1962 - Determining Geosynthetic Material Properties Pertinent To Reinforced Pavement Design - Engineering

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering
Determining Geosynthetic Material Properties Pertinent to Reinforced

Pavement Design
E.V. Cuelho1, S.W. Perkins2 and S.K. Ganeshan3

1
Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University, PO Box 174250,
Bozeman, MT 59717-4250; ph (406) 994-7886; fax (406) 994-1697; email:
elic@coe.montana.edu
2
Civil Engineering Department, Montana State University, PO Box 173900,
Bozeman, MT 59717-3900; ph (406) 994-6119; fax (406) 994-6105; email:
stevep@ce.montana.edu
3
Western Transportation Institute, Montana State University, PO Box 174250,
Bozeman, MT 59717-4250; ph (406) 579-4238; email: sureshganeshan@yahoo.com
Abstract
When designing any civil structure, it is necessary to determine the properties of the
various material components under conditions pertinent to their eventual use.
Geosynthetic reinforced earthen structures are no different. Standard tension tests
currently exist to determine basic material properties of geosynthetics used to
construct reinforced walls, slopes, embankments and other static structures.
However, because these material tests apply slow monotonic loads at room
temperature, they may not properly represent conditions pertinent to geosynthetic
reinforced pavements. A number of research projects have been conductedin the past
to investigate possible differences in material properties using various temperatures,
confinements, load types, and strain rates. This research effort conducted an
extensive literature review to study the effects of these four parameters on
geosynthetic material properties. Additionally, material tests were conducted to
determine how cyclic loading affects geosynthetic material properties. Modifications
were made to the existing wide–width test protocols (ASTM D4595 for geotextiles,
and ASTM D6637 for geogrids) to incorporate cyclic loads. These dynamic wide-
width strain-controlled tension tests demonstrated great promise for providing values
of elastic material properties. The results from these tests showed that the modulus of
the geotextile materials changed at various levels of initial permanent strain, while the
modulus of the geogrids remained relatively constant. Future testing will be
conducted to further examine similar effects due to temperature, strain rate, load type
and confinement.
Introduction
Geosynthetics have been successfully used for filtration, separation, drainage,
moisture barriers and reinforcement in flexible pavements. Using them to reinforce
the base layer of flexible pavements may provide savings either by reducing the
thickness of the base or extending the life of the road. To quantify their potential
benefit, it is essential to evaluate their intrinsic material properties under conditions
Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Downloaded 26 Mar 2012 to 200.130.19.182. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
pertinent to pavements. Standard tension tests, such as ASTM D 4595 and D 6637
(used for conducting tension tests on geotextiles and geogrids, respectively – ASTM,
2003) apply monotonic loads to the materials to determine elastic moduli in their two
principal directions. However, the types of loading conditions prescribed by these
tests do not reflect conditions experienced by geosynthetics used to reinforce flexible
pavements. Even though multiple research studies have been carried out to determine
the effects of load rate, type of load, temperature, sample size and configuration, and
normal confinement on geosynthetic material properties, results to-date are either
limited, not applicable, or conflicting. Therefore, the first objective of this project
was to investigate test protocols that better describe the intrinsic material properties of
geosynthetics pertinent to reinforced pavement design applications. To accomplish
this, an extensive literature of past research was reviewed and summarized to evaluate
the effect of temperature, strain rate, confinement, and load type (i.e., monotonic or
cyclic) on geosynthetic material properties.
A new mechanistic-empirical design guide for flexible pavements is currently under
development and review by American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) through the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) Project 1-37A (NCHRP, 2003). This new method,
however, does not address geosynthetic reinforcement of the base layer. Perkins et al.
(2004) has developed a design method for geosynthetic-reinforced pavements that is
compatible with the methods developed in NCHRP Project 1-37A (NCHRP, 2003).
A finite element model (FEM), developedby Perkins et al. (2004), use s structural
membrane elements for the reinforcement. Mechanistic material models are an
essential component; therefore, material models that describe the geosynthetic
reinforcement layer needed to be developed. Therefore, the second objective of this
research was to conduct laboratory tests that appropriately describe the constitutive
material properties of geosynthetics to reinforce pavement structures, as input
parameters into a FEM. Available time and resources permitted only load type and,
to some extent, various strain rates to be conducted and studied with regard to their
effect on geosynthetic material parameters.
Background
It is well known that geosynthetic reinforcement materials exhibit direction dependent
properties. Most notably, the elastic modulus differs between the machine and cross-
machine direction of the material. An orthotropic material model best describes the
direction dependent properties of reinforcement materials but cannot be used directly
in a 2-D axisymmetric finite element model. An orthotropic linear elastic material
model contains nine independent elastic constants, four of which describe the
behavior within the plane of the material (Exm, Em, xm-m, Gxm-m) and are pertinent to a
reinforcement sheet modeled by membrane elements. These parameters are defined
as follows:
Exm is the elastic modulus in the cross-machine direction
Em is the elastic modulus in the machine direction
xm-m is the Poisson’s ratio in the cross-machine/machine plane
Gxm-m is the shear modulus in the cross-machine/machine plane

