Technical Paper by A. McGown, I. Yogarajah, K.Z. Andrawes and M.A.

Saad

STRAIN BEHAVIOUR OF POLYMERIC GEOGRIDS SUBJECTED TO SUSTAINED AND REPEATED LOADING IN AIR AND IN SOIL
ABSTRACT: The stress transfer mechanism in uniaxially and biaxially stretched polymeric geogrids are largely dependent on the interlocking mechanism between the soil and reinforcement. Over the years, this mechanism which may be termed the static interlock mechanism, has been researched and gained wide recognition. When prestretched polymeric geogrids are subjected to repeated loading cycles such as compaction forces, a second mechanism which may be termed the dynamic interlock mechanism is developed. In this paper, the existence of this mechanism is established through a series of in-air and in-soil static and dynamic tensile load tests using uniaxially prestretched HDPE geogrid specimens. The series of tests also identifies the importance of proper positioning of strain measuring instruments along reinforcements used in reinforced soil structures. KEYWORDS: Polymeric Geogrids, Dynamic Interlock, Static Interlock, Tensile Tests, Strain Measurements, Coefficient of Interaction, Instrumentation. AUTHORS: A. McGown, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, 107, Rottenrow, Glasgow G4 ONP, UK, Telephone: 44/41-552-4400, Telefax: 44/41-553-2066, I. Yogarajah, Executive Engineer, L & M Geotechnic (Singapore), Pte. Ltd., 63, Hillview Avenue, #05-01, Lam Soon Building, Singapore 2366, Telephone: 65/763-6366, Telefax: 65/764-5637, K.Z. Andrawes, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, 107, Rottenrow, Glasgow G4 ONP, UK, Telephone: 44/41-552-4400, Telefax: 44/41-553-2066, and M.A. Saad, Lecturer, Egyptian Military Technical College, Egypt, Khalil Radwan Street, El-Zaiton Gharbia, Cairo, Egypt. PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics Association International, 345 Cedar St., Suite 800, St. Paul, MN 55101, USA, Telephone: 1/612-222-2508, Telefax: 1/612-222-8215. Geosynthetics International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349. DATES: Original manuscript received 23 April 1994, accepted 7 July 1994. Discussion open until 1 September 1995. REFERENCE: McGown, A., Yogarajah, I., Andrawes, K.Z. and Saad, M.A., 1995, Strain Behaviour of Polymeric Geogrids Subjected to Sustained and Repeated Loading in Air and in Soil, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 341-355.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

341

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

INTRODUCTION In many soil structures, tensile strains may develop although the principal stresses in the soil are compressive. In recent years, inclusions with tensile strength characteristics have been used to inhibit the development of these tensile strains thereby reinforcing the soil. To operate effectively, an efficient means of transferring stresses from the soil to the inclusions must exist. For sheet, strip or rod reinforcements, the mobilisation of surface friction at the soil-inclusion interface is the primary stress transfer mechanism, while for geogrids, geonets and geomeshes the dominant mechanism of stress transfer is the development of bearing stresses on the cross-members of the materials, the so called mechanism of Interlock, Mercer (1986). Of particular interest are uniaxially and biaxially pre-stretched polymeric geogrids with integral junctions such as Tensar geogrids which are now being widely used as soil reinforcements in a range of soil structures. These reinforcements rely on the mechanism of interlock for stress transfer and extensive shear box and pull-out tests have been undertaken on them since the early 1980s (Jewell et al. 1984; Palmeira and Milligan 1989; Berg et al. 1990; Jewell 1990; Palmeira and Milligan 1990). These studies revealed that the bearing stress mechanism could provide a very efficient soil-inclusion interaction with interaction coefficients (ratio of the tangent of the frictional angle developed at the soil-reinforcement interface (tan) to the tangent of the internal angle of friction of the soil (tan) greater than 0.9, Palmeira et al. (1990), which compares to values of 0.6 to 0.9 for woven geotextiles (Martin et al. 1984). The mechanism of interlock identified in these studies was one of penetration of particles through the plane of the geogrid, within the openings in the structure, and may be described as Static Interlock. An obvious requirement for this to occur is that most, if not all, of the soil particles must be smaller than the minimum dimension of the openings in the geogrid. Static interlock does not make full use of the deformability and resilience of these pre-stretched polymer geogrids during compaction or other repeated loading cycles. When such loading cycles are taken into account an even more effective mechanism can be identified, which may be described as Dynamic Interlock. This is generated when transient compaction forces or other repeated loads are applied to a soil structure reinforced by pre-stretched polymeric geogrids. As the forces are applied, the soil and geogrid deform and stresses are set up in the ribs, cross-bars and junctions of the geogrid. On removal of the applied forces, the geogrid attempts to return to its original configuration; however, the soil particles filling the apertures in the structure may wholly or partially prevent it from doing so. This results in locked-in stresses in the geogrid which will be transmitted into the trapped soil as compressive (confining) stresses. In this paper, attempts are made to establish the existence of the dynamic interlock mechanism. This has involved carrying out a series of tensile tests on uniaxially prestretched high density polyethylene geogrids with integral junctions (Tensar SR80). In these tests, the reinforcements were subjected to a series of loading conditions in-air and in-soil and the existence of dynamic interlock was physically detected. The series of tests also identified the importance of proper positioning of strain measuring instruments, this is also discussed in detail in the paper.

