2/18/2014

Smart questions Smart answers Smart people

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

Join Directory Search Tell A Friend Whitepapers Jobs

Go

Find A Forum

Go

Home > Forums > Geotechnical Engineers > Activities > Slope stability engineering Forum

Geogrids vs. Geotextiles - Setting the Facts Straight

thread !"# !$ %"
S are ! is

$!%

Geotextile Fabric
www.a liba ba .com Find Q uality P roducts from Ve rifie d Ma nufa cture rs.Ge t a Live Q uote Now!

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

%% (ar %" %%)"*

thread26 -221!!!" Geogrid #s. Geotextile + am starting this thread to set the ,acts strait on the use o, geogrids and geote-tiles in subgrade applications because o, a recent thread Entitled Geogrid vs. Geote-tile /here a lot o, bad advice /as given by 0ldGeoGuy and J(12T3(4 /ho both a,ter bashing everyone5s 6no/ledge sho/ed there lac6 thereo,. First and ,oremost the FHWA is not an authority on anything. 7e,erencing them as such is the same as calling a %**"5s 8ersonal 3omputer state o, the art. The FHWA is more than " years behind the current state o, practice at any given time. That said4 in ""9 the FHWA separated ,abrics and geogrids in their geosynthetic design guide. They give advice ,or design and usage o, geogrids and geote-tiles. For everyone5s re,erence4 the best source ,or design and usage o, geogrids and geote-tiles is provided by the Army 3orp o, Engineers. They continually run test and develop and re,ine their design methodologies. +, you need some re,erences + /ould be glad to provide them. Here are some design basics to consider. +n the /orld o, geote-tiles4 there are a number o, types o, materials. :y ,ar the most common are /oven and non# /oven geote-tiles. Woven geote-tiles &e.g.4 (ira,i %2";' are only ,or separation4 and provide absolutely no rein,orcing value. &They loo6 li6e ,elt.' They are selected based on survivability during construction as /ell as aperture si<e. =es4 geote-tiles have apertures and you need to chec6 that they /ill not clog /hen installed based on the gradation o, both the subgrade and the ,ill material placed. Each manu,acturer can provide you /ith the e>uations to chec6 /hether or not the material /ill clog. Woven ,abrics can be used ,or a number o, di,,erent applications. They provide separation and can provide some rein,orcement. Selection o, a /oven ,abric is based again on the aperture si<e versus gradation o, the surrounding materials as /ell as survivability. =ou /ill also /ant to chec6 ,lo/ rates as /ovens provide less /ater passage than non#/oven5s even i, they do not clog. +, separation is the only ,unction4 a lo/er strength ,abric by comparison &e.g.4 (ira,i ?""@' can be used. +t should be noted that many o, these lo/er strength ,abrics are made o, polyester /hich elongates as much as "A and is subBect to signi,icant degradation in pH environments outside the range o, appro-imately ? to %". For combination applications &i.e.4 separation and rein,orcement' or in highClo/ pH environments4 you /ould /ant to select a high strength /oven ,abric made o, polypropylene. These ,abrics /ill provide rein,orcement in some applications but very little in others. A good e-ample o, the use o, a high strength /oven is at the bottom o, an emban6ment over so,t soils i, settlements are not a concern &e.g.4 surcharge emban6ment'. They /ill provide modest subgrade improvement to start the construction and can provide enough tensile support to prevent slope ,ailures4 many times /ith Bust % layer o, ,abric. Ho/ever4 ,abrics are a poor solution ,or subgrade improvement contrary to /hat has been posted be,ore. High strength /oven5s provide no sti,,ening enhancement and i, you read the e-tensive research provide a ma-imum thic6ness reduction o, ?A in subgrade applications ,or the most aggressive research. The preponderance o, research gives little to no value to these ,abrics in subgrade improvement applications. The Army 3orps o, Engineers blatantly state not to give any Fabric any value in Subgrade applications. +n Subgrade applications4 ,abrics /or6 by providing rein,orcement through /hat is termed as the DHammoc6D e,,ect. :asically4 the ends o, the ,abric are held by ,riction and the tensile strength o, the ,abric supports the load. This /ould /or6 /ell i, tra,,ic never moves ,rom the same /heel paths and i, you can get the ,abric stretched prior to completing the /or6. The reality is that no one can ever get the movement o, the ,abrics completed be,ore completion o, construction. This is especially true in situations /here the subgrade so,tens a,ter construction4 as ,abric installed over a relatively stable subgrade /ill not have elongated at all. Generally spea6ing4 high strength /oven ,abrics must elongate 2 to ?A be,ore they engage their tensile strength. This is due to the crimped nature o, the ,abric ,ibers. These must elongate &stretch' to relieve this crimp as /ell as they must elongate in elastic de,ormation ,or the loads present. This is problematic as soils ,ail at % to A strain. A 2 to ? A strain in the ,abric /ill result in a ,ailure. +n addition to elongation issues4 ,abrics su,,er ,rom being very ,le-ible and do not spread loads. This is basic load

