Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Performance
of Tensar Biaxial
Geogrids
The essential guide to the
properties and performance of
Tensar Biaxial Geogrids
when used in constructing:
Road pavements
Trafficked areas
Foundations
Load transfer platforms
Number of passes
0
10
20
30
Settlement (mm)
Measuring
point
100
Single
path
Multiple path
Single path
200
After filling rut and several passes
300
First
pass
Tensar SS2
Woven PP geotextile
400
Figure 2a: Crane used in trial.
40
Figure 2b: Comparative trafficking trial of heavy crane over reinforced granular platform.
Interlock
Tensar biaxial geogrids work, as
demonstrated above. This is because
they interlock very efficiently with
granular materials. When granular
material is compacted over these
grids, it partially penetrates and
projects through the apertures to
create a strong and positive
interlock. The interlocking
mechanism is similar to the effect of
a snooker ball rack.
The snooker ball rack confines the
balls above due to its high stiffness
and the strength at the corners
(junctions). Also, to confine the
snooker balls effectively, the rack has
high, flat sides. If cyclic load is
applied to the top ball, there will be
negligible settlement. However, if
the rack is very flexible, or the
corners are weak, then cyclic load
will cause the stack of balls to settle.
A further important feature of this
analogy is that the rack stabilises the
snooker balls above without relying
on support from neighbouring racks.
Thus interlock is localised.
3
Figure 4a: The importance of the shape of Tensar biaxial
geogrid ribs.
Figure 4b: The unique cross sectional shape of Tensar ribs provides bearing points for fill particles
unlike other grid types with thinner or more rounded profiles.
Tensar
geogrids
Geotextile
Confinement effect
5t military truck
Number of passes
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
10
20
Control
G2
Tensar SS grids
G4
G5
G6
Control
G4
G5
6000
40
50mm
50
60
70
80
30
Rut depth (mm)
G2
5000
G6
SS grid
8.4 kN/m at
5% strain
4000
1100N
3000
580N
2000
2100N
4450N
1000
90
100
Control
G2
G4
G5
G6
Tensar SS
Trial section
Geotextile
Load (kPa)
0
40
80
120
160
Settlement (mm)
10
20
Dotted line
indicates
test with
biaxial grid
Load
75mm wide
strip footing
Gravel
30
Su = 6 kPa
40
50mm
Su = 10 kPa
Su = 16 kPa
50
60
Figure 9: Some results from the Oxford University model footing experiments.
Soft clay
Su = undrained shear strength
Tensar
biaxial
geogrid
Figure 10: Load spread improvement.
2
Tensar SS1
B = 305mm
Tensar SS2
1.8
q
square
plate
1.6
u
z
1.4
z
1.2
b
1
0
Load (kPa)
0
100
200
600mm
300
400
0
10
Control
20
Settlement (mm)
30
300mm
150mm
40
50
60
70
Control
80
Test TL146
90
Test TL186
Tensar SS35
Test TL146
900mm
Tensar SS35
Test TL186
100
Figure 12: Full scale foundation tests carried out by FHWA.
Design recommendations for foundations and load transfer platforms have been
developed from static load test results.
University of Waterloo cyclic load tests (mid 1980s) improving pavement performance
Research carried out at the
University of Waterloo, Canada, in
the mid 1980s, was reported by Haas
et al (6). This consisted of a series of
laboratory cyclic loading tests on full
scale pavement sections.
The pavement sections were
constructed with an asphalt layer
over a granular base layer. The
subgrade strength (in terms of %
CBR) was varied in the numerous
experiments carried out. Each set of
tests was referred to as a loop.
A test load of 40 kN was applied
through a circular 300mm diameter
steel plate, representing one side of
a standard 80 kN design axle.
The results from Loop 2 are shown
in Figure 13. In this case CBR =
3.5%, and the graph shows the
settlement of the plate versus the
number of load cycles. Comparison
of the three sections shows that:
Reinforcement of the 200mm base
has increased the number of load
applications by a factor of three to
reach a given settlement
Test Loop 2
Test load applied by 300mm
circular plate loaded to 40kN
All sections have 75mm asphalt
200mm
base
control
200mm
base
SS1
100mm
base
SS1
Number of load cycles
0
40000
80000
120000
160000
0
200mm base control
Subgrade CBR = 3.5%
settlement (mm)
40000
30000
20000
10
20
30
40
10000
50
0
Control
200mm base
Reinforced
200mm base
Reinforced
100mm base
Section
Figure 13: Cyclic plate tests carried out by University of Waterloo.
Trafficking trials
10
80kN
standard
axle
Tensar
SS1
Top of sub-base
0.3
0.2
After 800 passes
Before trafficking
0.1
Top of subgrade
0
-0.1
-2.1
-1.5
-0.9
-0.3
0.3
0.9
1.5
2.1
Interaction by interlock is
mobilised with minimal
deformation of the geogrid
Tensile strains and deformation in
the subgrade are minimised
Number of passes
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0
10
20
25mm
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Control
Tensar SS1
Tensar SS2
Grid PET1
Grid PET2
Grid PP
100
130kN single
wheel
mm asphalt
350mm granular
base
Control
PET1
PP
PET2
SS1
SS2
CBR = 3%
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Control
PET1
PP
PET2
SS1
SS2
Trial section
Figure 15: Pavement trial carried out by USACE comparing different grids.