342

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

TENSILE TESTS IN-AIR Tensile tests were carried out in-air to identify the variation of strain distribution and directions along the geogrid length. A three-bar-long by three-rib-wide specimen was placed under tension in a tensile test machine under a rate of tensile strain of 0.03%/min. Vertical and horizontal lines were drawn on the geogrid at various sections, as shown in Figure 1. When the geogrid was tensioned, the lines were seen either to move closer together or away from each other, depending on the nature of the deformations (strains) at the points under study (Figure 2). Thus the deformation of the lines drawn on the geogrid allowed a direct method of identifying the pattern of the strains at various points. Deformation of the lines can be determined by comparing Figures 3 and 4. These deformations are discussed in the following sections. Zones in Line with a Rib. The application of a tensile load causes the lines drawn perpendicular to the line of force (areas A and B in Figure 3), to move away from each other, denoting tensile strains occurring in the direction of the line of force. Lines drawn parallel to the line of force (areas C and D in Figure 3), show small deformations toward each other, revealing small amounts of compressive strain. Zones in Line with an Aperture. Lines drawn perpendicular to the line of force (area E in Figure 3) move away from each other showing that small tensile strains are developing. Lines drawn parallel to the direction of load application (area F in Figure 3) converge showing that compressive strains are developing. Summary of Tensile Tests In-Air. Overall, the experiment showed that the geogrid suffered both tensile and compressive strains during loading and that the nature of the strains varies along the geogrid. In general, when the geogrid is subjected to axial tension, the ribs exhibit tensile strains in the direction of loading and contract laterally simultaneously. Along the cross-bar, tensile strains are induced in the direction of the tensile loads, accompanied by lateral contraction. The magnitude of these strains are not uniform, but vary with the tensile strains in line with the ribs being larger than the corresponding strains in line with the aperture. Additionally, the strains along different sections of the bar vary with the strains at the rib/bar junction being the largest. LOCALISED STRAIN MEASUREMENTS To define the variations in strain magnitude, strain gauges were attached to a threerib-wide by five-bar-long specimen as shown in Figure 5. The strain gauges used were Showa high elongation strain gauges, with a gauge factor of 2.08 and 120 ohm resistance. The strain gauges were attached to the reinforcements with Super Amatron A polymeric glue to form a full Wheatstone Bridge at the centre of the required areas. The two active gauges in the bridge were attached at the location to be monitored, while dummy gauges were attached to a separate piece of similar polymeric geogrid. The configuration was chosen to ensure that the two dummy gauges were not strained. The dummy gauges were placed in the same conditions as the test specimen during the

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

343

344
McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

Figure 1. Photograph showing geogrid lines before load application.

Figure 2. Photograph showing geogrid lines after load application.

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

E B G H A C

F D

Figure 3. Schematic view of lines drawn to study the variation of strain along geogrid.