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

1/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

trans,er and common sense4 + guess e-cept ,or everyone but 0ldGeoGuy and J(12T3(. +, you thro/ a plastic bag on a mud puddle and step on it your ,oot /ill sin6 in as it has no ability to trans,er load. 0n the other hand i, you used a piece o, ply/ood the same si<e you /ould sin6 ,ar less. WhyE The sti,,ness o, the ply/ood spread your load over a greater area4 better utili<ing the bearing capacity o, the soils and s/itching the ,ailure mechanism ,rom shear ,ailure to bearing capacity. Soils as /e should all 6no/ are ,ar better in bearing than they are in shear. The long and short o, all this is that ,abrics are best ,or separation and have limited bene,it as rein,orcement. Fabrics as rein,orcement must be selected /isely based on the application and must be se/n together ,or and rein,orcement /or6 as a discontinuity means ,ailure. +, you e-amples o, the disasters created /hen people /ho thin6 they 6no/ about Geosynthetics4 li6e 0ldGeoGuy and J(12T3(4 use ,abrics /hen they should be using something else + /ill be glad to provide them. + can tell you the F% ,ailure in geosynthetic design is use o, /oven ,abrics inappropriately. + /ould suggest you call you local D0T and as64 + can guarantee they can sho/ you hundreds o, places. As a ,inal note o, ,abrics4 most ,abrics speci,ied by engineers are un/arranted4 incorrectly designed4 incorrectly selected4 or improperly used. + /ould say *?A o, the time separation is not an issue yet ,abrics are speci,ied at nausea ,or this purpose. There are e>uations provided by the Army 3orps o, engineers that allo/ you to chec6 separation. =ou /ill be surprised ho/ o,ten nothing is needed because soils /ill maintain natural separationC,iltration. +, you ta6e one thing a/ay4 ,abrics are to be designed care,ully ,or an intended purpose. Grabbing something o,, the shel, or Bust Bamming something in because you use it be,ore or it has a high tensile strength can lead to a hole sle/ o, problems and i, pursued can lead to sanctions against the engineer including loss o, license. To ,inish out this post + /ill touch on geogrids. Geogrids are used to provide mechanical enhancement to a layer o, aggregate material. Simply put4 the use o, a geogrid can reduce a layer o, something li6e /ell graded gravel by up/ards o, $?A /hile maintaining the same serviceability as the thic6er layer /ithout geogrid. This same e,,ect /as noted be,ore ,or high strength /oven ,abrics4 though to a lesser degree. Guality geogrids /or6 utili<ing t/o main mechanisms4 soil con,inement and sti,,ness enhancement. :asically4 the geogrids traps and loc6s the aggregate particles at the bottom and prevents their movement under load. The con,inement allo/s better compaction to be achieved as /ell as an overall stronger structure. The best /ay to thin6 o, this is cue balls stac6ed in a pyramid inside a cue rac6. +, you push on the top ball the bottom balls move until the hit the rac64 /hich through the strength o, the balls and the rac6 resists the load. The same principle /or6s ,or good geogrids. Sti,,ness enhancement is as discussed be,ore. +n this case good geogrids are sti,, and produce a Dsno/ shoe e,,ectD over so,t soils. This in conBunction /ith sti,,ening the overlying soil results in better load distribution. Speci,ically4 loads propagate at a %)% angle or greater depending on selected ,ill and geogrid. This sti,,ness enhancement increases /ith each layer o, grid added. &(ulti layer systems have been use as giant soil mat ,oundations ,or distribution o, building loads over larger areas.' &As a small note4 geogrids do get a small amount bene,it ,rom the Dhammoc6D e,,ect discussed be,ore4 but not a signi,icant amount.' Hnli6e ,abrics4 geogrids have design methodologies ,or their use in subgrade applications. The state o, the practice is the Giroud#Han design methodology as published in the AS3E geotechnical Bournal bac6 in ""2. +t allo/s ,or the design o, both rein,orced and unrein,orced sections using geogrids. As noted in previous threads4 geogrids do not provide separate4 thought they enhance it. That means you must chec6 /hether or not natural separation e-ists bet/een your selected ,ill and the e-isting subgrade. +, it does not4 an appropriately selected geote-tile &/oven or non#/oven' should be used under the grid ,or separation. + /ill give 0ldGeoGuy and J(12T3( credit in that most geogrids on the mar6et are Bun6 and you /ould be best to use a high strength /oven ,abric. The only companies /ho have geogrids that have been sho/n to provide signi,icant improvement in lab testing are Tensar4 ;aue4 and Etsong. All other geogrids are Bun6 and a /aste o, you clients money. &There are thousands o, pages o, research sho/ing this to be true.' The reason is that most others are /hat are 6no/n as /oven geogrids4 /hich are nothing more than ,abric /ith holes4 /hich is to say they /or6 the same /ay as a ,abric /ithout providing separation. As a ,inal note ,or this post4 no t/o geogrids per,orm remotely the same even /ith similar material properties. The 6ey to a geogrids per,ormance is its interaction /ith the soil4 /hich can not be measured at this time. As such4 you must do design comparisons using a standard design methodologies. The di,,erences /ill ama<e youIII Than6s ,or reading and + hop this helped get rid o, some o, the Bun6 that has been posted. As a note + /ill be happy to put you in touch /ith the president o, any number o, Geosynthetics associations to con,irm /hat + have said in this post.

&'(( &Geotechnical'

%% (ar %" %%)2%

+ did not read the other thread4 but /hat you have stated is pretty much in line /ith my e-perience. The one point /here my e-perience di,,ers a bit is /ith JveryJ so,t soils. There4 + have ,ound that the placement o, ,ill tends to give a ,air stretch to the ,abric4 provided it has been placed /ell. This4 along /ith the separation4 and a suitable ,ill above can ma6e a good /or6ing plat,orm ,or the placement o, additional ,ill. As noted4 Dthe placement o, additional ,illD. + did not mean to imply this /as a good solution right belo/ a pavement.

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

2/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

=es4 + 6no/ this is not really ,ollo/ing the current4 traditional thin6ing4 and that there can be some other slope stability issues4 etc.4 depending on the situation. + agree ,abric is o,ten used /here grid should be4 but sometimes good separation /ith marginal load distribution4 and a good interloc6ing initial layer&have used really cheap4 #K inch crushed4 recycled concrete' /or6s /onders.

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

%% (ar %" %%)?

Fabric and enough ,ill in any situation /ill /or64 you Bust have to be /ary about the long term issues. +, it5s not a critical application ubder dynamic loading &i.e.4 under a pavement' and ,ill is cheap ,abric can be a cost e,,ective solution. Grid is generally best /hen ,ill prices are very high because then the cost o, grid is o,,set by the cost o, stone. +t is also best in dynamic situations because it operates at %A strain or less /hen designed properly. + also love crushed concrete4 it in and o, itsel, can /or6 /onders.

