Stabilisation Workshop 01 AUSTRALIA April 2019

Tensar Workshop: Stabilisation April 2019
Australia, April 2019
Application of geogrid in pavement

design (Mechanical stabilisation)
Mike Dobie
Tensar International Limited
Regional Manager Asia Pacific
Workshop: Mechanical stabilisation
Design of pavements and trafficked areas using

mechanical stabilisation
 Session 1
 Introduction to mechanical stabilisation
 Examining the composite behaviour
 Relevance of tests & trials to real pavements
 Session 2
 Set-up procedure for the program “TensarPave”
 Pavement design workshop
2 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019
Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Copyright  Tensar International Limited 2019 1
Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers
Applications
Applications

Applications
Applications

Applications
Applications

Applications
Applications
10

Applications
Geogrid:
TX160
Thickness of
aggregate:
300mm
Subgrade CBR:
0.5 est.
Truck load:
Fully laden 733
Dump Truck
with 55t load
Project:
Oil Sands Mine
project in
Alberta, Canada
11
Applying mechanical stabilisation to the

design of pavements and trafficked areas
 Benefits of
placing geogrid
under
compacted
pavement layer
 Interlock and
confinement
 Trafficking trials
& performance
 Design of
pavements
using program
TensarPave
12

13
Are there any accepted definitions of stabilisation?

EOTA Technical Report TR41 (2012)
 Stabilisation is defined as the beneficial consequence

on the serviceability of an unbound granular layer via the
inhibition of the movement of the particles of that layer
under applied load. This is the result of the mechanical
effect of Confinement on an aggregate layer, resulting
from the mechanism of Interlock provided by a stiff
geogrid structure. The function of stabilisation is provided
by the interlocking of the aggregate with the geogrid and
subsequent confinement of the particles.
 Stabilisation has also been defined by ISO, and just last

week IGS (International Geosynthetics Society) included
“stabilisation” as a (5th) specific geosynthetic function
14

Definitions in ISO 10318-1:2018

Pictograms in ISO 10318-2:2018
 Stabilisation
improvement of the mechanical
behaviour of an unbound granular
material by including one or more
geosynthetic layers such that
deformation under applied loads is
reduced by minimising movements of
the unbound granular material
 Reinforcement
use of the stress-strain behaviour of a
geosynthetic material to improve the
mechanical properties of soil or other
construction materials
15
Composite behaviour
A mechanically stabilised layer is a composite

consisting of geogrid and a granular soil
 Let’s examine the behaviour of this composite using

triaxial testing and surface loading tests
 …DEM & SmartRock
16

Composite behaviour in triaxial tests
Large triaxial tests by Dr Andrew Lees

0.5m diameter
 Fill Type 6F1

 Well graded granular
 Sub-base quality
 1.0m high × 0.5m diameter
 Vacuum “cell pressure” up to 80
kPa
 No geogrid
 Geogrid placed at mid-height
 Geogrid at three levels
 5 radial strain gauges
17

0.5m diameter
700
 Cell
pressure 600 No geogrid
70 kPa
Deviator stress (kPa)
500
 No geogrid
400
300
Peak followed by dilation
to lower strength
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
18


0.5m diameter
700
 Cell No geogrid
Geogrid
pressure 600
starts to
TX160
70 kPa
rupture
500
 No geogrid
 TX160 at 400
mid-height
300
to lower strength
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
19

0.5m diameter
700
 Cell No geogrid
Geogrid
pressure 600 TX160
starts to
70 kPa 3xTX160
rupture
500
 No geogrid
 TX160 at 400
mid-height
 3 × TX160 300
to lower strength
spaced
200
200mm
above & 100
below
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
20


0.5m diameter
700
 Cell No geogrid
pressure 600 TX160
40 kPa 3xTX160
Deviator stress (kPa) 500
 Same
geogrid 400
layouts
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
21

0.5m diameter
700
 Cell No geogrid
pressure 600 TX160
10 kPa 3xTX160
500
 Same
geogrid 400
layouts Greater ductility
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
22

Composite behaviour in loading tests
Foundation tests carried out by FHWA

Adams & Collin (1997)
 Full scale static foundation loading tests

 Sand inside large concrete test box
 Investigate geogrid spacing, extent and depth
23

600 mm
Control test
24


Pressure (kPa)
 Control 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
20
Settlement (mm)
40
60
80 Control
100
25

600 mm 900 mm
150 mm
Geogrid
Test TL186
26

Plan view
600 mm 900 mm
27

Pressure (kPa)
 Control 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
 Test with
geogrid
2.4m by 20
2.4m
Settlement (mm)
40
60
Control
80
Test TL186
100
28


600 mm 300 mm
150 mm
Geogrid
Test TL146
29
Plan view
600 mm 300 mm
30


Pressure (kPa)
 Control 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
 Test with
geogrid
2.4m by 20
2.4m
Settlement (mm)
 Test with 40
geogrid
1.2m by
1.2m 60
Control
80 Test TL186
Test TL146
100
31

Pressure (kPa)
 Control 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
 Test with
geogrid
2.4m by 20
2.4m
Settlement (mm)
 Test with 40
geogrid
1.2m by
1.2m 60
Control
 Adding Test TL186
Test TL146
further 80
Test TL149
tests Test TL166
Test TL169
100
32