Figure 4. Schematic view of deformed lines on geogrid due to load application.

test duration to eliminate temperature effects. Voltage readings were recorded by means of a data logger and were later converted to equivalent localised strains. As shown in Figure 3, the strain gauges at A, B, and E were attached in the direction of pull, while the strain gauges at D and F were placed perpendicular to the direction of pull. Two further strain gauges, G and H, were attached parallel to the direction of pull. No strain gauge was attached at C, due to the small width of the rib. The instrumented specimen was placed in a tensile test machine and stretched at a rate of strain of 0.03%/minute, up to an overall strain of 1.5%. The variation of localised strains along the reinforcement rib is plotted against average longitudinal strain of the reinforcement (Figure 6). Strain gauges at A, B, G and H recorded localised tensile strains in the direction of loading of between 1.25 and 1.65%. The strain gauges at D and F recorded localised compressive strains across the cross bars of 0.2 and 0.03% respectively. The experimental results confirm that there is variation in strains in various parts of the geogrid and that the variation of the localised strain from the average longitudinal strain may be substantial.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

345

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

DYNAMIC INTERLOCK Having identified the variation in strains occurring along the reinforcement when loaded uniaxially in-air, a series of tests were carried out to identify the behaviour of the polymeric geogrid due to repeated loads, both in-air and in-soil. The following tests were carried out: 1. 2. 3. 4. In-air creep test (Test T1). In-air repeated loading and creep test (Test T2). In-soil creep test (Test T3). In-soil repeated loading and creep test (Test T4). In Tests T2 and T4, repeated loads were applied prior to the creep load application. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND INSTRUMENTATION The reinforcements used in all the experiments were three-rib-wide and five-barlong. For the in-air creep test (T1), the apparatus suggested by McGown et al. (1984) was used. Both localised and average longitudinal strains as suggested by the researchers were measured. A schematic diagram of the apparatus used for tests T2, T3 and T4, is shown in Figure 7. The 370 mm square and 220 mm high box is open at the top with 130 mm long slots provided at two sides. The slots allowed the geogrid specimen to pass through the sides of the box and be clamped to a tensile load. The tensile load was applied using a dead load and a pulley system. A hydraulic jacking system was used to raise and lower the dead load thus allowing the repeated tensile loading sequences to be simulated. For all the tests (T1, T2, T3 and T4), strain gauges similar to those previously used for the tensile tests were attached at the positions identified in Figure 3 (A, B, D, E and F). The two active gauges in the Wheatstone bridge were attached at the point to be monitored, while the dummy gauges were attached to a separate specimen of polymeric geogrid. The dummy gauges in all the tests were placed under the same conditions as the test specimen throughout the test to eliminate temperature effects. The voltage readings were recorded by means of a data logger and later converted to equivalent localised strains. In the in-soil tests, the soil used was an uniformly graded sand, with angular particles. The soil had a dry unit weight of 21.4 kN/m3 and a peak angle of friction of 45 obtained from triaxial tests. The grading curve is shown in Figure 8. Where appropriate, a surcharge load was applied by dead weights. TEST PROCEDURES Test T1 - In-Air Creep Test A sustained load (creep) test was carried out in the manner described by Murray and McGown (1987) with a load of 9.2 kN/m. This load corresponds to 10% of the peak load of the material determined in a wide-width tensile test carried out according to BS 6906. The tensile load was applied for a period of 24 hours, after which, the load was removed

346

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

Figure 5. Photograph showing strain gauges attached along geogrid to measure the magnitude of strain variation.

1.5 Strain (%) 1 0.5 0

G B H Localized strains A Average longitudinal strains

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Length of reinforcement (mm)

Figure 6. Plot showing the variation of the localised strains and the average longitudinal strains along the geogrid.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

347

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

Dead load

Clamp

Load

Pulley system

Jacking system used to raise and lower loads

Figure 7. Schematic diagram of apparatus used to measure locked-in strains along the geogrid.

and the specimen was allowed to rest for 24 hours. The strains in the geogrid were recorded throughout the 48 hour test period. Test T2 - In-Air Repeated Loading and Creep Test The instrumented geogrid was placed in the empty box with a (9.2 kN/m) tensile load applied and released eight times, each load cycle (application and release) lasted one minute. The number and length of time for the load cycles was based on the average number of passes and time involved respectively for compaction passes. The load was then applied and maintained for a period of 24 hours. At the end of this time, the tensile load was removed from the geogrid and the specimen allowed to rest for 24 hours. The strains in the geogrid were recorded throughout the test sequence, i.e. a period just over 48 hours. Test T3 - In-Soil Creep Test The box was filled with soil up to half-height (single lift) and compacted with a tamper. The geogrid was then placed on the layer of soil and the box was filled to the top (without compacting). A surcharge load equivalent to 0.5 m of backfill (10 kN/m2) was then placed over the soil. A tensile load (9.2 kN/m) was applied to the geogrid for a peri-