The elastic moduli in the two principal directions are generally determined from
tension tests, the in-plane Poisson’s ratio can be determined from biaxial tension tests,
and there is no current test to directly determine the in-plane shear modulus. Kinney
and Xiaolin (1995) developed a test to determine a parameter called the aperture
stability modulus, which can be related to the in-plane shear modulus of the material.
The response model used by Perkins et al. (2004) was a two-dimensional
axisymmetric finite element model based on models contained in NCHRP Project 1-
37A (NCHRP, 2003). Axisymmetric response models require that the reinforcement
be described by an isotropic material model, which is incapable of distinguishing
direction dependent material properties (i.e., machine versus cross-machine
direction). Since the material models for the remaining pavement layers are elastic, a
model of similar complexity was chosen for the reinforcement. Even though many
reinforcement materials exhibit non-linear behavior, this behavior is ignored for the
sake of simplicity when attempting to select properties pertinent to the stress or strain
range anticipated for the material. Hence, an isotropic linear elastic model is used for
the reinforcement within the finite element response model, where required input
parameters consist of an elastic modulus, E, and a Poisson’s ratio, . Equivalent
isotropic elastic constants are calculated from orthotropic constants using a
relationship derived from a work-energy approach described by Perkins et al. (2004).
The work described in this paper focused on determining the elastic modulus in both
principal strength directions, that is, Em and Exm, the elastic moduli in the machine and
cross-machine directions, respectively.
Literature Review
Traditionally, wide-width tension testing is used to determine material properties of
geosynthetics. These tests use monotonic loads and are applied at relatively slow
rates (10% axial strain per minute), representing situations where movements are
slow and steady. However, when geosynthetics are used as reinforcement in the base
layer of pavements, they experience cyclic loading from traffic. Other conditions
pertinent to the reinforced pavement application that may not be accounted for in
traditional wide-width tests include: variations in temperature, strain rate and normal
stress confinement. An extensive literature review examined test conditions that
influence geosynthetic material properties.
Temperature. Temperatures within the base course aggregate of most pavements are
below room temperature. Since standard laboratory tension tests are conducted at
room temperature, fluctuations in temperature may be a factor for materials whose
elastic modulus is temperature dependent. A summary of eleven studies that
investigated the mechanical properties of geosynthetics as a function of temperature
is presented in Table 1. Five of these studies used HDPE geomembranes. Of the
remaining studies, only one examined the effect of temperature on tensile modulus.
Austin et al. (1993) showed a 12 % increase in modulus as temperature was lowered
from 32 to 23ºC. For HDPE geomembranes, Tsuboi et al. (1998) showed an
approximate 75 % increase in secant modulus at 1 % strain as temperature decreased
from 20 to 0ºC. Soong and Lord (1998) showed a 45 % increase in secant modulus at
0.3 % strain for this same temperature decrease.

Strain Rate. The strain rate in standard tension tests is relatively slow compared to
what is experienced in the field. For example, consider a road where the
reinforcement develops a dynamic strain of 0.2 % and where a wheel-path travel
distance of 0.333 m is required for the dynamic strain to fully develop. For a vehicle
traveling at 100 km/hr, the strain rate will be 1000 %/min, which is 100 times faster
than the strain rate used in current ASTM testing standards. While many studies have
examined the effect of strain rate on tensile modulus and ultimate strength, the
majority of these studies have focused on strain rates slower than 10 %/min. For
strain rates slower than 10 %/min, creep strains develop and lead to the observation of
decreasing modulus with decreasing strain rate. Extrapolation of these results to
strain rates faster than 10 %/min will most likely be misleading due to the non-linear
dependency of creep strains on loading rate.
Of the studies available for strain rates faster than 10 %/min, Van Zanten (1986)
showed that tensile strength for different geosynthetic polymers increased with
increasing strain rates up to 100 %/min with HDPE giving the greatest increase and
with nylon, polyester, and polypropylene giving comparable increases. Raumann
(1979) conducted tests on woven polypropylene and polyester materials at strain rates
up to 100 %/min and showed that elongation at failure decreased with increasing
strain rate, especially in polypropylene materials. McGown et al. (1985) also showed
that strength increased with increasing strain rate up to 100 %/min and decreasing
temperature for HDPE and polypropylene geogrids. Bathurst and Cai (1994)
presented load-strain curves for HDPE and polyester geogrids at strain rates up to
1050 %/min and showed that stiffness was only slightly influenced by strain rate for
polyester materials but was much more significant for polypropylene geogrids.
Normal Confinement. McGown et al. (1982) showed that the tensile modulus of
certain geosynthetics increased as the normal stress confinement was increased.
FHWA performed an extensive evaluation on the effects of confinement and
developed protocols for evaluating confined extension and creep (Elias et al., 1998).
In general, effects of confinement are most significant for nonwoven geotextiles, of
some significance for woven geotextiles and woven geogrids, and insignificant for
extruded geogrids.
Cyclic Loading. Overall, many of the authors reviewed as part of this study agreed
that the ultimate strength of the geosynthetics is not significantly affected by the type
of loading. However, strain at failure, secant modulus and strain behaviors can be
significantly affected by loading conditions (Ashmawy and Bourdeau, 1996;
Kongkikul et al., 2002; and Raumann, 1979). Therefore, cyclic tension tests were
conducted in this study to examine these effects, since they are better suited to
describe the dynamic loads experienced by geosynthetics under traffic loads.
Synthesis and Implications of Literature Review. The results from the literature
review suggested modest yet important effects due to temperature on modulus and
significant effect of strain rate on modulus. However, the existing information is
incomplete and does not allow general modifications to the tensile modulus values
determined from standard tension tests to be adjusted so that material properties at
temperatures and strain rates occurring in roadways are more characteristic.