Pressure (kPa)
 Tests with 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
3 layers of 0
geogrid
 Sand has 20
higher
Settlement (mm)
density 40
 Similar
behaviour
with the 60
same Control
initial 80
stiffness Test 2294
100
33
Plate tests carried out by BRE

Watts & Powell (2009)
 450mm
granular
sub-base
 Control and
tests with
2× TX
layers
 800mm soft
clay subsoil
 Loaded by
square plate
300mm by
300mm
34

Foundation tests carried out by BRE

Pressure (kPa)
 Control 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
10 Control
Settlement (mm)
20
30
40
50
35
Foundation tests carried out by BRE

Pressure (kPa)
 Similar 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
initial 0
Control
stiffness
TX170x2
 Difference 10
TX180x2
in bearing
Settlement (mm)
TX160/TX170
capacity
20
at large
settlement
30
40
50
36

Composite behaviour based on static loading
Mechanical stabilisation of an aggregate has the

following benefits compared to the aggregate alone:
 An increase in strength, but not in initial stiffness

 Greater ductility
 The mechanism is localised within the zone of load
spread, so that long anchorage lengths or wrap-arounds
beyond the zone of loading are not required
 It is effective in sand
 Now let’s look at repeated or cyclic loading
37
Composite behaviour with repeated loading
Traffic loading consists of large numbers of

repeated loads well below failure level
700
 Initial No geogrid
stiffness 600 TX160
with and
3xTX160
without 500
geogrid
similar 400
 But higher 300

failure load
of stabilised 200
section
suggests 100 Working
slower stress range
0
deterioration 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
38

Composite behaviour in RL triaxial tests
Repeated load triaxial test

Resilient soil modulus
 150mm diameter by
300mm high for
coarse soils
39

 The deviator stress has a Deviator

stress
specific “wave form” 1 - 3
Max stress
N
Max
particle =
25% of
specimen
diameter
Constant stress
which is 10% Suction
of max stress 3
40


 Test carried out in a Deviator

stress
sequence of loading stages 1 - 3
with increasing bulk stress
 Each sequence has 1000 N
Max
load cycles particle =
 Modulus determined as 25% of
specimen
average of last 5 cycles diameter
 Resilient modulus
 Bulk stress = 1+ 2 + 3
Suction
3
41

Plot
shows all
load
cycles
NB:
different
loading
sequence
42


Plot
shows
last 5
load
cycles
for each
stage
Modulus
getting
higher
for each
sequence
43
Resilient soil modulus study by Wayne, Boudreau

& Kwon (2011)
 Specimen CSB1 Deviator

stress
compacted to 91.3% 1 - 3
of MDD
N
91.3%
MDD
Suction
3
44


& Kwon (2011)

stress
of MDD
 Specimen CSB2 has N
lower half compacted 91.3%
to 85.6% of MDD MDD
85.6%
MDD
Suction
3
45

& Kwon (2011)

stress
of MDD
 Specimen CSB2 has N
lower half compacted 91.3%
to 85.6% of MDD MDD
 Specimens CSB3 &

CSB4 have TX geogrid
at mid-height 85.6%
MDD
 The following graphs
show Mr versus bulk Suction
3
stress for each
specimen
46


& Kwon (2011)
400
 CSB1 CSB1
Resilient modulus (MPa) 300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Bulk stress (kPa)
47

& Kwon (2011)
400
 CSB1 CSB1
 CSB2 has CSB2
Resilient modulus (MPa)
lower Mr 300
200
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Bulk stress (kPa)
48


& Kwon (2011)
400
 CSB1 CSB1
 CSB2 has CSB2

lower Mr 300
CSB3
CSB4
 Mr for CSB3
& CSB4
similar to 200
CSB1
100
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Bulk stress (kPa)
49
Composite behaviour in cyclic loading tests
APLT accelerated plate loading tests

Developed by Dr David White of Iowa State Uni
 In situ resilient
modulus and
permanent
deformation
 Automation
reduces testing
time
 Resilient
modulus is not
constant until
after 100 to
1000 cycles
50

51

Results obtained from Boone, Iowa
Cycle
 Similar 0 50 100 150 200 250
0
initial
GG2 TX
permanent
Permanent deformation (mm)
2 GG1 BX
deformation Control
 After 250 4
load cycles
major 6
difference
8
10
12
14
52


Results obtained from Boone, Iowa
50
 Based on a
number of

studies 40
 Improvement
in resilient 30
modulus
from 1.5× 20
to 2.0×
10
0
Control GG1 BX GG2 TX
Section
53
Composite behaviour numerical modelling
Discrete Element Modelling (DEM)

ITASCA
 Simulates the mechanical behaviour of TriAx in a

granular sub-base while loaded with a passing wheel
 Rigid spherical particles represent material geometry
and properties in the model
 Model calibrated by re-producing laboratory results on
real materials forth and back granular soil layer
above geogrid
subgrade layer
below geogrid
54


x
(YZ) Displacements across
z
No grid - 9th run
[m]
Dispmax = -33 mm
z
SS20 - 9th run
Dispmax = -24 mm
z
TX160 - 9th run
Dispmax = -20 mm
55
56

Forces in the geogrid under wheel loading
SS20 9th run TX160 9th run
Fmax = 0,49 kN/m Fmax = 0,27 kN/m
57
Composite behaviour “SmartRock”
Pennsylvania State University