348

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

BS 1377: 1975
Clay
Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse

100 Percentage passing (%) 80 60 40 20

Silt

Sand

Gravel

0 0.001

0.010

0.100

1.000

10.000

100.000

Particle size (mm)

Figure 8. Particle size distribution of soil used in tests.

od of 24 hours. The tensile load was then removed and the geogrid allowed to rest for a further 24 hours. The strains in the geogrid were recorded throughout the 48 hour test period. Test T4 - In-Soil Repeated Loading and Creep Test The box was filled with soil up to half-height (single lift), the geogrid was placed on the layer of soil and the box was filled to the top. A surcharge load equivalent to 0.5 m of backfill (l0 kN/m2) was then placed over the soil. A tensile load of (9.2 kN/m) was applied and released eight times, each application and release lasting one minute. The tensile load was then applied for a period of 24 hours. After this time the tensile load was released and the geogrid was allowed to rest for a further 24 hours. Strains in the geogrid were recorded throughout the test sequence, i.e. just over 48 hours. RESULTS The results obtained are shown in Figures 9 to 13 and are summarised in Table 1.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

349

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

Table 1. Results from Tests T1 to T4.

Position In-Air (Test T1) 0.59 (0.00) 0.81 (0.00) -0.32 (0.00) 0.28 (0.00) -0.22 (0.00) In-Air (Test T2) 0.17 (0.10) 0.40 (0.00) -0.23 (0.00) 0.20 (0.00) -0.03 (0.00) In-Air (Test T3) 0.30 (0.10) 0.50 (0.05) -0.32 (-0.05) 0.03 (-0.05) -0.10 (-0.05) In-Air (Test T4) 0.40 (0.18) 0.55 (0.20) -0.20 (0.10) -0.03 (0.00) -0.03 (0.05)

A B D E F

Note: Figures in brackets denote strains after unloading; negative values denote compression; and positive values denote tension.

DISCUSSION In all the tests, the results showed that the strains reached a maximum at the end of the loading period. At the end of the unloading period, the strains reduced to approximately zero for the in-air tests (T1 and T2) whereas residual strains were present for in-soil tests (T3 and T4). 1.0 0.8 Localized strains (%) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ---0.2 ---0.4

In-air creep In-soil creep In-air repeated In-soil repeated

10

20

30

40

50

Time (hours)
Figure 9. Localised strains along Point A.

350

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

1.0 0.8 Localized strains (%) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ---0.2 ---0.4

In-air creep In-soil creep In-air repeated In-soil repeated

10

20

30

40

50

Time (hours)
Figure 10. Localised strains along Point B.

1.0 0.8 Localized strains (%) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ---0.2 ---0.4

In-air creep In-soil creep In-air repeated In-soil repeated

10

20

30

40

50

Time (hours)
Figure 11. Localised strains along Point C.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

351

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

1.0 0.8 Localized strains (%) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ---0.2 ---0.4

In-air creep In-soil creep In-air repeated In-soil repeated

10

20

30

40

50

Time (hours)
Figure 12. Localised strains along Point D.

1.0 0.8 Localized strains (%) 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ---0.2 ---0.4

In-air creep In-soil creep In-air repeated In-soil repeated

10

20

30

40

50

Time (hours)
Figure 13. Localised strains along Point E.

352

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

40 1 hr 30 Load (kN/m) 10 hrs 100 hrs 1000 hrs

20

10 Test temperature: 20 2 C 0 Specimen size: 5 bars 3 ribs 0 2 4 6 Strain (%)

Figure 14. Isochronous curves for Tensar SR80 geogrid.

10

At the end of the unloading period, strain gauges A and B in the in-soil repeated loading and creep test (T4) recorded tensile strains, although the loads applied to the reinforcement were removed. This shows that the reinforcement did not return to its original configuration on release of all external loads. This is due to the presence of soil particles within the aperture preventing full contraction. If the 0.2% tensile strain recorded at B is projected onto the 24 hour isochronous creep curve (obtained from in-isolation creep tests conducted at similar temperatures, Figure 14), a load of 2.0 kN/m is obtained. The specimen in the actual test was free of all applied tensile loads indicating that in-soil strains measured do not reflect on the external load carried by the geogrid. From the two sets of experiments two possible errors commonly overlooked in the instrumentation of polymer geogrids used in reinforced soil walls may be identified. 1. With regard to strain gauging; if dummy strain gauges are attached along the bars of the geogrids and connected to the active gauges forming a Wheatstone Bridge, then when calibrated in-air, these dummy gauges would record the compressive strains, thus causing a higher reading to be recorded on the active gauges. In soil however, the presence of the soil particles within the geogrid apertures, generates tensile strains on the dummy gauges, causing a smaller strain to be recorded by the active gauges. This could lead to erroneous strain outputs. In the present work, this was overcome by placing the dummy gauges on unloaded specimens of geogrid. 2. The other possible error is the method of interpretation of the loads from isochronous curves. The presence of an interlocking force caused by the presence of em-