()tra**icengr &3ivilCEnvironmental'

% (ar %" *) *

For te-tiles4 could you please touch on bursting strength vs tensile strengthE +5ve been told that although /oven te-tiles have greater tensile strength4 tears are more li6ely to propogate once a sharp piece o, aggregate hhs punched through them. D...students o, tra,,ic are beginning to reali<e the ,alse economy o, mechanically controlled tra,,ic4 and hand /or6 by trained o,,icers /ill again prevail.D # Wm. 8helps Eno4 ca. %* 9 D+5m searching ,or the >uestions4 so my ans/ers /ill ma6e sense.D # Stephen :rust

cvg &3ivilCEnvironmental'

% (ar %" %") K

/hich HSA3E document has good re,erences on geosyntheticsE

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" % )"$

:urst Strength re,ers to the ability o, a geote-tile to resist aggregate punching through the material &i.e.4 ripping'. While burst strength increases /ith tensile strength4 due to the addition o, more polymer4 you /ill ,ind that the resistance is more closely associated /ith the type o, polymer &i.e.4 certain polymers are less easily damaged'. As ,or ripping bet/een /ovens and non#/ovens4 the non#/ovens rip more easily &i.e.4 under less load'L ho/ever4 they have a lot o, stretch to them and may not propigate a tear easily. Also4 due to their nature it is easy to have an overstress at one isolated location &e.g.4 The contractor drops the ,ill onto one location and causes a rip or may be do<er pushes to thin a li,t over the non#/oven and catches a stone.'. 0n the otherhand /ovens generally have a high resistant to tearing and generally only do so /hen their strength has been e-ceed. As such4 tears are li6ely to propigate because either the design or installation methods have resulted in a overstress o, the material. While this can occur at an isolated location it is more li6ely that there is a global &proBect /ide'issue. The long and short is that i, a /oven rips something is /rong /ith the design or installation. The design may need to be adBusted &i.e.4 stonger ,abric or di,,erent ,ill should be selected' or construction methods need to be modi,ied &i.e.4 thic6er li,ts4 di,,erent e>uipment4 etc.'.

dgillette &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" %9)%%

D+, you thro/ a plastic bag on a mud puddle and step on it your ,oot /ill sin6 in as it has no ability to trans,er load. 0n the other hand i, you used a piece o, ply/ood the same si<e you /ould sin6 ,ar less. WhyE The sti,,ness o, the ply/ood spread your load over a greater area4 better utili<ing the bearing capacity o, the soils and s/itching the ,ailure mechanism ,rom shear ,ailure to bearing capacity.D Are you implying that the :E;D+;G sti,,ness o, the grid itsel, is providing a signi,icant bene,it &li6e the ply/ood'E 0r are you re,erring to the composite action o, the ,ill /ith the grid acting in tension &because the grid has greater tensile sti,,ness than the te-tile does'E 8lease clari,y that. =our ply/ood analogy appears to say the ,ormer4 but that doesn5t

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

"/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

seem too li6ely ,or a material that + can bend /ith my ,ingers.

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" %*) $

Good geogrids4 as previously noted4 supply signi,icant load spread on their o/n due to their innate sti,,ness. 1iterally4 it is the reason you can roll a good geogrid out on a s/amp and /al6 on it. + have attached a photo o, a Job + /or6ed on in Savannah building roads over paper plant sludge. The picture is o, me standing on a grid /ith a 2 o< non#/oven separator ,abric. There is 2 ,t o, paper mill sludge at this spot. +, you /ere to step o,, the grid you /ould sin6 /aste deep &3:7 o, ".2'. So the grid itsel, is sti,, enough to spread my load ,ar enough so that my %!"lbs did not sin6. Ho/ever4 the grid allo/s ,or more thorough compaction o, a layer ma6ing it sti,,er. +, you /ere to run a D38 on a grid rein,orced section versus one /ithout you /ould see the D38 resistance hold constant throughout the grid rein,orced layer and taper o,, signi,icantly at the midpoint o, the unrein,orced4 i, not sooner. :ecause o, the con,ining property o, the grid the soil layer is compacted more ,ully and evenly ma6ing it sti,,er than a similar layer /ithout grid. This composite section o, grid and soil spreads the load even ,urther than the grid itsel,.
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=aa156ded- 5df-!faf-"a5f-#$

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" %*) 9

3MG + /ill get you a list and a lin6 to the Army 3orps /ebsite ,or your re,erence.

dgillette &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" %*)K!

From the picture4 it loo6s li6e the grid is in tension around your ,oot4 /hich + believe is the hammoc6 e,,ect re,erred to above. + believe /hat you are seeing there is the tensile sti,,ness &greater than that o, the te-tile belo/ it'4 rather than the bending sti,,ness.

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" %*)2*

The hammoc6 e,,ect only /or6s /hen the edges are pinned bet/een layers o, soil. this is not the case here. + attached another picture to sho/ /hat it loo6ed li6e be,ore + /al6ed out. +, tension had anything to do /ith it4 you /ould be able to step on a ,abric and not sin6 because o, the hammoc6 e,,ect. (any ,abrics have %" times the tensile strength o, this grid. +n ,act4 i, you /ere to place a ,abric4 i, you could4 and step on it you may end up dead as it /ould be li6e stepping on a pool cover. =ou /ould get /rapped in the ,abric and dro/n4 same as i, you stepped on a pool cover. Since a ,abric /ith %" times the strength clearly /ouldn5t /or6 you have no hammoc6 e,,ect. The result is in ,act solely ,rom the bending sti,,ness. Ta6e a loo6 at Tencate5s &(ira,i' /ebsite. =ou /ill notice that H8?$"4 a very high strength /oven4 has a higher tensile sti,,ness than most i, not all geogrids. =ou /ould still sin6 and dro/n due to its lo/ bending sti,,ness.
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=e%e$#%$f-#"%e-!dda-"$#&-6e

&'(( &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" %*)2*

+ have seen guys /al6 on ,abrics /ith similar de,lections to /hat you sho/ in that picture. This /as on boiling sands that had been pushed out in ,ront o, the ,ill. A guy /as sent out by the contractor to move adBust some part o, it. As soon as they guy stepped o,, &accidentally'4 he /as in up to his /aist4 holding the ,abric to 6eep his head up. So4 yes4 /hile you do get the sti,,ness o, the grid to help once the ,ill loc6s into it4 /hat you are sho/ing is mostly the hammoc6 e,,ect ,rom the ,abric4 and the separation properties o, the ,abric to provide you /ith short term buoyancy.

