Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223549455
CITATIONS
READS
61
302
6 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Rudolf Hufenus
Empa - Swiss Federal Laboratories for Mate
114 PUBLICATIONS 197 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Abstract
A full-scale eld test on a geosynthetic reinforced unpaved road was carried out, including compaction and trafcking, to investigate
the bearing capacity and its performance on a soft subgrade. The test track was built with three layers of crushed, recycled ll material.
The 1st layer was compacted statically, whereas the 2nd and 3rd were dynamically compacted. The geogrids were instrumented with
strain gauges to measure the short- and long-term deformations and the ongoing formation of ruts was assessed from prole
measurements. The various geosynthetics used for this reinforced unpaved road were found to have a relevant reinforcing effect only
when used under a thin aggregate layer on a soft subgrade. Under such conditions, ruts can form in the subgrade, mobilizing strains and
thus tensile forces in the geosynthetic. The achievable degree of reinforcement depends on the stiffness of the geosynthetic and is limited
by nite lateral anchoring forces.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bearing capacity; Full-scale eld test; Reinforcement; Rut formation; Soft subgrade; Unpaved road
1. Introduction
Geosynthetics have been used successfully to reinforce
unpaved roads on soft subgrade for many years. Construction of reinforced temporary roads (Mannsbart et al.,
1999) and bases for heavy machinery (Garcin and Murray,
2003) are examples of short-term usage of the geosynthetic,
where the main goal is to save ll material. In paved roads
(Anderson and Killeavy, 1989; Zia et al., 2001) and railway
tracks (Ashpiz et al., 2002; Izvolt et al., 2001) the adoption
of geosynthetic reinforcement aims at a permanent
improvement of the bearing capacity and the longevity of
the road. Geosynthetics are installed between subgrade and
road to separate or to reinforce. If migration of nes is very
probable, separation is an essential function (Al-Qadi
Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 71 274 7341; fax: +41 71 274 7862.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
22
Nomenclature
CBR
EV1
EV2
CBR coefcient
Youngs modulus for the 1st plate loading
(MPa)
Youngs modulus for the plate reloading (MPa)
Evib
h
N
T2%
w
gd
h CBR0:63
,
0:19
(1)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
23
2. Experimental
2.1. Concept of field trials
Full-scale eld trials were undertaken in the autumn of
2002 in order to ascertain the effect of geosynthetics on the
load-bearing capacity of an unpaved road on soft
subgrade, which was levelled and prepared in order to
create a track of uniform strength (Hufenus et al., 2004).
Gravelly, angular backll was used for the test track and
compaction and in-service tests were carried out on the ll,
which were reinforced with various geosynthetics. The goal
of the study was to establish the extent to which reinforcing
geosynthetics improve compaction, bearing capacity and
serviceability.
Lessons were learnt from a similar research project
(Schad, 2001) during which weather conditions and
trafcking procedures during construction caused major
variations in the results, which limited assessment of the
results. Surprisingly, in that study no indication of
improved load-bearing capacity was observed due to the
geosynthetic reinforcement (Wilmers, 1999).
An area within a brickworks clay pit in Diessenhofen,
near to Schaffhausen, was available for use as a test track.
The ground consisted of relatively homogeneous clayey silt.
The subgrade is characterized as having a somewhat
irregular bearing capacity, which complicated the interpretation of the results, but also revealed the dependence of
compaction and serviceability (rut formation) on the
subgrade parameters.
The test track was divided into 12 elds (112) of length
8 m, into which one layer of a variety of reinforcing
geosynthetics was placed, and two preliminary test elds
(V1 and V2), where no geosynthetic, or only a separator,
was laid (Fig. 1). The geogrids were partly placed, in
combination with a nonwoven separator underneath.
Three 0.2 m layers (Fig. 2) of relatively poorly compactable
recycled rubble were placed. The 1st layer was compacted
statically (25 kN tandem at roller Bomag BW 120) and the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
24
measurements (CBR penetrometer), shear vane measurements (Pilcon), specic gravity measurements, static and
dynamic plate load tests, a dynamic falling weight
deectometer (FWD), the overall dynamic compaction
control and the prole measurements (ruts) and strain
gauges on the geogrids.
