80 120 160
0
10
Dotted line
20 indicates
Settlement (mm)
Su = 6 kPa
40 50mm
Su = 10 kPa
Soft clay
60 Su = undrained shear strength
Figure 9: Some results from the Oxford University model footing experiments.
Earlier work for Oxford University
had provided some of the earliest
insights into geogrid performance
(3). The effect on angle of load
spread was evaluated and data
indicated a mean angle increasing
from 38˚ in the unreinforced case
to more than 50˚ with grid. This
simple approach indicates that
granular layer thickness may be
Tensar
biaxial
reduced by around 50% to give a
geogrid similar stress on the subgrade, see
Figure 10.
Figure 10: Load spread improvement.
Tensar SS1
Tensar SS2 B = 305mm
1.8
q square
Bearing capacity ratio (BCR)
plate
1.6
1.4 z
1.2
Effect of grid width (b/B) b
u/B = 0.5, z/B =0.25, N= 3
sand
1
0 1 2 3 4 BCR = q (with grid)/q(without grid)
at failure
Grid width (b/B)
7
Full scale foundation tests by FHWA (1997) -
confirming Guido work
8
More recently, full scale foundation (Test TL146) and the much wider
tests have been carried out by FHWA geogrid layer (Test TL186) give the
in the USA. These are reported by same performance. This conclusion
Adams and Collin (5). Square is almost identical to that from
foundations up to 0.91m wide were Guido et al, again supporting the
tested using sand as the subsoil. observation that the reinforcement
Figure 12 shows the results from effect provided by the interlock
three of the tests, looking at the mechanism is localised. Other
effect of geogrid width. It can be conclusions concerning the optimum
seen that a single layer of depth to the upper geogrid layer,
reinforcement gives around 50% the spacing and number of geogrid
increase in bearing capacity, but that layers are all similar to those of
the narrow geogrid layer Guido et al.
10
20 Control
30 300mm 150mm
Settlement (mm)
40
50
Tests carried out using Tensar SS35
60 medium sand Test TL146
900mm
70 Control
80 Test TL146
Design recommendations for foundations and load transfer platforms have been
developed from static load test results.
Tensar design consultation or workshop www.tensar-international.com
20mm
Cycles for 20mm settlement
20
30000
30
20000
40
10000
0 50
Control Reinforced Reinforced
200mm base 200mm base 100mm base
Section
Figure 13: Cyclic plate tests carried out by University of Waterloo.
9
Trafficking trials
10 Cyclic load tests provide useful scale pavements. Trafficking trials
information on the performance of are all carried out in a similar
Tensar geogrid reinforced fashion. A pavement is constructed,
pavements. However, the nature of generally with several different
the load does not correctly model sections representing the conditions
the effect of a wheel passing over to be investigated, including a
the pavement surface. This can only control section. A wheel of known
be done using trafficking trials, and load is then run over the section,
several such trials have been carried and the development of the rut and
out to investigate the performance other deformations are observed
of Tensar biaxial geogrids in full and recorded.
0.3
unreinforced control section has a which requires large deformations
0.2
deep rut at the surface, and a rut both of the geosynthetic and at the
After 800 passes can also be seen at the top of subgrade surface. Furthermore, the
0.1
Before trafficking subgrade. On the reinforced section, tensioned membrane does not
Top of subgrade the surface rut is about half the confine the aggregate, and can help
depth, and there is negligible rutting to encourage lateral displacement of
0
at the top of subgrade. Similar aggregate particles.
Tensar design consultation or workshop www.tensar-international.com
40
used when designing with Tensar
50 biaxial grids. The study also
determined that the prevailing
60
mode of failure of the pavement
70 was lateral movement of the base
80
Control Tensar SS1 aggregate away from the applied
Tensar SS2 Grid PET1 wheel loads. This movement was
90
Grid PET2 Grid PP prevented by the Tensar grids.
100 The report stated:
By interlocking with the base layer
130kN single aggregate, geogrids reduce
wheel mm asphalt permanent lateral displacement,
which accumulate with traffic
350mm granular
base passes.