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

4/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

(ar %" %*)?9

+ /ould be interested to see pictures o, that as + have never seen any ,abric that most people /ould speci,y per,orm in such a manner. There are some e-traordinarily high stregth ,abrics that may have the same e,,ect4 but they are very e-pensive and not commonly used. + could see one o, them doing the same thing as the grid because they are so sti,,. The bouyancy thing does not happen. The ,lo/ rate o, /ater through that /oven is incredible. once it got /et4 it /ould sin6 on its o/n. The only reason it did not sin6 /as /e ,astened it to the grid.

&'(( &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" ")%2

+ do not have pics o, that as it /as previous employment. +t /as a middle o, the road ,abric # /oven. At the time and place4 /e /ould have spaced an Amoco something or other4 or e>uiv.
+uote"

The bouyancy thing does not happen. The ,lo/ rate o, /ater through that /oven is incredible. once it got /et4 it /ould sin6 on its o/n.

So you are saying that they could have de/atered the material you /ere on by placing the ,abric on it and letting it settleE 1eaving a lo/er moisture sludge at the bottom and the /ater on top o, the ,abricE + do not see it.

The ,act is4 ,abrics and grids behave di,,erently. ;ot only ,rom each other4 but to di,,erent loadings4 and di,,erently over time. Hnder long term design4 /e e-pect that the guidelines you outlined are the /ay they behave4 but under short# term construction situations4 you can get them to do much more.

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" ")K$

The ,abric /ould ,loat in the middle. +t /ould not have enough /eight to de/ater. Though it /ould not stay on the sur,ace. +t /ould end up as a blob in the middle. ;iether at the sur,ace nor the bottom.

)reepisnot)rap &3ivilCEnvironmental'

%? (ar %" %2)?9

Well... + /ill try 6eep the productCmanu,acturing bashing to the minimum4 + do not li6e the idea o, pointing ,ingers to any o, the geosynthetic manu,acturers that are good or bad... + 6eep that as an opinion /ith no bear on the technical aspects o, reality. %.# Separation and stabili<ation is ;0T rein,orcement. =ou can not compare this t/o initial uses o, ,abrics as part o, the rein,orcement. For ones rein,orcement is typically ,or 3:7 N % and /ould re>uire special installation techni>ues other than Bust roll the ,abric or grid on place. .# While + accept that sti,,ness helps a lot on the initial process o, installation4 correct installation process are rarely used /hen 7EA1 rein,orcement is necessary. Techni>ues such as preCpost tension trenches4 side ballasting have being success,ully used in e-tremely so,t soils &again 3:7 N %' so the sti,,ness is very good mar6eting e-ercise to e-ploit the ignorance o, the engineering community in correct installation o, geosynthetics. K.# Soil con,inement in grids /ill 0;1= /or6s /ith an e-tremely limited range o, coarse aggregate that corresponds directly /ith the opening o, the grid. =ou can read all the reports ,rom the Mic6sburg Water/ays station &HSA30E' on the trac6 testing and ,ind that aggregate use outside o, the range o, gradation o, the geogrid in >uestion /ill not support e,,ectively the load intended. (ore over i, you no/ move outside o, the range o, coarse aggregate you can ,ind that sands and sandCsoil /ill not bene,it ,rom the con,inement at all :HT /or6 in the same /ay than other geosynthetics... by pure ,riction. Hsing the t/o analogies used here... try to per,orm the same e-periment o, the pool balls but no/ /ith rac6ing the balls /ith a thin ,rame o, about %CK or less the diameter o, the pool balls... ;o/... have you reali<e that currently **.*A o, the modern sno/ shoes are made ,rom FA:7+3S... and the so call sti,,ness came ,rom the F7A(E /here the ,abric is stretched. +n this matter please chec6 /ith the literature o, the grid manu,acturers... this can set the record straight as /ell. 2.# Geosynthetics used ,or rein,orcement W+11 re>uire de,ormation in order to /or6 this is regardless i, they are grids4

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

#/11

2/18/2014
te-tiles4 strips4 etc...

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

?.# The statement D...The state o, the practice is the Giroud#Han design methodology...D is inaccurate... since there are at least more methodologies in use ,or calculating the bene,its o, a geosynthetic used in enhancement &;0TE THE SE1E3TED W07D' o, road /ays. The actual current state o, the practice should be re,erence as) 7ecommended

8ractice ,or Geosynthetic 7ein,orcement o, the Aggregate :ase 3ourse o, Fle-ible 8avement Structures4 AASHT04 88 2!#"%4 ""K not Giroud#Han
For the record... you may not be a/are but one o, the many methodologies used ,or ,abrics but probably the most complete is the /or6 ,rom 3hristopher O Holt<4 %**% based on the /or6 o, Ste/ard &%*$$'. :y the /ay... this last re,erence is also the bases o, most o, the papers ,or use o, grids in roads including Giroud#Han. :y the /ay... and no/ ,or closing... (ullen :urst /as a te-tile method used to simulate the elbo/ penetration in shirts. (ullen :urst have being removed ,rom use /ith geote-tiles ,or over %" years no/... in ,act is not longer part o, AST( DK? # "% &mechanical properties' A;D :urst and Tensile strength does ;0T correlates at all... it only correlates /ith the mass and the te-tile process used ,or /eaving.

7egards...

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

%? (ar %" %?)K2

+ /ould agree /ith a lot o, /hat you said. Ho/ever4 882!#"% is not a design methodology. +t is general guidance. :ased on 882!#"% you could claim nearly any bene,it o, a geosynthetic you /anted so long as you have % test to bac6 it up. That /hy you get ridiculous claims ,rom geosynthetic manu,acturers o, Tra,,ic :ene,it 7atio5s &7ein,orced ESA1sCHnrein,orced ESA1s'. Giroud#Han is ,or subgrades not pavements and is the state o, the practice. Also4 the ""9 FHWA geosynthetic guide supercedes 882!#"%4 /hich to my 6no/ledge /as not ,ormally accepted and may no/ be de,unct. 882!#"% /as a provisional standard and + believe last year ,ailed to be voted into a ,ull standard4 meaning it no longer e-ists. As ,or installation4 + 3A;;0T AG7EE W+TH =0H (07EIII **.*A o, all geosynthetics are installed improperly. Some /ith more severe issues than others. + point to the ,act that /ovens used ,or subgradeCrein,orcement applications are to be se/n together. When /as the last time you sa/ that happen4 i, everE