Table 1
Progess of the eld trials
Layer
Action
Subgrade
1st28th
29th30th
Layer 1
31st
31st
35th36th
Test track was laid with 0.25 m loose ballast 8/64 (compacted depth 0.2 m)
Test track was compacted purely statically with 25 kN roller, 34 passes
Static plate load and trafcking test over 1st layer with 130 kN truck: 2 passes for plate load
tests, 2 further passes on Zones V1 and V2 and 6 more on elds 112 (total 48 passes)
Layer 2
43rd44th
44th
48th49th
2nd layer was laid with 0.25 m loose ballast 8/64 (compacted depth 0.2 m)
Dynamic compaction with 80 kN roller, 34 passes
Plate load and trafcking tests over 2nd layer with loaded truck (10 driving passes with 220 kN,
10 passes with 280 kN)
Layer 3
57th
57th
76th78th
3rd layer was laid with 0.25 m loose ballast 0/32 (compacted depth 0.2 m)
Dynamic compaction with 80 kN roller, 34 passes
Plate load and trafcking tests with loaded truck (61 driving passes with 280 kN in total)
Subgrade
78th80th
Ballast cleared to approx. 0.05 m over the subgrade (geosynthetics) with a hydraulic excavator
for all proles, nal excavation by hand shovel
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
25
Table 2
Geosynthetics used in eld experiment
No.
Field
Type of geosynthetic
Width (m)
Grid (mm)
Strain gauges
02
27
28
32
40
41
42
44
45
46
10
9
2
5/6
V1
12
3/4
11
1
7/8
5.15
4.50
5.10
4.75
5.00
5.00
5.20
5.20
5.15
3.80
60 60
20 20
32 32
40 40
8.5 8.5
65 65
4
8
12
5%
max.
MD
XD
MD
XD
MD
XD
12
6
9
10
0.2
0.4
12
7.5
2
11
12
10
9
10
0.1
0.3
12
7.5
2
12
30
14
14
20
0.3
0.6
32
22
8
22
30
20
14
20
0.2
0.4
32
22
8
25
65
22
55
30
10
20
40
50
30
30
65
35
55
30
10
20
40
50
30
30
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
26
virgin
installed in 5-2
virgin
no. 32
installed in 6-2
40
30
20
10
0
installed in 3-2
no. 42
40
30
20
10
0
Strain [%]
virgin
50
Strain [%]
virgin
installed in 7-2
installed in 1-2
40
no. 45
installed in 4-2
50
50
40
30
20
10
installed in 7-1
installed in 8-2
no. 46
30
20
10
0
0
0
Strain [%]
Strain [%]
Fig. 4. Loadstrain-curve of the exhumed geosynthetics nos. 32, 42, 45 and 46, installed in elds 6-2, 5-2, 4-2, 3-2, 1-2, 7-1, 7-2, 8-2, respectively.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001
subgrade
fill (layer 1&2)
fill (layer 3)
0.01
0.1
10
100
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
27
12
10
CBR
8
6
4
2
V2-2
V2-1
V1-2
V1-1
12-2
12-1
11-2
11-1
10-2
10-1
9-2
9-1
8-2
8-1
7-2
7-1
6-2
6-1
5-2
5-1
4-2
4-1
3-2
3-1
2-2
2-1
1-2
1-1
Pro
file
1
0.5 ]
0
[m
-0.5
-1
ion
t
i
s
Po
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
28
Fig. 7. Positioning of the loading plate (static plate load test) and the
transverse strain gauges.
Profile 3-1
Profile V1-2
0
0
1st loading
unloading
reloading
20
10
Settlement [mm]
Settlement [mm]
10
30
40
50
60
20
30
40
1st loading
unloading
reloading
50
60
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Fig. 8. Vertical stress-settlement diagrams of the 1st ll layer, for proles V1-2 (without reinforcement) and 3-1 (with reinforcement).