The grids also effectively separated
the aggregate base from the
subgrade, in spite of their relatively
large apertures, without the use of
Control PET1 PP PET2 SS1 SS2 a separation fabric. The major
conclusion of the work was that:
CBR = 3%
The performance of the various
geogrid products tested ranged
600 from no improvement up to 40
percent reduction in total pavement
500 thickness requirement. The relatively
rigid sheet-type geogrid (Tensar SS2)
Passes for 25mm rut
10 The USACE report introduces the For the USACE trial, TIF for a rut
Multiple wheel paths
9 concept of Traffic Improvement depth of 25mm for Tensar SS2 is
Single wheel path
8
TIF = 1 (no improvement) Factors (TIF). For any specific plotted against base thickness in
7 pavement, TIF is defined as: Figure 17. This shows that for base
6 thickness less than 400mm, TIF is
Number of passes with geogrid
5 TIF = around 5, but as the base becomes
4 Number of passes without geogrid thicker TIF reduces.
TIF
50
passes (mm)
100
150
Figure 18: The Newcastle University trafficking trials.
40 kN double
tyred wheel
320 mm sub- TRL pavement trials (2000) - relating performance in
base layer
pavements to geosynthetic stiffness
In 2000, TRL carried out a further rut depth versus number of passes for
pavement trial, incorporating a variety five of the sections tested. Four of
of geosynthetic materials (11). The these sections include a 40 kN/m
pavement consisted of 320mm of sub- biaxial geosynthetic product at the
Control Woven Reinf Welded Tensar base over a clay subgrade with CBR = subgrade level. Table 2 summarises TIF
geotex geotex grid SS40
1.5%. The pavement was trafficked by (for a 40mm rut depth) for these four
a 40 kN double tyred wheel along a products, and also gives their stiffness
Clay, CBR = 1.5%
fixed path, representing one end of a (in terms of load at 2% strain from
4000 standard design axle. Figure 19 shows tensile tests).
Number of passes
No Passes for 40mm rut
20
2000
40mm rut
40
Rut depth (mm)
60
1000 Each plotted point is the
80 mean of 15 rut depth
measurements
100
0 Control
Control Woven Reinf Welded Tensar Reinf geotex
geotex geotex grid SS40 120 All products have quality Tensar SS40
Trial section control (QC) strength of Woven geotex
140 40 kN/m Welded grid
Depth below edge of pit (m)
0.2 160
Top of sub-base Tensar SS40
0.1
0 Table 2: Summary of TIF for 40 kN/m products in TRL trial related to stiffness
-0.1 Product TIF Load at 2% strain (kN/m) Comments
Before trafficking
Top of subgrade
-0.2 After 10000 passes Woven PP geotexile 1.5 14.0 must rely on tensioned membrane
-0.3 Reinforced geotexile 2.1 26.0 must rely on tensioned membrane
0.2
Top of sub-base Reinforced geotextile stiffness to Tensar SS40, yet provides deformation of the subgrade
0.1
negligible reinforcing benefit. The surface. The welded grid consists of
0 reinforced geotextile (a composite very thin polyester strips welded to
-0.1 consisting of a non-woven geotextile form a grid shape, with similar
Before trafficking
Top of subgrade reinforced with high modulus stiffness to Tensar SS40. The thin
-0.2 After 5000 passes
-0.3
aramid fibres) has twice the stiffness strips do not interlock effectively
of Tensar SS40, but provides very with the aggregate and the
-0.4
0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 little improvement in performance improvement in pavement
Distance from edge of pit (m) compared to the control section. The performance is less than 25% of that
lower part of Figure 19 shows rut provided by Tensar SS40. This
Figure 19: Comparative pavement trial carried out by TRL.
profiles measured in this section, comparison has similar conclusions
compared with Tensar SS40. After to many others, and again
5000 passes, not only is there deep emphasises that the most important
rutting and heave in the sub-base feature of a geogrid to reinforce a
surface, but also in the subgrade road pavement effectively is its
surface below. For Tensar SS40 after ability to interlock with the
10,000 passes, there is a smaller rut, aggregate particles.
13
Design recommendations for road
pavements and trafficked areas
Tensar Geogrid have been developed from cyclic
Figure 20: Concept of pavement design with Tensar biaxial load tests and trafficking trials.
geogrid - reduced pavement thickness for similar performance.