Geostructspar,s &Geotechnical'

%! (ar %" )"2

(uch o, this discussion reports on the some/hat over#rated di,,erences bet/een geogrid and geote-tile. While there are some geote-tiles that are only ,or separation or ,iltration &light ones or non#/oven ,abrics /ith considerable elongation'4 my e-perience has been that there is a geote-tile comparable to almost any geogrid &and vice versa' ,or almost any strength application. That is because many companies manu,acture geote-tiles that can provide nearly# e>uivalent sti,,ness and strength4 and in some cases4 higher4 ,or an e>uivalent or lo/er cost. The analogy o, stepping on geogrid is a red herring in terms o, DrealD applications. + have /or6ed on oil#soa6ed sludge &%"" # K"" ps, strength' on a path made o, a hal,#roll o, a closely#spaced bia-ial geogrid4 and there is no >uestion that that is a really good use o, geogrid4 and appears it /ill /or6 ,ar better than &anyE' geote-tile. + /ould not use any other. +t is possible that geogrid (A= /or6 better on a similar application4 strength under tire loads. &The emphasis is that the additional sti,,ness o, the grid is good4 perhaps critical to small load support4 e.g. ,oot and tire loads'. &(y apologies4 the HOS guy at that re,inery certainly thought it /as a really use,ul application4 and it /as' For DrealD applications4 &rein,orced earth ,or emban6ments or /alls4 rein,orcing under ,ootings4 etc.' /hich may e-tend load over ? to " ,eet length4 + don5t thin6 the sti,,ness o, some geogrids provides a bene,it that is signi,icantly greater than geote-tile. The greater longitudinal sti,,ness o, the geogrid material helps overcome the ,act that the geogrid is perhaps %C%" o, the aperture area4 i.e. there are huge holes in it. This sti,,ness in or out o, plane may help the so#called gravel interloc6ing. Ho/ever4 since the geote-tile consists o, many more ,ibers providing DcontinuousD coverage &and provides intimate contact /ith each gravel piece4 not Bust at the ribs'4 they /ill have comparable stress trans,er4 strength4 and sti,,ness /hen properly selected. That said4 there are applications that + use geogrids &speci,ic attachment methods to bloc6s needed4 less blo/#over in /ind4 /here speci,ied by manu,acturer4 and applications /here + use geote-tiles &/here need to be seamed4 /here need ,iltration in same layer as the rein,orcement4 /here ,le-ibility in placement is more use,ul'4 and some /here + instinctuallyChabitually pic6 one over the other ,or no reason.

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

%! (ar %" )%!

Walls and slopes are completely di,,erent than subgrade applications. +n /alls and slope4 long term design strength is

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

$/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

Bust about all that matters. So anything /ith a high 1TDS and lo/ creep /or6 /ell. Ho/ever4 in /all applications ,abris is a bad choice ,or /all heights over %? ,t because the upper bloc6s actually have pressure on them. =ou /ill get a pinch point at the bac6 o, the bloc6 /hich /il cause ,abric to rip. + can sho/ you %""5s o, e-amples /here some engineer or contractor thought that unia-ial grids and ,abrics /here interchangable.

darthsoilsgu-2 &Geotechnical'

%$ (ar %" %)KK

Should have labeled this thread DThe geogrid mani,estoD

things that i never understood or never received a good ans/er to... %' /hy do /e care about separation any/ayE the only /ay i can see caring about separation is i, you try to stabili<e a subgrade and ,ail... then you have to ta6e up your old /or6 to redo &maybe /ith a deeper undercut ne-t time' and ,ind your stone has mi-ed up /ith the soil. seems to me that /ithout pumping4 there should be no need to separate &stability P separation'. i don5t get ho/ stu,, that doesn5t move can mi-. ' it seems to me that one layer o, geogrid /or6s better than multiple layers ,or subgrade stabili<ation ,or par6ing. i understand there are studies out there /here the super#strong geogrids are put in layers to greatly increase the bearing area o, ,oundations.... Ho/ever4 the loading condition is a much di,,erent ballgame. + see the geogrid as providing a catalyst stability to set the stone into. a,ter that you build up /ell#compacted stone to give you a strong cross#section. + ,eel li6e a nd midlevel geogrid Bust disrupts the /ay the stone ties in together. Also4 i /onder i, a nd layer hurts the system by removing the ability to ,urther tension that lo/er grid to ma-imi<e the strength o, the material. +5ve un,ortunately done a little e-perimenting /ith this on my o/n. too6 out a multilayer system that pumped and replaced /ith one grid and stone. We couldn5t increase the depth due to underlying utilities... sure /e could have done a better Bob on installation the nd time around... but it has made me thin6 about it ,or years. #dsg

&'(( &Geotechnical'

%9 (ar %" %?)K%

Darth) %' Water movement can migrate ,ines into the aggregate materials. As the ,ines mi- into the aggregate4 you can start to see the material change properties4 and there,ore4 pumpingCmotion may begin. This /ill lead to premature ,ailing vs. having the material be separated. ' =our lo/er grids should develop tension &there,or distributing the loads'. This /ill happen due to the so,t nature o, the material you are /or6ing on4 as you place the ,irst layer o, aggregate. A second layer /ould help distribute the load the same /ay as the bottom layer. The di,,erence is that you are /or6ing over something that is already stabili<ed to some degree. While the grid /ill 6eep the aggregate ,rom loc6ing in amongst itsel,4 the con,ining action o, the grid apertures should do more good than bad. + /ould suspect that the one you tore out had issues concerning the si<e o, aggregate4 the need ,or separation4 or some other construction related issue &ie4 insu,,icient li,t thic6ness to stabili<e the are to be able to place the ne-t li,t.'