Test of rail ballast
 Rail ballast consists of large size angular aggregate

particles with uniform gradation to facilitate drainage
and load distribution
 Fouling of ballast with fines has been a major issue of
railway track maintenance. Approximately 70-76% of
fouling comes from ballast breakdown
 Breakdown of ballast occurs due to mechanical wear of
sharp edges through repeated loading
 Research Objective: Investigate the effect of geogrid
on particle movement inside railroad ballast under
cyclic loading
58


 Test set-up: 250mm of AREMA No. 4 Ballast over

TX190L
 Wireless 3D printed “SmartRock” embedded in ballast
 Control section also constructed
 500 cycles of 130 kN applied per test
 Measurements carried out:

 Smart Rock rotation and displacement on three axes
 Sleeper deflection
59

60


 SmartRock is installed above geogrid and records real-

time particle movement including translation and
rotation
61

In rotation In translation
So we can see what is actually

going on inside the aggregate layer!
62


 Test set-up Test set-up models

this part of the track
Sleeper
deflection
Smart
Rocks
63

Cycle
 Sleeper 0 100 200 300 400 500
-5
deflection
0
Vertical displacement (mm)
10
15
20
25
TX
30
Control
35
64


Cycle
 Sleeper 0 100 200 300 400 500
-5
deflection
 Adjusted for 0
initial Vertical displacement (mm)

5
bedding in
 Major 10
reduction in 15
accumulated
vertical 20
deformation
25
TX
30
Control
35
65

Control with TriAx
66


Control with TriAx
67

Control with TriAx
Presented at TRB2016 conference: “Effect of Geogrid on Railroad Ballast Studied by SMARTROCK”
68

Pennsylvania State University – new study 2017

Test of rail ballast overlying sub-ballast
 Test set-up
69

 SmartRocks
70


 Small SmartRocks above geogrid
71

 Large SmartRocks in ballast
72


Cycle
 Sleeper 0 500 1000 1500 2000
deflection 0
85 kN load
 85 kN load
Permanent deformation (cm)
2
10
TX - 85
12 BX - 85
Control - 85
14
73

Cycle
 Sleeper 0 500 1000 1500 2000
deflection 0
85 kN load 130 kN load

 85 kN load
Permanent deformation (cm)
2
 Increasing
to 130 kN 4
load
6
 Colours
match the 8
acceleration
diagrams 10
on the next TX - 85 TX - 130

slides 12 BX - 85 BX - 130
Control - 85 Control - 130
14
74


Translational
Ballast Sub-ballast
75

Rotational
Ballast Sub-ballast
76

Composite behaviour
Mechanical stabilisation
A model of the behaviour
77
Composite behaviour in FEA
Finite element analysis

Development of TSSM by Dr Andrew Lees
 Soil strength envelopes

σ1
Non-stabilised
Non-stabilised soil properties
Curved envelope Slope k0

due to interlock in
dense granular
soils
Friction envelope
Non-stabilised
c0 Curvature a0 soil properties
σ3
78


 Soil strength envelopes

σ1
Linear interpolation of failure At TriAx
surface between TriAx geogrid geogrid
plane and vertical influence elevation yt Non-stabilised
extent Δy t soil properties
Non-stabilised
Slope k0 Δyt
Curvature at yt Stabilised
soil
properties
Δyt
ct
Non-stabilised
σ3
79

σ1
MECHANICAL
STABILISATION
Non-stabilised
soil properties
Slope k0 Δyt
Curvature at yt Stabilised
soil
properties
Δyt
ct
Non-stabilised
σ3
80

Composite - summary based on testing
Mechanical stabilisation of an aggregate has the

following benefits compared to the aggregate alone:
 An increase in strength, but not in initial stiffness

 Greater ductility
 The mechanism is localised within the zone of load
spread, so that long anchorage lengths or wrap-arounds
beyond the zone of loading are not required
 It is effective in sand
 Stiffness is retained as number of load cycles increases
 Load levels within the stabilising geogrid are very low
 Aggregate particles are restrained from moving by
interlocking with the geogrid apertures
 This restraint continues for some distance beyond the
geogrid due to interlocking between aggregate particles
81
Austroads Pavement Design
Austroads
Design guide published 2012
 AGPT02-12: Guide to Pavement

technology
 Part 2: Pavement Structural
Design
82

Sealed aggregate pavements

Design chart given in Section 8.3
 Design chart Figure 8.4

0
Minimum
Minimum thickness
thickness ofofbase
basematerial
material
100 CBR
Granular thickness (mm)

200 30
20
300 15
400 10
500 7
600 5
700
4
800 3
900
2
1000
100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
Design traffic (ESA)
83
Sealed aggregate pavements

Design chart given in Section 8.3, adding Section 12
 Extended to low volume roads using Figure 12.2

Figure 12.2 Figure 8.4
0
Minimum thickness of base material
100 CBR
200 30
20
300 15
400 10
500 7
600 5
700
4
800 3
900
2
1000
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
84

Relating trials to real pavements
It would be helpful to have a single “index” value

Related to performance or life
 The proposal is the “Road Index” or RI

 Based on the Giroud & Noiray equation for unsurfaced
roads:
190(log10 N75 )
h
CBR 0.63
SB: 300mm (a = 0.11) h
SG: CBR = 2%
85