Plate loading tests
14 Plate tests reported by Vanggaard (1999) -
investigating layer modulus
The results from plate loading tests number of sites in Denmark. In each
are commonly used as input case, the subgrade modulus (Em) is
parameters for pavement design. measured, then the modulus on top
Vanggaard (12) reports the results of of the granular sub-base (Ev2). The
plate loading tests carried out to test arrangement and results are
investigate pavement modulus at a summarised on Figure 21. The
relationship between Em and Ev2 is a
160 measure of the increase in vertical
Circular steel plate Em measured on
Control subgrade
stiffness created by the sub-base.
Woven PET Figure 21 shows the results for
120 Tensar SS30 the control sections (without any
Subgrade soil
geosynthetic), and sections
Ev2 (MPa)
60
40
20
0
400mm 600mm
Sub-base thickness
sub-base
0.0m 1.5m
0.0m 0.25m
0.75m 1.25m
1
1.75m 2.25m
15
Location of strain
0 2 layers of gauges measured
0 20 40 60 80 Tensar SS35 from centre
3.0m diameter void
Time (hours) outwards
Figure 24: Void trial carried out by The University of Wales.
Performance in service
16 Glenlogan Park Estate, Queensland, Australia –
confirming the “one-third rule”
A pavement was built in 1997 as part deflectometer or FWD (15). The
of a housing development in South deflection results from the 2002
Queensland, Australia. A section of testing are shown on the upper graph
the pavement was built using Tensar of Figure 25, and they show a similar
SS30 placed at the subgrade level, but trend to the Benkleman beam tests,
with the upper granular layers namely consistent results with
designed using a one-third reduction deflection of the thinner reinforced
in thickness. Both six months and two pavement significantly less than the
years after construction, Benkleman thicker unreinforced pavement. FWD
Beam (BB) deflection tests were carried tests can be analysed to interpret layer
out on the reinforced and modulus in the pavement. This is
unreinforced sections of pavement. shown for the sub-base layer on the
Both series of tests gave consistent lower graph of Figure 25. The results
results, demonstrating that the thinner are consistent, and show that the
reinforced section of pavement modulus of the thinner reinforced
deflected consistently less than the sub-base is on average more than
thicker unreinforced pavement. double that of the thicker
unreinforced sub-base. This
In November 2000 and December observation is almost identical to the
2002 further performance testing was results from plate loading tests
carried out using the falling weight described earlier in this guide.
Tensar design consultation or workshop www.tensar-international.com
Control
280mm
2
Measured granular
420mm
performance base
after 3 years in
service
1 Tensar SS1
Control CBR = 4%
0
Rut depth (mm) FWD deflection (mm)
Measurement method
Figure 26: Comparison of reinforced and unreinforced pavements in USA.
Figure 28: Test arrangement and result for ISO 10319 tensile
test on Tensar SS30.
Manufacturing process
Tensar biaxial geogrids are The polymer’s long chain molecules
Punched manufactured from carefully are orientated in the direction of
Tensar design consultation or workshop www.tensar-international.com
sheet
selected grades of polypropylene stretching resulting in a dramatic
(PP). A long service life is required in increase in both strength and
most civil engineering applications stiffness. This orientation passes
and the grade of PP used in Tensar through both the narrower ribs and
geogrids combines the optimum the thicker nodes, and is unique to
values of strength, stiffness, the patented Tensar manufacturing
toughness and durability. process.
Biaxial geogrids are made by The resulting product is a monolithic
Biaxial geogrid
extruding a sheet of PP to very grid with square edged ribs and
precise tolerances, punching an integral junctions which possess
accurate pattern of holes, then both geometrical and molecular
stretching the sheet under controlled symmetry; critical for consistency in
temperature, firstly in the manufacture and efficient load
longitudinal direction, then in the transfer in service. Aperture sizes
transverse direction. This process have been carefully chosen to
creates a geogrid with square or match with typical gradings of
almost square apertures, called a pavement aggregates..
Figure 27: The Tensar manufacturing process and the
biaxial grid because it is stretched in
stretched biaxial geogrid. two orthogonal directions.
Tensar biaxial geocomposites
All Tensar biaxial geogrids are also The composite products are
available in a composite form particularly suited for use with the
comprising a Tensar biaxial geogrid more uniformly sized aggregates.
laminated to a non-woven geotextile
separator.
References
1. Webster, S L, Geogrid Reinforced Base Courses for Flexible Pavements for Light Aircraft: Literature Review and Test Section Design. Geotechnical Laboratory, Department of the
Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Mississippi, 1991.