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

%9 (ar %" %?)?%

To add to the e-cellent ans/er by TDAA) Separation is only needed less than ?A o, the time generally. Hse these e>uations to chec6 i, separation is re>uired. &Developed by Army 3orp ,or Damn 3onstruction.' D%?&,ilter'CD9?&soil' must be less than ? D?"&,ilter'CD?"&soil' must be less than ? Also4 (ulti#layer systems are bene,icial /hen you have thic6 layers o, so,t soil and you are trying to limit di,,erential settlement or you have high loads such as load trans,er plat,orms or buildings. 0ther/ise4 it is better to use a single layer higher strength grid than a multilayer system. =ou should not have had issues /ith the t/o layers4 it Bust isn5t cost e,,ective or necessary.

darthsoilsgu-2 &Geotechnical'

%* (ar %" ")"2

than6s ,or the replies tdaa and animal.

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

%/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

seems reasonable... i thin6 i /ould normally go ,or some additional stone depth over the ,abric. i thin6 the aggregate base course stone /e have around here is pretty /ell graded and /on5t let many problems /ash in. to satis,y some curiosity on item ... to be honest4 i can5t say /hy /e had trouble in that area. it /as a small portion o, the overall proBect and it /asn5t too much re/or6. the proBect /as a HSA Trac6 O Field certi,ied running trac6 built on an e-isting no ,ill 3H site a /hile ago. A,ter paving4 there /ould never be tra,,ic. We needed to stabili<e ,or paving operations. i5d li6e to thin6 the o/ner appreciated 6no/ing that i /asn5t being over#conservative /ith recommendations since the /hole Bob /as a time and materials change order /ith undercuts being called out on a case#by#case basis. The grader /as very pleased /ith the end product &they pay a sti,, penalty ,or out o, tolerance trac6 sur,ace' and the stone loo6ed li6e cured concrete. We did have t/o areas that /e had to redo though... gotta go /i,e /ants to /atch a movie

#(' &Geotechnical'

% (ar %" K)K2

Well /ell. Glad to see that there are more people that share some common vie/s about the use and misuse o, geote-tiles. What /e do today is to get a ,e/ Hnivesrity 8ro,s to be at local seminars /her young graduates ,loc6 and indoctinate them. + have battled this since around %*9! nad have made a lot o, people upset by mentioning the same things as the animal%***. Everyone gets upset. Ho/ever4 + have seen that /oven geote-tiles bene,icial in reducing lateral spreading o, emban6ments on mus6egs. settlements are not signi,icantly reuced. (y ta6e on geote-tile under culverst etc is re>uire to 6eep the boots o, the cionstruction cre/ ,airly clean. Ho/ever4 this is abillion dollar industry today. + tried years ago to place some approach to use and ordering o, material re >uality assurance and have seen material shipped out by secretaries ,rom /ell 6no/n suppliers. 3loth is 3loth /ho cares. +mproper installation is a important ,actor and + agree that lots are installed incorrectly. (ost roads still in service /ere built /ithout the use o, geote-tiles. Ho/ever4 toady our ,irst crutch is to recommend geote-ttile in all cases /hen /e are constructing road/ays4 Bust in case /e need to have a clean sur,ace to /al6 on. Suppliers and manu,acturers li6e this. + /ill have to continue later to provide comments on geogrids and /here geote-tiles may be o, some bene,it

$1% J./0&). &3ivilCEnvironmental'

K (ay %" *) !

+t is good to have this type o, thread to get some o, these myths and mar6eting DstoriesD out into the open. Mery interesting comments4 and my ,riend 5theanimal%***5 has only rein,orced the misconceptions about geosynthetics. +n theanimal%***5s post to begin this thread4 he indicates in paragraph ?4 D,or combination applications &i.e. separation and rein,orcement' ...you /ould /ant to select a high strength /oven ,abric made o, polypropyleneD. This is e-actly /hat + stated in my earlier post. Sorry i, there /as any con,usion. So + am glad /e agree on this maBor point. When selecting a geosynthetic ,or subgrade stabili<ation you are usually tal6ing about so,t4 /et soil conditions. +n these cases a /oven geote-tile4 not a slit tape /oven4 but a high strength4 high permeability /oven /ill provide you /ith the most bene,its4 separation4 rein,orcement4 ,iltration and drainage. Geogrids are over used in so,t subgrades and the bene,it is diminished as the geogrid gets pushed into the so,t soil /here it can no longer provide much bene,it. To correct some inaccurate statements) First4 (ira,i %2"; is a non/oven geote-tile4 not a /oven as 5theanimal%***5 indicated. =es4 (ira,i %2"; does loo6 li6e ,elt and is used ,or drainage and ,iltration applications. +t is a ,ilter ,abric4 ;0T a rein,orcement ,abric. This is the trouble4 many people lump A11 geote-tiles as being the same or similar /hen in ,act they are ME7= di,,erent and 8E7F07( ME7= D+FFE7E;T1=. There are several types o, geote-tiles. First there are main types o, manu,acturing processes4 /oven and non/oven. Woven is e-actly /hat is says4 continuous yarns /oven to create a ,abric. :ut you can5t lump all /oven ,abric together. The type o, /eave and type o, yarn used can create ME7= D+FFE7E;T ,abrics. The (ira,i ?""@ that 5theanimal%***5 mentions is a slit tape geote-tile. Slit tapes are created by ta6ing sheets o, polypropylene &88' and cutting it into ,lat tape li6e yarns. Tal6 about your %**"5s computer4 this is it. This material /as created by the carpet bac6ing industry and is old technology. Slit tape ,abrics have lo/ tensile strengths4 lo/ permeability4 are very smooth /ith poor soil interaction and should 0;1= be used as a separator ,abric in dry conditions or as silt ,ence. This type o, geote-tile is the most misused. As the industry has evolved4 several types o, /oven ,abrics have been created /ith di,,erent types o, yarns and /eaves4 higher tensile strengths4 higher permeability4 rougher sur,aces to create a better per,orming material. The problems is4 uneducated people re,er bac6 to old research proBects that compare a slit tape or non/oven geote-tile compared to a geogrid. 0, course the geogrid /ill per,orm better. +t is comparing a separator geote-tile /ith lo/ modulus to a higher strength geogrid. There is no comparison4 but people either on purpose ,or their o/n agenda or