0.6
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
29
40
20
Profile
CBR [%]
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
8-1
8-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
V1-1
V1-2
V2-1
V2-2
EV2 [MPa]
60
0
Fig. 9. Youngs moduli EV2 of the 1st and 2nd ll layer, compared to the weighted average CBR coefcients of the subgrade.
70
Young's modulus EV2 [MPa]
60
50
40
30
20
10
R2 = 0.2
R2 = 0.6
0
1
3
4
5
7
8
0
2
6
9
10
weighted average CBR coefficient of the subgrade [%]
Fig. 10. Correlation between the Youngs modulus EV2 of the 2nd ll
layer and the weighted average CBR coefcient of the subgrade.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
30
Fig. 11. Results of the overall dynamic compaction control on the 2nd and 3rd layer.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
31
800
700
Fill thickness [mm]
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
800
700
Fill thickness [mm]
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
wider than the track surface above. Considerable deformation of the subgrade was measured after the excavation of
the ll in the poorly reinforced elds 1 (weak slit tape
woven), 12 (strong nonwoven), V1 (separating nonwoven
only) and V2 (no geosynthetic). The low bearing capacity
of the subgrade resulted in relatively deep ruts in the elds
8 and 9 (extruded geogrids with nonwoven underlay), but
did not cause large deformations in the geogrid-reinforced
elds 47. The small ruts formed on the subgrade of the
elds 3, 4, 10 and 11 are partly explained by the
comparably high bearing capacity of the subgrade (elds
3 and 4) and by the lateral spreading of the wheel loads due
to the slightly curved track (elds 10 and 11), respectively.
Fig. 15 compares the mean depths of the left and right
ruts with the Youngs moduli EV2 of the 2nd and 3rd layers
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
32
800
700
Fill thickness [mm]
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
24
-4
20
-8
16
2nd layer after 10 passes
2nd layer after 20 passes
Young's modulus layer 2
average CBR coefficient
-12
12
-16
-20
-24
1-1
1-2
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
8-1
8-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
V1-1
V1-2
V2-1
V2-2
Fig. 14. Rut formation with stiff reinforcement (prole 5-1, sample 32).
Profile
Fig. 15. Rut formation, compared to Youngs moduli EV2 and CBR coefcients.
CBR = 0.5
800
reinforced
unreinforced
700
600
R2 = 0.96
500
CBR = 1
R2 = 0.92
400
CBR = 2
300
200
100
1
10
100
Number of axle passes
1000
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
Strain [%]
1st layer
compacted
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
1st layer
trafficked
2nd layer
compacted
2nd layer
trafficked
3rd layer
compacted
3rd layer
trafficked
field 2
field 3
field 4
field 5
field 6
field 7
field 8
unloading
reloading
Pos. 1
0.10
10
0.05
Strain [%]
Settlement [mm]
1st loading
20
30
33
Pos. 2
Pos. 3
0.2
0.3
Pos. 4
0.00
-0.05
40
-0.10
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.5
Fig. 18. Vertical stress-settlement (left-hand side) and corresponding strain gauge measurements (right-hand side) in the prole at position 12 m during
static plate load testing on 1st layer.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
34
44th
49th
49th
57th
77th
78th
78th
78th
78th
78th
1.2
1.0
Strain [%]
0.8
max
0.6
0.2
0.0
-0.2
min
0.4
Fig. 19. Deformations beneath the centre of the right lane (position 3) in eld 7.
Table 3
Approximate tensile strength induced by ll installation and loading
Field
2, 3
4
5, 6
7
8
Subgrade
Relatively rm
Soft
Soft
Soft
Soft
Geosynthetic
Knitted grid
Knitted grid
Flat rib grid
Extruded grid
Extruded grid
Nonwoven
underlay
With
Without
Without/with
Without
With
3rd layer
3
6
1
3
8
1
3
1
1
1
Permanent
strength (kN/m)
Maximum
strength (kN/m)
7
9
5
6
10
11
17
9
10
18
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
35
1.2
derived from subgrade deformation
Strain [%]
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Field
Fig. 21. Permanent measured geosynthetic strain vs. strain derived from
deformation of the subgrade.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
36
(2)
References
Al-Qadi, I.L., Appea, A.K., 2003. Eight-year of eld performance of a
secondary road incorporating geosynthetics at the subgrade-base
interface. 82nd Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board.