Although less work has been conducted to determine the effects of normal
confinement, the literature suggested that the tensile modulus of certain geosynthetics
can be significantly affected under these conditions. Finally, the load-strain behavior
was significantly affected when cyclic loads were applied to geosynthetic material
samples.
Based on these results, a matrix of laboratory tests using all of these test variables is
necessary to better determine their effect on geosynthetic material properties.
Unfortunately, time and resources constrained this research effort to experiments that
studied the effects of load type, and to a lesser extent, strain rate. Future work will
continue this endeavor to provide appropriate material properties and develop test
protocols with respect to all of these test variables.
Table 1: Summary of literature review of temperature effects on geosynthetic material

properties.
Temperature Geosynthetic Polymer Type* Material Property of
Study
(°C) Type (Number of products) Interest
Calhoun 18, 23, 43, 66, PP (6) Tensile strength
Geotextile
(1972) 82 Vinylidene chloride (1) Strain at failure
PP (3) Tensile strength at failure

Allen et al. Breaking strength
-12, 22 Geotextile
(1983) PET (2) Secant modulus at 10%
strain
McGown et 0, 10, 20, 30,
Geogrid PP (1) Tensile strength
al. (1985) 40
Bush (1990) 10, 20, 40 Geogrid HDPE (3) Long-term strength
Austin et al. Tensile modulus at 1%,
23, 27, 32 Geogrid PP (1)
(1993) 2% and 5% strain
Budiman
-20, -10, 0, 20 Geomembrane HDPE (1) Stress/strain behavior
(1994)
Stress relaxation
Soong et al. -10, 10, 30, 50,
Geomembrane HDPE (1) Stress relaxation
(1994) 70
modulus
Soong and -10, 10, 30, 50, Secant modulus at 0.3%
Geomembrane HDPE (1)
Lord (1998) 70 strain
20, 30, 40, 50, Tensile strength
Hsuan (1998) Geomembrane HDPE (2)
60, 70, 80 Stress/strain behavior
HDPE (1)
Ethylene rubber (1) Tensile strength
Tsuboi et al. -25, 0, 20, 40,
Geomembrane Secant modulus at 1%
(1998) 60 Thermo-plastic olefin (1) strain
Polyvinyl chloride (1)
Cazzuffi and HDPE (1)

Geogrid
Sacchetti 10, 20, 30 PET (1) Tensile creep behavior
(1999)
Geotextile PP/PET (1)
*PP = polypropylene
*PET = polyethylene
*HDPE = high density polyethylene

Cyclic Tension Testing

A series of cyclic tension tests were performed at the Western Transportation
Institute, Montana State University – Bozeman, to better understand and quantify the
elastic moduli in both principal directions under cyclic loading. To accomplish this,
the existing wide–width test protocols (ASTM D4595 for geotextiles, and ASTM
D6637 for geogrids) were modified to incorporate cyclic loads. These tests were
conducted on samples of prescribed dimensions and at a prescribed strain rate
(typically 10 ± 3 %/min) and temperature (21 ± 1°C). Two types of geosynthetics
were considered in this study: biaxial polypropylene geogrids and woven
polypropylene geotextiles (Table 2). Individual geosynthetics will be referred to by
their generic name throughout the remainder of this paper.
Table 2: Geosynthetic materials used in testing.