 “Road Index” given by (h in m): RI  10  h  CBR 0.5

 RI has greater effect from layer thickness than
supporting CBR, which is what you’d expect
 CBR to power 0.5 gives better fit with Austroads (see
later)
 But this is for a pavement

consisting of a single
SB: 300mm (a = 0.11) h
layer of sub-base quality
material
 What about other material
SG: CBR = 2% or pavement types?
86


 a a a 
RI  10  hAC AC  hB B  hSB SB   CBR 0.5
 0 .11 0.11 0 .11
AC: 50mm (a = 0.4)
 For multilayer or
Base: 150mm (a = 0.14) pavements with different
materials use the
AASHTO “a” values to
SB: 300mm (a = 0.11)
define “equivalence
factors” (similar to the
British Ports Manual)
SG: CBR = 3%
87

 a a a 
RI  10  hAC AC  hB B  hSB SB   CBR 0.5
 0.11 0.11 0.11
IMPORTANT NOTES
 Although RI is related to performance it is not intended
to be used for design
 The aim of the RI value is only to compare pavement
sections to give an indication of equivalence
 It is intended for pavements which are mainly granular
 The scale is logarithmic in nature
 Quote to one decimal place only
88

How does RI relate to real pavements?

Figure 8.4 combined with Figure 12.2
 RI = 5 to 7 for low volume, RI = 7 to 14 for normal roads

Figure 12.2 Figure 8.4
0
Minimum thickness of base material
100 CBR
5.0 200 30
20
300 15
4.9
400 10
500 7.0 7
600
9.4 14.4 5
700
4
800 11.8 3
900
1000
14.2 2
1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
89
Trafficking trials by TRL (2000-13)

Testing a single layer of sub-base quality material
Plan view 2.4m
 Definitions of 1 no section
trial layouts
 Trial divided into 10m
3m × 2.4m test 2m wide
3m pit
panels 3m
A
 3 no test panels
per section 4.5m
1 no panel
 2 no 5.5m
measurement B Direction of
profiles per trafficking
2 no
measurement 7m
panel
profiles per 8m
 Up to 6 no panel C
sections per trial
90


 Summary of trials
Trial No Sections Panels Controls Non-standard* With geosynthetics
T1 4 12 2 0 10
T2 3 9 2 0 7
T3 2 6 2 0 4
T4 3 9 3 0 6
T5# 3 9 0 0 9
T6 4 12 1 5 9
T7 6 18 3 0 15
T8 6 18 1 0 17
Totals 31 93 14 5 77
*Standard is CBR = 2% and thickness = 300mm approximately
#T5 all terminated before full term, without a control, not included in
analysis which follows
91
Trafficking trials by TRL (2002)

 Paper:
“Trafficking of
reinforced
unpaved sub-
bases over a
controlled
subgrade” by
Jenner, Watts &
Blackman
(2002), Nice
IGS Conference
 Generally
CBR = 2%
h = 300mm
92


 Paper:
“Trafficking of
reinforced
unpaved sub-
bases over a
controlled
subgrade” by
Jenner, Watts &
Blackman
(2002), Nice
IGS Conference
 Generally
CBR = 2%
h = 300mm
93

 Generally CBR = 2% and h = 300mm

 RI = 4.2
 Similar to low end of Chart 12.2
 We find that TRL trials are

on the boundary between
SB: 300mm (a = 0.11) h tensioned membrane and
RI = 4.2 confinement (for
geosynthetics which are
able to confine the
SG: CBR = 2%
aggregate material)
94

There are two recognised forms of interaction

between geosynthetics and aggregates in pavements
Geogrids where interlock Geogrids and geotextiles where interlock is

results in confinement not developed - “tensioned membrane”
Stabilisation Reinforcement
95

 This may be
seen clearly in
these TRL
trafficking trials
96


 Soft subgrade
material is clay
with CBR = 2%
 Requires very
careful
preparation
97

 Soft subgrade
material is clay
with CBR = 2%
 Requires very
careful
preparation
 …and checking
98

CBR (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Depth below subgrade (mm) 0 Subgrade assessment
Before
trafficking
200 2.4m
1 no section
400 T7/5A
10m
2m wide
600 3m pit
3m
A
800
4.5m
5.5m
B
7m
8m
C
99
CBR (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 Subgrade assessment
Depth below subgrade (mm)
Before
trafficking
200 2.4m
1 no section
400 T7/5A
10m
2m wide
600 3m pit
3m
A
800
0 4.5m
After
trafficking
5.5m
200
B
7m
400 T7/5A
8m
C
600
800
100

CBR (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Before
trafficking
200 2.4m
1 no section
400 T7/5A
10m
2m wide
600 3m pit
3m
A
800
0 4.5m
After
trafficking
5.5m
200
B
7m
400 T7/5A
8m
C
600
800
101
CBR (%)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Before
trafficking
200 2.4m
T7/5A 1 no section
400 T7/5B
T7/5C
10m
2m wide
600 3m pit
3m
A
800
0 4.5m
After
trafficking
5.5m
200
B
T7/5A
7m
400 T7/5B
8m
T7/5C C
600
800
102


 Investigating
different forms
of geosynthetic
103

 Placing 300mm
of sub-base
material
104


 Trafficking with
40 kN wheel
(same as 1 No
ESAL)
 Measuring rut
depth and
deformation
during the
trafficking
105

 Rut depth and deformation

 Some definitions:
Rut depth Heave = rut depth - deformation
Deformation
106


 Exhuming and
measuring
each section
after trafficking
completed
107
Control Membrane Confinement