Washington, CD-Rom, 21pp.
Al-Qadi, I.L., Brandon, T.L., Valentine, R.J., Lacina, B.A., Smith, T.E.,
1994. Laboratory evaluation of geosynthetic-reinforced pavement
sections. Transportation Research Report 1439, pp. 2531.
Anderson, P., Killeavy, M., 1989. Geotextiles and geogridscost effective
alternate materials for pavement design and construction. Geosynthetics Conference, vol. 2. San Diego, pp. 353364.
Ashpiz, E.S., Diederich, R., Koslowski, C., 2002. The use of spunbonded geotextile in railway track renewal St. PetersburgMoscow.
Seventh International Conference on Geosynthetics, vol. 3. Nice,
pp. 11731176.
Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M., Walters, D.L., 2002. Short-term strain and
deformation behavior of geosynthetic walls at working stress conditions. Geosynthetics International 9 (56), 451482.
Bauer, A., 1997. Der Einuss der Verbundwirkung zwischen Boden und
Geotextil auf das Verformungverhalten von bewehrten Steilboschungen. Ph.D. Thesis, Issue 26, Lehrstuhl und Prufamt fur Grundbau,
Bodenmechanik und Felsmechanik, Technical University, Munich.
Bloise, N., Ucciardo, S., 2000. On site test of reinforced freeway with highstrength geosynthetics. Second European Geosynthetics Conference,
vol. 1. Bologna, pp. 369371.
Bourdeau, P.L., 1991. Membrane action in a two-layer soil system
reinforced by geotextile. Geosynthetics Conference, vol. 1. Atlanta,
pp. 439453.
Cancelli, A., Montanelli, F., 1999. In-ground test for geosynthetic
reinforced exible paved roads. Geosynthetics Conference, vol. 2.
Boston, pp. 863878.
Cancelli, A., Montanelli, F., Rimoldi, P., Zhao, A., 1996. Full scale
laboratory testing on geosynthetics reinforced paved roads. International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement. Fukuoka, pp. 573578.
Chan, F., Barksdale, R.D., Brown, S.F., 1989. Aggregate base reinforcement of surfaced pavements. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 8 (3),
165189.
Collin, J.G., Kinney, T.C., Fu, X., 1996. Full scale highway load test of
exible pavement systems with geogrid reinforced base courses.
Geosynthetics International 3 (4), 537549.
EN ISO 10319, 1996. GeotextilesWide-width tensile test. European
Committee for Standardization.
Espinoza, R.D., 1994. Soilgeotextile interactionevaluation of membrane support. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13 (5), 281293.
FGSV, 1997. Zusatzliche Technische Vertragsbedingungen und Richtlinien fur Erdarbeiten im Strassenbau. ZTVE-StB 94, Forschungsgesellschaft fur Strassen- und Verkehrswesen.
Floss, R., 2001. Verdichtungstechnik im Erdbau und Verkehrswegebau.
Bomag, Boppard, 149 pp.
Floss, R., Gold, G., 1994. Causes for the improved bearing behaviour of
the reinforced two-layer system. Fifth International Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, vol. 1. Singapore,
pp. 147150.
Garcin, P., Murray, H., 2003. Hochfester Verbundstoff zur Stabilisierung
einer Arbeitsplattform auf organischem Untergrund. 8. Tagung
Kunststoffe in der Geotechnik, Munich, pp. 193196.
Ghosh, C., Madhav, M.R., 1994. Reinforced granular llsoft soil
systemmembrane effect. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13 (11),
743759.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Hufenus et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2006) 2137
Giroud, J.P., Noiray, L., 1981. Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 107 (GT9),
12331254.
Gobel, C., Lieberenz, K., 1997. Beeinussung des Tragverhaltens von
Schichtsystemen durch Geokunststoffe. 5. Tagung Kunststoffe in der
Geotechnik, Munich, pp. 6167.