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

8/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

because they don5t 6no/ better4 constantly compare these studies and then lump A11 geote-tiles as not rein,orcement material. :ut4 as 5theanimal%***5 indicated4 and + agree4 high strength4 /oven polypropylene &88' geote-tiles &not slit tape'4 do per,orm better than geogrids in so,t subgrade rein,orcement because they can provide separation4 rein,orcement4 ,iltration and drainage. And these types o, /oven 885s cost the same or less than bia-ial geogrids. The other type o, geote-tiles are non/ovens. These are manu,actured by spunbonding or needle punching ,ibers to create a ,elt li6e geote-tile. These materials have very high /ater ,lo/ rates but are lo/ in tensile strength and elongate more than ?"A4 so should never be used as a rein,orcement material. ;on/ovens should only be used as ,iltration and drainage ,abrics. Hn,ortunately4 several researchers4 in particular the Army 3orps4 have used non/ovens in subgrade stabili<ation research and compared per,ormance to a geogrid. This has resulted in statements that 5theanimal%**%5 has re,erred to4 that the Army 3orps says not to give any value to ,abric in subgrade applications. This should be clari,ied to indicate that the ,abrics they are tal6ing about are non/ovens and slit tape geote-tiles. ;ot high strength4 high modulus 88 /oven geote-tiles. + don5t recall ever stating that the FHWA is an authority on geosynthetics. They have updated several o, their design and construction guides related to geosynthetics /hich is a good thing. + agree they are still a little behind the state o, practice o, the private mar6et4 but you /ill al/ays have that /ith a government agency. +t is ,unny that 5theanimal%***5 thin6s the FHWA is not an authority on anything but seems to blindly ,ollo/ the Army 3orps o, Eng. The Army 3orps4 li6e the FHWA4 is still behind on state o, practice o, the private mar6et. Ho/ever4 /hile the FHWA has /or6ed /ith several /ell 6no/n independent industry e-perts to update their manuals4 + am not a/are o, any ne/ publications &not papers but publications' regarding geosynthetics ,rom the Army 3orp. +n ,act4 most o, the Army 3orps publications use research done in the late 9"5s and early *"5s4 there4 once again is your %**"5s computer. The FHWA has done more contemporary /or6 /ith geosynthetics4 but + /ill agree /ith you that they are still behind some current state o, practice. 0ne o, the most re,erenced Army 3orps reports is the Webster report4 dated %** 4 once again4 there is your %**"5s computer. To thin6 a research paper ,rom almost " years ago is state o, practice4 or uses current materials4 is misguided at best4 not to mention the problem /ith the type o, geogrids that /ere compared in this research. +t /as good in that it sho/ed signi,icant improvement in per,ormance by using a geosynthetic. (any o, the subse>uent Army 3orps publications /ere developed using this report as the basis. +t is interesting in your picture you sho/ a geogrid /ith a non/oven geote-tile underneath. This is the bene,it o, separation. Without that ,abric4 that geogrid /ould disappear under the so,t subgrade soil. This is /hy a high strength /oven &not a slit tape' should be used instead o, the more e-pensive layer system &geogrid /ith non/oven'. + am not sure /hat 5theanimal%***5 means that /ovens provide no sti,,ening enhancement and i, you read the e-tensive research provide a ma-imum thic6ness reduction o, ?A in subgrade applications. =our !th paragraph seems to contradict your ?th paragraph. + have no idea /here you got this ?A reduction ,rom4 but it is simply not accurate. High strength /oven geote-tiles can give tra,,ic bene,it ratio5s higher than comparative geogrids. 8articularly in so,t subgrade conditions. =ou have highlighted per,ectly the misunderstandings that + have been trying to e-plain. Sti,,ness in geosynthetics is not applicable. This is /hy AST( has not adopted a test method ,or geosynthetic Dsti,,nessD. =ou used the e-ample o, a plastic bag compared to ply/ood on so,t soil. 1i6e 5dgillette5 correctly pointed out this /ould be a good comparison i, there /ere any geosynthetics that /ere Das sti,, as a boardD. The problem is that A11 geosynthetics have properties more li6e the plastic bag &at least a lot closer to the bag than the board4 + can5t bend ply/ood /ith my ,ingers'. The Dsti,,nessD o, A;= geogrid is so small that there is no bene,it contributed to Dsti,,nessD in a road/ay. A material that can5t hold the /eight o, a small cup o, /ater in cantilever is going to give bene,it to supporting truc6 tra,,icE What a Bo6e. +t is good mar6eting4 Bust not good engineering. As D3reepisnotcrap5 said4 Giroud#Han is not state o, practice. Giroud#Han did a paper revie/ ,or one speci,ic geogrid and came up /ith some design methodology. This Ddesign methodologyD HAS ;EME7 :EE; 3A1+:7ATED W+TH 0THE7 GE0G7+DS4 you can as6 J.8. Giroud and Jie Han yoursel,. The only property that is included in the Giroud#Han method is aperture stabilityL tensile strength at lo/ strain4 tensile modulus4 aperture si<e4 coe,,icient o, interaction is not included in the Giroud#Han calculation. ;ot even sti,,ness or Bunction strength is included in the Giroud#Han ,ormula4 only aperture stability. What is aperture stabilityE Where you clamp around the Bunction o, the geogrid and t/ist. HmmmE What does that tell youE Aperture stability has not been accepted as a valid test method by AST(. Finally4 since this post is getting too long4 5theanimal%***5 said the reason other geogrids are Bun6 is that they are /oven. The most recent &July ""* Q FHWAC(T#"*#""KC9%*K' ,ull#scale research per,ormed on a /ide variety o, geogrids /as done by (ontana State Hniversity /ith the (ontana D0T &and some other D0T5s'. +n that research proBect4 the greogrid that per,ormed the best /as a /oven 8M3 coated polyester geogrid. And that research included Tensar and ;aue.

)reepisnot)rap &3ivilCEnvironmental'

K (ay %" %K)?!

Short clari,ication based on AASHT0 ( 99 SE8A7AT+0;) 3:7 >P K." STA:+1+RAT+0;) %." N 3:7 > K." ( 99 does not address any issues /ith rein,orcement &3:7 N %."' ;ote that AASHT0 ( 99 is being in use and continue improvement ,or the last "SS years.