0.1
Depth below datum (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Distance across section (m) Distance across section (m) Distance across section (m)
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
N=0 -20
Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement -60
Control
-80
-100
-120
-140
108


0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
N = 100 -20
Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement -60
Control
-80
-100
-120
-140
109

0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
N = 200 -20
Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement -60
Control
-80
-100
-120
-140
110


0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
N = 500 -20
Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement -60
Control
-80
-100
-120
-140
111

0.1
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
N = 1,000 -20
Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement -60
Control
-80
-100
-120
-140
112


0.1
-0.1
-0.2 2000 passes
-0.3
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
N = 2,000 -20
Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement -60
Control
-80
-100
-120
-140
113

0.1
-0.1
-0.2 2000 passes
-0.3
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
N = 5,000 -20
Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement -60
Control
-80
-100
-120
-140
114


0.1
-0.1
-0.2 2000 passes 9000 passes
-0.3
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
Subgrade
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
profile
N = 9,000 -20
Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement -60
Control
-80
-100
-120
-140
115

0.1
-0.1
-0.2 2000 passes 9000 passes 10,000 passes
-0.3
RI = 4.1 RI = 4.0 RI = 4.2
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
Subgrade
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
profile
N = 10,000 -20 Confinement Note:

Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement
The membrane
-60
Control geosynthetic
-80
has twice the
-100 strength of the
-120 Tensioned membrane confinement
-140
geosynthetic
116

Control Reinforcement Stabilisation

0.1
-0.1
-0.2 2000 passes 9000 passes 10,000 passes
-0.3
RI = 4.1 RI = 4.0 RI = 4.2
-0.4
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
Subgrade
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
0
profile
N = 10,000 -20 Confinement Note:

Mean rut depth (mm)
Membrane -40
Confinement
The membrane
-60
Control geosynthetic
-80
has twice the
-100 strength of the
-120 Tensioned membrane confinement
-140
geosynthetic
117
Using the tensioned membrane in pavements

Limitations
JP Giroud presentation in Jakarta in 2006 and in Seoul in

2018 on “Functions of geosynthetics in road applications”
 Identified the tensioned membrane mechanism:
 Confirmed that the effect is relatively small
 Limited to channelised traffic on unpaved roads
 Not applicable to unpaved areas (traffic not
channelised)
 Not relevant to paved roads (small deformations)
118


 From TRL trials

we also have
data from FWD
119

Related to Austroads and RI
 Wheel loading channelised, adding initial surface modulus

RI = 4.1 Figure 12.2 Figure 8.4 >>
0 250
10 Membrane 225
Mean rut depth (mm)
20 200
Confinement
Modulus (MPa)
30 175
40 Control 150
50 125
60 Modulus memb 100
70 75
Modulus conf
80 50
90 Modulus con 25
100 0
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
120

The development of TX geogrids
Recent development
The phenomenon work has
of interlock provided clear evidence
in stabilisation
of the benefits of triaxial (TX) geogrids in stabilisation
121
Trafficking trials by TRL (2000 - 2013)

 Generally
CBR = 2%
h = 300mm
122

Trafficking trials by TRL (2000 - 2013)

 TRL“0” - Chaddock (1987) and onwards

 TRL1 - 2000
 TRL2 - 2002
 TRL3 - 2003 including TX (early version)
 TRL4 – 2005/6 including TX (experimental)
 TRL5 - 2006 including TX
 TRL6 - 2006/7 including TX
123
Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Distance across section (m) Distance across section (m)
E2 = 40.2 MPa E2 = 40.1 MPa
 TRL also carried out FWD tests using a 300mm plate

(essentially a dynamic plate loading test)
 Average results are given above as E2
124

Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
N=0 -20
-40
Control -60
TX -80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
125
Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 200 -20
-40
Control -60
TX -80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
126

Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 500 -20
-40
Control -60
TX -80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
127
Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 1,000 -20
-40
Control -60
TX -80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
128

Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 2,000 -20
-40
Control -60
TX -80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
129
Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1 4,000
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 4,000 -20
-40
Control -60
TX -80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
130

Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1 4,000
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 8,000 -20
-40
Control -60
TX -80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
131
Control TX geogrid
0.2
0.1 4,000 11,500 passes
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4 11,500
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
Subgrade
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
profile
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 11,500 -20
-40
Control -60
TX -80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
132

Trafficking trials by TRL (2005/6)

 Wheel loading channelised, adding initial surface modulus

0 250
10 Control 225
TX
20 200
Rut depth (mm)
Modulus Con
Modulus (MPa)
30 175
Modulus TX
40 150
50 125
60 100
70 75
80 50
90 25
100 0
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
133

 Examining all
the TRL trials
together allows
us to establish
some important
behaviour
trends
134


 Examining all
the TRL trials
together allows
us to establish
some important
behaviour
trends
 Related to the
final surface
shape
135

 Examining all
the TRL trials
together allows
us to establish
some important
behaviour
trends
 Related to the
final surface
shape
 …and final
subgrade shape
136


 These shape classifications are partly subjective

 However examples of each are shown in the next
examples taken from actual profiles
 Clearly there are borderline cases between any two
definitions, but the “scale” is considered to be
sufficient
137
200
Trafficking trials
100
by TRL (2000-13)
0
 Key terminal -100
performance
parameters -200
-300
 Mean controls
are based on -400
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
controls nearest Distance across section (m)
to the sections Passes
which follow 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
40
80
Initial condition Value
Subgrade CBR (%) 2.06 120
Thickness (mm) 295 Av control rut
160
FWD mod (MPa) 35.9 Av control def
RI = 4.2
Averages from controls 200
138