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

353

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

bedded soil particles within the geogrid apertures is not modelled in the in-air isochronous creep curves, thus loads obtained by back-analysis may be erroneous. The degree of error may be very significant in comparison to the level of working loads actually applied to the geogrid. Loads in geogrids should therefore be measured directly. CONCLUSIONS From the results of this study, the following conclusions can be made: 1. The strains along pre-stretched polymeric geogrids with integral junctions are not uniform due to the variation of their geometry and the method of pre-stretching during their manufacture. 2. From in-soil tests, in which external loads are repeatedly applied, sustained and removed, it has been shown that residual tensile strains exist along the geogrid. These residual tensile strains indicate the presence of locked-in stresses in the geogrid. 3. Since the locked-in strains are not accounted for in in-isolation creep tests, isochronous creep curves may not be suitable to accurately interpret the load carried by reinforcing elements (i.e. in-soil strains cannot be converted to equivalent loads) unless a suitable calibration of the material is carried out. 4. Conclusions 1 and 2 suggest that in addition to strain measurements, loads should be measured in instrumented reinforced soil tests to clearly identify the distribution of loads throughout the reinforcing elements. 5. Special attention has to be paid to the interpretation of the results of localised strains as the assumption that the localised strains are equal to average longitudinal strains could be misleading. In order to obtain overall strains from localised strain measurements, specimens of geogrid have to be tested under appropriate test conditions to determine the actual relationship between these two parameters. REFERENCES Berg, R.R. and Swan, R.H., 1990, Investigation into Geogrid Pullout Mechanisms, Performance of Reinforced Soil Structures, McGown, A., Yeo, K., and Andrawes, K.Z., Eds., Thomas Telford, 1991, Proceedings of the International Reinforced Soil Conference held in Glasgow, Scotland, September 1990, pp. 353-357. BS 1377, Methods of Test for Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes, British Standards Institute, London, UK. BS 6906, Methods of Test for Geotextiles: Determination of Tensile Properties Using a Wide-Width Strip, British Standards Institute, London, UK. Jewell, R.A., 1990, Reinforcement Bond Capacity, Geotechnique, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 513-518. Jewell, R.A., Milligan G.W.E., Sarsby, R.W. and DuBois, D., 1984, Interaction Between Reinforcement and Geogrids, Polymer Grid Reinforcement, Thomas Telford, 1985, Proceedings of a conference held in London, UK, March 1984, pp. 18-30.

354

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

McGOWN, YOGARAJAH, ANDRAWES AND SAAD D Strain Behaviour of Geogrids

Martin, J.P., Koerner, R.M. and Whitty, J.E., 1984, Experimental Friction Evaluation of Slippage Between Geomembranes, Geotextiles and Soils, Proceedings of the International Conference on Geomembranes, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 191-196. McGown A., Andrawes, K.Z., Yeo, K.C. and Dubois, D., 1984, The Load-Strain-Time Behaviour of Tensar Geogrids, Polymer Grid Reinforcement, Thomas Telford, 1985, Proceedings of a conference held in London, UK, March 1984, pp. 11-17. Mercer, F.B., 1986, Critical Aspects of Industrial and Acadamic Collaboration, The Royal Society Philips Lecture, (Unpublished). Murray, R.T. and McGown, A., 1987, Geotextile Test Procedures: Background and Sustained Load Testing, TRRL Application Guide 5, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Deptartment of Transport, UK, pp. 54. Palmeira, E.M. and Milligan, G.W.E., 1989, Scale and Other Factors Affecting the Results of Pull-out Tests of Grids Buried in Sand, Geotechnique, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 511-524. Palmeira, E.M. and Milligan, G.W.E., 1990, Large Scale Pull-out Tests on Geotextiles and Geogrids, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Balkema, Vol. 2, The Hague, Netherlands, pp. 743-746.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 1

355