2lue*oot &Geotechnical'

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

&/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

Jun %" %K)K"

theanimal%***4 D+, you need some re,erences + /ould be glad to provide them.D 3an you please send me some o, the Army 3orps re,erence regarding the design guideE Than6s.

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

K Jun %" %2)%$

J(1T3( has yet to re,erence any study in /hich Dhigh stregthD geote-tiles have been ,ound to provide any bene,it in subgrade stabili<ation. +t is al/ays ,unny to me /hen people claim things /or6 or are incorrect4 but have no actual research to bac6 up the claims. 8lease post any actual research that has sho/n any bene,it o, ,abrics that installs them as they /ould be in real li,e. Also4 the (ontana study >uoted /as complete Bun6. +, J(1T3( actually read the study he /ould have reali<ed absolutely nothing per,ormed /ell. All the geogrids ,ailed miserably. This /as due to the sudy simply placing the stone /ithout compaction and tra,,ic6ing it. ;o one /ould do this /ith any material4 even ,abrics4 as the resulting rut depths4 Bust li6e in the study4 /ould be unacceptable. + am guessing tha J(1T3( /or6s ,or or is in bed /ith (ira,i as the claims made are almost verbatum /hat the (ira,i guys have said during presentations + have attended. Ho/ever4 + have as6ed and have yet to recieve any proo, o, improvement in tra,,ic6ing or subgrade improvement /ith the high strength ,abrics ,rom the (ira,i representatives. There are ho/ever many /orld/ide studies that sho/ the bene,its o, various geogrids. + have attached one o, the most recent studies out o, Europe /hich pits all grids against one anoth as /ell as a high strength ,abric. +t /as done in conBunction /ith Tensar it appears4 but T71 is a large /ell respected lab in Europe. They are similar to the turner# ,airban6s lab here in the HS. + have also included the A30E design re,erence some have re>uested.
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=e&'!'ca -&'"6-!'c'-'&6%-d%

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

K Jun %" %2)%*

This is the A30E study. +t did not attach to the last post.
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=c'$65"df-acdd-! fe-"$6'-e!

theanimal1999 &Geotechnical'

K Jun %" %2) *

A30E Engineering Technical 1etter.

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=!'&"f6$#-$$f'-!%%"-"dd%-df

J./0&). &3ivilCEnvironmental'

K" ;ov %" %%) ?

+t is ,unny that you call the (ontana study Bun6 but then post a paper ,rom Tensar. The geote-tile material used in the Tensar paper is not a high strength geote-tile. Geote-tile ultimate strength o, the % geote-tile used /as 2" 6;Cm4 that is lo/ to moderate strength material. Also4 loo6ing at the properties o, that material it loo6s li6e it is a slit tape /oven ,abric. (aybe that is the problem. TheAnimal%*** does not understand the di,,erent types o, geote-tiles avaialbe and that e-actly highlights my point. Slit tape /oven ,abrics are typically compared to geogrids4 usually by geogrid manu,actureres4 to sho/ better per,ormance o, a geogrid over an in,erior geote-tile. A slit tape geote-tile is a separator ,abric4 it should not be used in so,t subgrade rein,orcement applications. There are several properties you have to loo6 at /hen selecting geosynthetics4 strength is %4 but also modulus4 permeability4 /ater ,lo/4 yarn type4 etc. Slit tape materials have lo/ strength4 lo/ soil interaction due to their smooth sur,ace4 and have lo/ permeability so you get the D/aterbedD e,,ect on so,t saturated soils. The HSA30E document you provided4 DHse o, Geogrids in 8avementsD e-pired in ""$. That is not such a big deal but

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

10/11

2/18/2014

Slope stability engineering - Geogrids vs

it does sho/ ho/ old the document is and /ith the evolution o, products in the geosynthetic industry it should be used care,ully. That document states that a non/oven separator ,abric should be used /ith the geogrid ,or subgrades /ith 3:75s N 2. So that is all so,t subgrades4 3:75s > 2 are generally ,irm to sti,,. This layer system4 a geogrid and a non/oven geote-tile4 /as used because that /as /hat /as avaialable /hen this document /as developed. ;o/ that you can get separation and rein,orcement /ith one high strength geote-tile product &but not a slit tape geote-tile'4 there is no need to use the more e-pensive layer system. There is a trend to say that the non/oven separator is not needed /ith the geogrids because the geogrid can provide DseparationD. :ut that Bust insults our intelligence. A material /ith a % inch opening can not separate ,ine grained soil ,rom aggregate. This is highlighted in the Army 3orp. paper by Tingle and Jersey ,rom ""? titled D3yclic 8late 1oad Testing o, Geosynthetic 7ein,orced Hnbound AggregateD. This study compared geote-tiles and geogrid and concluded) DThe separation ,unction appears to be the dominant geosynthetic ,unction ,or ,ine#grained so,t subgrades. Since the rein,orced pavement sections demonstrated high T:75s &T:7 is tra,,ic bene,it ratio' at lo/ levels o, pavement de,ormaiton4 the geote-tile5s improvement is attributed more to separation than to rein,orcement via the tensioned membrane e,,ect. The use o, a geogrid only provided some rein,orcement bene,it4 but the geogrid5s rein,orcement potential /as minimi<ed due to it5s inability to e,,ectively separate the base and subgrade as evidenced by staining o, the bottom o, the based and observable aggregate punching.D +t ta6es time to re#learn things /e thin6 /e already 6no/. :ut geogrids should not be used in so,t subgrade rein,orcement applications /ithout a separator ,abric4 so /hy use materials /hen you can use %. +t is very simple4 % layer costs less and is >uic6er to install than .

Geotec nical Land Survey

sa i"e ote c nica l.com # Geote c nica l Survey $y %x &e rt !ea m . %n'uire Now For More (eta ils.

Join T +ndeed Jobs T Advertise T About Hs T 3ontact Hs T Site 8olicies

3 opyright U %**9# "%2 Tecumseh Group4 +nc. A ll rights reserved. Hnauthori<ed reproduction or lin6ing ,orbidden /ithout e-press /ritten permission.

http://www.eng-tips.co /viewthread.c!

11/11