200

Trafficking trials MEM
100
by TRL (2000-13)
0
performance
parameters -200
-300
Parameter Value -400
Total ESAL (no) 4600 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Distance across section (m)
Pavement shape MEM
Passes
Deformation (mm) 103 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Heave (mm) 96
Mean rut depth (mm)
40
Def (mm) per 1000 30
80
Av control rut
Thickness (mm) 302 Av control def
160
FWD mod (MPa) 42.0 MEM rut
RI = 4.6 MEM def
Trial T7 200
139
200
Trafficking trials MEM-

100
by TRL (2000-13)
0
performance
parameters -200
-300
Total ESAL (no) 10000 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Pavement shape MEM-
Passes
Deformation (mm) 69 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Heave (mm) 48
Mean rut depth (mm)
40
Def (mm) per 1000 2.6
80
Av control rut
160
FWD mod (MPa) 32.4 MEM- rut
RI = 4.4 MEM- def
Trial T7 200
140

200

Trafficking trials 50/50
100
by TRL (2000-13)
0
performance
parameters -200
-300
Total ESAL (no) 10000 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Pavement shape 50/50
Passes
Deformation (mm) 56 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Heave (mm) 16
Mean rut depth (mm)
40
Def (mm) per 1000 2.0
80
Av control rut
160
FWD mod (MPa) 30.8 50/50 rut
RI = 4.3 50/50 def
Trial T2 200
141
200
Trafficking trials CON-

100
by TRL (2000-13)
0
performance
parameters -200
-300
Total ESAL (no) 10000 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Pavement shape CON-
Passes
Deformation (mm) 45 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Heave (mm) 13.2
Mean rut depth (mm)
40
Def (mm) per 1000 1.2
80
Av control rut
160
FWD mod (MPa) 34.7 CON- rut
RI = 4.2 CON- def
Trial T2 200
142

200

Trafficking trials CON
100
by TRL (2000-13)
0
performance
parameters -200
-300
Total ESAL (no) 11500 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Pavement shape CON
Passes
Deformation (mm) 38 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Heave (mm) 0
Mean rut depth (mm)
40
Def (mm) per 1000 1.3
80
Av control rut
160
FWD mod (MPa) 40.1 CON rut
RI = 4.3 CON def
Trial T4 200
143

 Based on examining all trial section results the

following terminal trafficking performance limits
should be achieved if the pavement performance is
truly “stabilisation”:
Trafficking Requirement for section to be considered as
parameter confinement
Total passes of ESAL Should reach full term (normally 10,000 to 11,500 passes)
Pavement shape Should be CON or CON-
classification
Final surface < 50mm
deformation
Final surface heave < 10 mm
Final deformation Around 1mm/1000 passes or less
per 1000 passes
144


Summary of FWD surface modulus and Road Index
120
 This shows
surface Control
Surface modulus FWD (MPa)

100
modulus
versus RI for BX
80
controls, BX
and TX TX
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Road index (RI)
145
USCoE trials, Phase 1 (2012)

Two-layer pavement: AC over base course
 Published paper: “Full scale evaluation of geogrid

reinforced thin flexible pavements” by Jersey et al,
published at TRB 2012 Annual meeting
 Full scale pavement
 Clay subgrade supporting crushed base with AC
 Measurement of rut depth
 Comparing control pavement with pavement of the
same thickness including MSL
146


Assessment of RI
 Generally: CBR = 3.0%

hB = 200mm, hAC = 50mm
 RI = 7.6
 Similar to left side of Chart 8.4
AC: 50mm (a = 0.4)
Base: 200mm (a = 0.14)

RI = 7.6
 Section stabilised with
TX140 reaches
SG: CBR = 3.0% 100,000 ESAL at
11.5mm deformation
147
148


Trafficking results
149

Trafficking results
ESALs
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
0
10
Mean rut depth (mm)
20
30
50mm AC cont
40 75mm AC control
50mm AC TX140
50
60
150


Trafficking results related to Austroads
 Wheel loading non-channelised

0
Surface deformation (mm)
10
50mm AC control
20
30
75mm AC control
40
50 50mm AC TX140
60
70
80
90
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
151

 Wheel loading non-channelised, adding surface modulus

0 250
10 50mm AC control 225

20 75mm AC control 200
Modulus (MPa)
30 50mm AC TX140 175

40 Modulus C1 150
Modulus C2
50 125
Modulus TX140
60 100
70 75
80 50
90 25
100 0
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
152


120
 This shows
Control
surface

100
modulus BX
versus RI for
80
controls, BX TX
and TX
60 USCoE Ph 1
 Highlighting
MEM* and 40
CON-
 Adding USCoE 20
Phase 1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Road index (RI)
153

 Control after
20,000 ESAL
154


 TX140 after
100,000 ESAL
155
Louisiana Transport Research Centre, LTRC (2014)

Cyclic plate loading tests
 Published paper: “Evaluation of geosynthetics

reinforced/stabilised pavement built over soft subgrade
using cyclic plate loading testing” by M Abu-Farsakh et
al (February, 2015), published at Geosynthetics 2015 in
Portland, Oregon
 Investigation of relatively thick pavement sections
 Reinforced or stabilised with different geosynthetics
156