2. Milligan, G W E, & Love, J P, Model testing of geogrids under an aggregate layer on soft ground, Proc Symp Polymer Grid Reinforcement, Thomas Telford, London 1985.
3. Oxford University, The use of mesh products to improve the performance of granular fill on soft ground, Report 1346/81 to Netlon Limited, 1980.
4. Guido, V A, Knueppel, J D & Sweeny, M A, Plate Loading Tests on Geogrid-Reinforced Earth Slabs, Proc. Geosynthetics ’87 Conference, New Orleans, USA, pp 216-225, 1987.
5. Adams, M T & Collin, J G, Large model spread footing load tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil foundations, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
p 66, January 1997.
6. Haas, R, Walls, J, & Carroll, R G, Geogrid reinforcement of granular bases in flexible pavements, Transportation Research Record 1188, 1988.
7. Chaddock, B C J, Deformation of Road Foundations with Geogrid Reinforcement, TRL Research Report 140,1988.
8. Webster, S L, Geogrid Reinforced Base Courses for Flexible Pavements for Light Aircraft: Test Section Construction, Behaviour Under Traffic, Laboratory Tests and Design Criteria,
Geotechnical Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Mississippi, 1992.
9. Kinney, T C, & Xiaolin, Y, Geogrid Aperture Rigidity by In-Plane Rotation. Geosynthetics ‘95, Nashville, 1995.
10. Knapton, J, & Austin, R A, Laboratory testing of reinforced unpaved roads, Proc Symp on Earth Reinforcement, A Balkema, Rotterdam, 1996.
11. Blackman, D I, Greene, M J & Watts, G R A, Tensar International Limited: Trafficking trials for sub-base reinforcement, TRL Report PR/IS/13/2001, 2001.
12. Vanggaard, M, The effect of reinforcement due to choice of geogrid, Proc Int Symp on Pre-failure deformation characteristics of geomaterial, Torino 1999.
13. Seiler, J, Trials and practical experiences with orientated and woven geogrids on the Hochstadt - Probstzella section of the Berlin - Munich railway, Geotechnik, German
Geotechnical Society, 1995.
14. Bridle, R J, Jenner, C G & Barr, B, Novel Applications of geogrids in Areas of Shallow Mineworkings, Proc 5th Int Conf on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products,
Singapore, Vol 1, pp 297-300, 1994.
15. Pavement Management Services, FWD Testing Report, St Jude Circuit, Jimboomba, Glenlogan Park Estate, Test Report, 2002.
16. Huntington, G, & Ksaibati, K, Evaluation of Geogrid Reinforced Granular Bases, Geotechnical Fabrics Report, January/February 2000.
17. Wrigley, N E, Durability and long-term performance of Tensar polymer grids for soil reinforcement, Material Science and Technology, Vol 3, pp 161-172, London, 1988.
19
Contact Tensar International or your local distributor to receive further
literature covering Tensar products and applications.
Also available on request are product specifications, installation guides
and specification notes.
The complete range of Tensar literature consists of:
I Tensar Geosynthetics in Civil Engineering A guide to the products
and their applications
I Ground Stabilisation Stabilising unbound layers
in roads and trafficked areas
I Tensar Structural Solutions Bridge Abutments - Retaining Walls -
Steep Slopes
I Foundations over Piles Constructing over weak ground
without settlement
I Basal Reinforcement Constructing embankments over
weak ground
I Railways Mechanical Stabilisation of Track Ballast and Sub-ballast
The information in this brochure is supplied by Tensar International free of charge. Tensar
International do not assume any duty of care to you or any third party. No liability for negligence
(other than for death and personal injury) can arise from any use of or reliance on the information
in this brochure or use of any Tensar International product mentioned. Tensar International will
not be liable if this brochure contains any misrepresentation or misstatement. Determination of
the suitability for any project of the information and any Tensar International product mentioned in
it must be made by your engineer or other professional advisor who has full knowledge of the
project. You, together with any such engineer or advisor, must assume all risk of loss and damage
of any kind arising from use of the information or any product of Tensar International other than
the risk of death and personal injury. If you or any third party subsequently purchases a product
referred to in this brochure or any other Tensar International product the entire terms of the
contract of purchase and the entire obligation of Tensar International relating to the product or
arising from its use shall be as set out in Tensar International's Standard Conditions in force at the
time of purchase, a copy of which may be requested from Tensar International.