Gobel, G.H., Weisemann, U.C., Kirschner, R.A., 1994. Effectiveness of a
reinforcing geogrid in a railway subbase under dynamic loads.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13 (2), 9199.
Haas, R., Walls, J., Carroll, R.G., 1988. Geogrid reinforcement of
granular bases in exible pavements. Transportation Research Report
1188, 1927.
Hirano, I., Itoh, A., Itoh, M., Kawahara, S., Shirasawa, M., Shimizu, H.,
1990. Test on trafcability of a low embankment on soft ground
reinforced with geotextiles. Fourth International Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, vol. 1. Den Haag,
pp. 227232.
Houlsby, G.T., Jewell, R.A., 1990. Design of reinforced unpaved roads for
small rut depths. Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, vol. 1. Den Haag, pp. 171176.
Hufenus, R., Ruegger, R., Flum, D., Jaecklin, F., Brinkmann, A., Zeiter,
P., Sterba, I., 2002. Anforderungen an Geokunststoffe mit den
Aufgaben Bewehren und Schutzen. Forschungsbericht 1004 (VSS
1999/124), Bundesamt fur Strassen, Bern, 153 pp.
Hufenus, R., Ruegger, R., Weingart, K., Springman, S.M., Mayor, P.,
Banjac, R., Bronnimann, R., Feltrin, G., 2004. Reinforcing foundation
layers on soft subgrade. Third European Geosynthetics Conference,
vol. 1. Munich, pp. 255260.
Huntington, G., Ksaibati, K., 2000. Evaluation of geogrid-reinforced
granular base. Geotechnical Fabrics Report, January/February,
pp. 2228.
Ingold, T.S., 1994. The Geotextiles and Geomembranes Manual. Elsevier,
Oxford, 610pp.
Izvolt, L., Turinic, L., Baslik, B., 2001. Geogrid reinforced subgrade
intstead of traditional solutions in the railway track foundation.
Geosynthetics Conference. Portland, pp. 2336.
Jaecklin, F.P., Floss, R., 1988. Methode zur Bemessung von Geotextilien
im Strassenbau auf besonders weichem Untergrund. 1. Tagung
Kunststoffe in der Geotechnik, Hamburg, pp. 6976.
Jenner, C.G., Paul, J., 2000. Lessons learned from 20 years experience of
geosynthetic reinforcement on pavement foundations. Second European Geosynthetics Conference, vol. 1. Bologna, pp. 421425.
Jenner, C.G., Watts, G.R.A., Blackman, D.I., 2002. Trafcking of
reinforced, unpaved subbases over a controlled subgrade. Seventh
International Conference on Geosynthetics, vol. 3. Nice, pp. 931934.
Kenny, M.J., 1998. The bearing capacity of a reinforced sand layer
overlying a soft clay subgrade. Sixth International Conference on
Geosynthetics, vol. 2. Atlanta, pp. 901904.
Kinney, T.C., Xiaolin, Y., 1995. Geogrid aperture rigidity by in-plane
rotation. Geosynthetics Conference, vol. 2. Nashville, pp. 525537.
Knapton, J., Austin, R.A., 1996. Laboratory testing of unpaved
roads. International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement. Fukuoka,
pp. 615618.
Koerner, R.M., 1997. Designing with Geosynthetics, fourth ed. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 761pp.
Mannsbart, G., Magnus, M., Risse, J., 1999. Baustrassen auf geokunststoffbewehrtem PolsterErfahrungen mit der EBGEO. 6. Tagung
Kunststoffe in der Geotechnik, Munich, pp. 257259.
Martin, D., 1988. Die Trennfunktion der Geotextilien in ungebundenen
Verkehrswegebefestigungen. 1. Tagung Kunststoffe in der Geotechnik,
Hamburg, pp. 7786.
Meyer, N., Elias, J.M., 1999. Dimensionierung von Oberbauten von
Verkehrsachen unter Einsatz von multifunktionalen Geogrids zur
37