 Three of the test sections

 Stabilised with Tensar TX5
AC (HMA): 75mm
(a = 0.4)
Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Base: 450mm
(a = 0.14)
300mm
RI = 8.5
SG: Heavy clay, CH,A-7-6, PI = 55%, CBR  1.0%
157

 Test tank 2m across, typical test arrangement

40 kN cyclic load on AC (HMA): 75mm
300mm diameter plate (a = 0.4)
Section 3
Base: 450mm
(a = 0.14)
RI = 8.5
SG: Heavy clay, CH,A-7-6, PI = 55%, CBR  1.0%
2m
158


Deformation results related to Austroads
 Cyclic plate loading tests

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80 TX5 2 layers TX5 I layer Control
90
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
159


0
10
15
20 TX5 2 layers Control
25
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
160



0
10
15
TX5 2 layers surface Control surface

20
Control base Control subgrade
25
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
161


0
5
Loss in base thickness
10
Loss in asphalt thickness
15

20
Control base Control subgrade
25
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
162



0
5
10
15
20 TX5 2 layers base Control base
TX5 2 layers subgrade Control subgrade

25
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
163


0

10
15
TX5 1 layer surface Control surface
20 TX5 1 layer base Control base
TX5 1 layer subgrade Control subgrade

25
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
164

165
Montana trial (2014)

Single layer aggregate pavement
 Final report FHWA/MT-14-002/7712-251: “Relative

operational performance of geosynthetics used as
subgrade stabilisation” by Eli Cuelho, Steve Perkins &
Zachary Morris (May, 2014)
 Extensive study
 Very detailed report, 331 pages
 Some of the images and diagrams which follow are
taken from this report
166


 Comparing
sections with
different
geosynthetics
 Loaded by
truck
 Carried out
outdoors
 Wheel loading
channelised
167

 Comparing
sections with
different
geosynthetics
 Loaded by
truck
 Carried out
outdoors
 Wheel loading
channelised
 Start
168


 Comparing
sections with
different
geosynthetics
 Loaded by
truck
 Carried out
outdoors
 Wheel loading
channelised
 25mm rut
169

 Comparing
sections with
different
geosynthetics
 Loaded by
truck
 Carried out
outdoors
 Wheel loading
channelised
 50mm rut
170


 CBR = 1.7% hB = 275mm

 RI = 3.3
 Off left edge of Chart 12.2
Base: 275mm (a = 0.10)

RI = 3.3
SG: CBR = 1.7%
171

50mm
25mm
172


Single layer aggregate pavement - welded grid
173

 Wheel loading channelised

0
10 TX160
20
TX140
30
40 Control
50
60
70
80
90
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
174


 All sections go almost

immediately into Discussion with Dr Eli
tensioned membrane Cuelho, main researcher,
 Including TX, which at Portland conference
split  Confirmed one truck pass
 TX not intended to = 1.2 ESAL
function in this way  Main purpose of trial to
investigate behaviour of
Base: 275mm (a = 0.10) low volume unsurfaced
roads with channelised
RI = 3.3
traffic
 Dominant mechanism =
SG: CBR = 1.7% tensioned membrane
175

Verifying “switch over” to membrane behaviour
 Generally
CBR = 2%
h = 300mm
 In TRL6 one
test section
was built
250mm thick
 Includes
Tensar SS30
and TX160
176

BX* 250mm TX* 250mm TX

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
Mean rut depth (mm)
N=0 -20
-40
TX
-60
TX*
-80
BX*
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
177

0.2 1,000 passes
0.1 1,000
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
Subgrade
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
profile
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 1,000 -20
-40
TX
-60
TX*
-80
BX*
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
178


0.2 1,000 passes
0.1 1,000 11,500 passes
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
RI = 3.8 RI = 3.7 RI = 4.3
-0.5
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
Passes
Subgrade
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
0
profile
Mean rut depth (mm)
N = 11,500 -20
-40
TX
-60
TX*
-80
BX*
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
179

 Wheel loading channelised

Figure 12.2 Figure 8.4 >>
0
10 TX 300mm
20 TX* 250mm
Rut depth (mm)
30 RI = 4.3 BX* 250mm

40
50
60
70
80
RI = 3.7 RI = 3.8
90
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
180


Summary of FWD surface modulus and Road Index
120
 This shows Control
surface

100
modulus BX
versus RI for TX
80
controls, BX CON-
and TX
60 MEM*
 Highlighting
MEM* and 40
CON-
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Road index (RI)
181
Summary of the various trials & tests
182


Showing only the TX data
 Indicating RI
0
10
20
RI = 4.3 RI = 7.6 RI = 8.5
Rut depth (mm)
30
40 RI = 3.3
50
60 TX160 (TRL, 250mm sub-base)
TX160 (Montana, 275mm sub-base)
70
TX (TRL, 300mm sub-base)
80
RI = 3.7 TX140 (USCoE Ph 1, 50mm AC over 200mm base)
90
TX5 x2 (LTRC, 75mm AC over 450mm base)
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
183

 Indicating RI
0
RI = 11.4
10
20
RI = 4.3 RI = 7.6 RI = 8.5
Rut depth (mm)
30
40 RI = 3.3
50 TX160 (TRL, 250mm sub-base)
60 TX160 (Montana, 275mm sub-base)