Property
Rib
Thickness
Thicker is better.
Rib
Stiffness
Rib
Shape
Aperture
Size
Aperture
Shape
Aperture
Rigidity
Junction
Strength
Grid
Secant Modulus
(ASTM D 4595)
Grid
Stability
Judgement
11
Pulley arrangement
to apply torsional
load to a grid
12
Grid sample
Clamp
Figure 16: Apparatus for in-plane torsional rigidity test.
10
9
8
7
6
4
3
2
1
0
100
200
300
400
Base thickness (mm)
500
Trial section
Control
PET
PP
Tensar
SS2
TIF
50
100
Tensar
SS30
40 kN double
tyred wheel
4000
6000
8000
10000
20
2000
1000
0
Control
Woven
geotex
Reinf
geotex
Welded
grid
Tensar
SS40
Top of sub-base
60
80
100
140
0.2
40mm rut
40
120
Trial section
Depth below edge of pit (m)
2000
Number of passes
0
3000
Control
Reinf geotex
Tensar SS40
Woven geotex
Welded grid
160
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
Comments
Woven PP geotexile
1.5
14.0
-0.3
Reinforced geotexile
2.1
26.0
-0.4
Welded grid
3.2
15.0
Tensar SS40
13.5
14.0
efficient interlock
Before trafficking
Top of subgrade
-0.2
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
0.2
Top of sub-base
Reinforced geotextile
0.1
0
-0.1
Before trafficking
Top of subgrade
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
Tensar Geogrid
Figure 20: Concept of pavement design with Tensar biaxial
geogrid - reduced pavement thickness for similar performance.
13
120
Em measued on
subgrade
Ev2 (MPa)
Subgrade soil
80
Ev2 measued
on sub-base
Sub-base
40
Subgrade soil
0
0
20
40
Em (MPa)
60
80
Geosynthetic
Figure 21: The arrangement and results from plate tests to establish pavement modulus.
100
Unreinforced
Reinforced with Tensar SS2
80
60
40
20
0
400mm
600mm
Sub-base thickness
Figure 23: Views of the void trial before (top) removing support
and inside void.
5
Strain in lower layer of Tensar SS35
Strain (%)
0.6m thick
sub-base
Kerbstone
surcharge
0.0m
1.5m
0.0m
0.25m
0.75m
1.25m
1.75m
2.25m
0
0
20
40
Time (hours)
60
80
2 layers of
Tensar SS35
Location of strain
gauges measured
from centre
outwards
15
Performance in service
16
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
1650
Ch 1540
to 1665
Ch 1360
to 1540
Base
Left outer
200mm
170mm
Left inner
0.5
Right outer
Right inner
Deflection (mm)
360mm
1
Sub-base
510mm
1.5
Tensar
SS30
Unreinforced
(average = 1.31mm)
Subgrade
CBR = 1.5%
Right outer
120
Left inner
Right inner
100
Unreinforced
(average = 28 MPa)
80
60
40
20
With Tensar SS30 (average = 63MPa)
0
1350
1400
1450
1500
1550
1600
Chainage (m)
Figure 25: Comparison of reinforced and unreinforced pavements in Australia.
1650
Wyoming Department
of Transport
3
Deflection/rut (mm)
2
Measured
performance
after 3 years in
service
420mm
granular
base
Tensar SS1
Control
CBR = 4%
0
Rut depth (mm)
Measurement method
Figure 26: Comparison of reinforced and unreinforced pavements in USA.
Manufacturing process
Punched
sheet
Biaxial geogrid
17
40
35
30
25
Load (kN/m)
18
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
12
Strain (%)
Figure 28: Test arrangement and result for ISO 10319 tensile
test on Tensar SS30.
14
Units
Tensar geogrid
SS20
SS30
SS40
SS2
SSLA20
SSLA30
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
Polymer (1)
Minimum carbon black (2)
Roll width
4.0
3.8
3.8
Roll length
50
50
30
50
50
50
Unit weight
kg/m2
0.22
0.33
0.53
0.29
0.22
0.33
Roll weight
kg
46 & 44
67 & 64
65 & 62
60
43
65
65
Roll Length
(Longitudinal)
Roll Width
(Transverse)
tJ
tTR
Ribs
tLR
Junctions
AL
WLR
AT
WTR
Dimensions
AL
mm
39
39
33
28
65
AT
mm
39
39
33
40
65
65
WLR
mm
2.2
2.3
2.2
3.0
4.0
4.0
WTR
mm
2.4
2.8
2.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
tJ
mm
4.1
5.0
5.8
3.8
4.4
7.0
tLR
mm
1.1
2.2
2.2
1.2
0.8
1.7
tTR
mm
0.8
1.3
1.4
0.9
0.8
1.5
Rib shape
kN/m
20.0
30.0
40.0
17.5
20.0
30.0
kN/m
7.0
10.5
14.0
7.0
7.0
11.0
kN/m
14.0
21.0
28.0
14.0
14.0
22.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
10.0
9.0
kN/m
20.0
30.0
40.0
31.5
20.0
30.0
kN/m
7.0
10.5
14.0
12.0
8.0
12.0
kN/m
14.0
21.0
28.0
23.0
15.0
25.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.0
95
95
90
95
95
95
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, 2000.
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
E-mail: info@tensar.co.uk
www.tensar-international.com