70
TX140 (USCoE Ph 1, 50mm AC over 200mm base)
80
RI = 3.7 TX5 x2 (LTRC, 75mm AC over 450mm base)
90
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
184


 Indicating RI
0
10
20
RI = 4.3 RI = 7.6 RI = 8.5
Rut depth (mm)
30
40 RI = 3.3
50
60
80
90
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
185

 Indicating RI
0
10
20
RI = 4.3 RI = 7.6 RI = 8.5
Rut depth (mm)
30
40 RI = 3.3
50
60
80
90
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
186


 Indicating RI
0
10
20
Rut depth (mm)
30 RI = 8.5
40
RI = 7.6
50
RI = 4.3
60
70 Control (Montana, 275mm sub-base)
RI = 3.3 Control (TRL, 300mm sub-base)
80
Control (USCoE Ph 1, 50mm AC over 200mm base)
90
Control (LTRC, 75mm AC over 450mm base)
100
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Axle passes (ESAL)
187

TBR values determined from control vs TX sections
20
 Montana is LTRC
tensioned RI = USCoE Ph 1
4.3
membrane, TRL
15 RI =
with low TBR 7.6 Montana
 Other trials are

confinement
TBR
10
 If a pavement
has RI < 4,
then genuine 5 Tensioned RI =
confinement is membrane 8.5
unlikely to RI =
3.3
develop 0
Montana TRL USCoE Ph 1 LTRC
Section
188

Specifying geosynthetics in road pavements
More than 40 years experience

Is there a standard for the required properties?
 Yes
 BS EN 13249:2014+A1:2015
 This is the European harmonised standard for this form
of product
 “Geotextile and geotextile-related products –
Characteristics required for use in the construction of
roads and other trafficked areas (excluding railways and
asphalt inclusion)”
 Provides a route to apply a CE Mark to a product (CE =

"Conformité Européene")
189
Reinforcement via
geosynthetic strength
 BS EN 13249:2014+A1:2015
 Tensile strength
 Elongation at maximum load
 Durability
 Basis for CE Marking via
“harmonised standard”
 Only relevant to the
tensioned membrane
190

Reinforcement via
geosynthetic strength
 Tensioned membrane only
applicable to channelised
traffic on unsurfaced roads
 Not applicable to unsurfaced
areas
 Not applicable to surfaced
roads
 SO RESTRICTS
INNOVATION
191
EOTA Technical Report TR41
“Non-reinforcing hexagonal geogrid for the

stabilisation of unbound granular layers by way of
interlock with the aggregate”
192

Innovation of using mechanical

stabilisation in road pavements provided
by EOTA Technical Report TR41, defines
 Interlock
 Confinement
 Stabilisation
193
Mechanical stabilisation Reinforcement via

via aggregate confinement geosynthetic strength
 EOTA Technical Report TR41  BS EN 13249:2014+A1:2015
 Radial secant stiffness at  Tensile strength
0.5% strain & radial secant  Elongation at maximum load
stiffness ratio  Durability
 Junction efficiency  Basis for CE Marking via
 Hexagon pitch “harmonised standard”
 Alternative basis for CE  BUT RESTRICTS
Marking INNOVATION
194

195
Concluding remarks
Definition of stabilisation
Proposed “performance” based definition
 Effective mechanical stabilisation of an aggregate

layer results in retention of the thickness and geometry
of that layer throughout the life of the pavement
 Simple performance related definition

 It fits in with what we observe in tests and trials
196

Four key points
 Mechanically stabilised layer (MSL): confinement of

aggregate by interlocking with apertures of geogrid
resulting in retention of thickness, geometry &
stiffness
 Not only for soft ground, also applied higher in the

pavement with confirmation of benefit of
second layer in thicker aggregate layers
 Design using MSL is empirical, based on observing

performance in trials and tests relevant to real
pavements
 Product tensile strength is not a reliable indicator of

performance, because this is not “reinforcement”
197


Stabilisation Workshop 01 AUSTRALIA April 2019

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Stabilisation Workshop 01 AUSTRALIA April 2019

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Tensar Workshop: Stabilisation April 2019

Australia, April 2019

Application of geogrid in pavement

Workshop: Mechanical stabilisation

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using

2 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

3 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

4 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

5 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

6 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

7 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

8 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

9 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

10 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

11 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

Applying mechanical stabilisation to the

12 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

Are there any accepted definitions of stabilisation?

 Stabilisation is defined as the beneficial consequence

 Stabilisation has also been defined by ISO, and just last

14 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Mechanical stabilisation of aggregate layers

Definitions in ISO 10318-1:2018

15 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

A mechanically stabilised layer is a composite

 Let’s examine the behaviour of this composite using

16 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Composite behaviour in triaxial tests

Large triaxial tests by Dr Andrew Lees

 Fill Type 6F1

17 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Composite behaviour in triaxial tests

Large triaxial tests by Dr Andrew Lees

18 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Composite behaviour in triaxial tests

Large triaxial tests by Dr Andrew Lees

19 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Composite behaviour in triaxial tests

Large triaxial tests by Dr Andrew Lees

20 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements and trafficked areas using mechanical stabilisation

Composite behaviour in triaxial tests

Large triaxial tests by Dr Andrew Lees

21 Application of geogrid in pavement design: mechanical stabilisation April 2019