Geosynthetic Manufacturer & Polymer Type /
Generic Name
Type Brand Name Structure
Amoco
Geosynthetic A polypropylene / woven
ProPex 2006
Geotextile Synthetic Industries
Geosynthetic B polypropylene / woven
Geotex 3×3
Ten Cate Nicolon
Geosynthetic C polypropylene / woven
Geolon HP570
Colbond polypropylene / welded
Geosynthetic D
Enkagrid Max 20 grid
Tensar polypropylene / biaxial,
Geosynthetic E
BX1100 punched, drawn
Geogrid
Tensar polypropylene / biaxial,
Geosynthetic F
BX1200 punched, drawn
Tenax Polypropylene /
Geosynthetic G
MS220b extruded, multi-layer
A servo-hydraulic load frame (from MTS Systems Corporation) was used to apply
load to the geosynthetics during testing. A programmable control unit (from Instron),
coupled with an internal linearly varying differential transducer (LVDT) and load
cell, regulated strain rates and load limits. Curtis “Geo-Grips” transferred load from
the hydraulic actuator to the geosynthetic sample. These grips were specially
designed to test planar synthetic materials such as geosynthetics by applying a
specified hydraulic pressure to hold the geosynthetic in place. Information from the
LVDT internal to the load frame was used to calculate axial strains.
A device called a “clip gage” was mounted directly to the geosynthetic test specimen
to determine the presence of slip between the grips and the geosynthetic, as shown in
Figure 1-a. The body of the clip gage is made from a thin strip of spring steel
approximately 12 mm wide, bent in the shape of a flat “U” (Figure 1-b). The portion
making up the bottom of the “U” was instrumented with four strain gages (two on
top, two on the bottom) to measure flexure as the legs of the “U” are moved side to
side. Hinges were attached to the two legs to keep them from buckling. The hinges
were mounted to the material using small connectors that minimized the contact area.

The results showed that slip between the grips and the material was minimal for the
low load levels used in these tests. Therefore, the internal LVDT was used to
calculate axial strains in the material. The axial strain represents an average strain
across the length of the sample, which is consistent with ASTM D4595 and ASTM
D6637 specifications.
Clip gage
(a) (b)
Figure 1: (a) Clip gage mounted on geosynthetic. (b) Clip gage.
Cyclic Test Protocol

In a reinforced pavement, permanent strain in the reinforcement material is seen to
increase with increased traffic passes while dynamic strain for each traffic pass of
constant load magnitude remains relatively constant. For non-linear reinforcement
materials, the modulus will be dependent on the current strain or load at which a cycle
of load is applied, which is in turn dependent on the number of traffic passes that
have been applied. Creep and/or stress relaxation during repeated loading also leads
to changes in material stiffness as the material is reloaded. Conditioning of the
material during construction may also be a factor, especially for materials whose
load-strain curve is convex.
In the cyclic tension tests, the geosynthetic was first loaded up to a prescribed axial
strain, followed by the application of 1000 load cycles where the axial strain varied
between prescribed limits, having a cyclic strain amplitude of 0.2 %. The seating
strain was applied at a rate of 50 %/min while the cyclic strain was applied at a rate of
16 %/min. Table 3 provides a schedule of target strain values used in the tests. The
tests performed in this way were cyclic stress-relaxation tests, in that load was
allowed to decrease as the strain was cycled between set limits. Standard, wide-
width, monotonic tests were also conducted for comparison.

Table 3: Loading steps for cyclic, wide-width tension tests.

Step Static Strain Cyclic Strain
(%) (%)
1 0.5 0.2
2 1.0 0.2
3 1.5 0.2
4 2.0 0.2
5 3.0 0.2
6 4.0 0.2
Results & Analysis

Sample results for Geosynthetic A and E are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
In these figures, cyclic test data is compared to the results of monotonic tests
performed at a strain rate of 10 %/min. The data shows that the initial parts of the
two curves are nearly identical even though the strain rate is five times faster for this
part of the curve in the cyclic test. Once cycling begins, stress relaxation begins to
occur in the material. The amount of stress relaxation tends to grow with increasing
step number. When reloading occurs at the end of cyclic loading to the next target
strain level, the load-strain curve has a slope that is steeper than the tangent to the
monotonic curve at this same strain. This is because the cyclic curve is attempting to
meet up with the monotonic curve. Although the slopes of the cyclic curves tend to
increase moderately with increasing cycle number, they eventually stabilize. Cyclic
modulus is determined from the last cycles at a given permanent strain.
7
Monotonic Test
6
5
Load (kN/m)
2 Cyclic Test
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
Strain (m/m)
Figure 2: Cyclic and monotonic wide-width tension tests on geosynthetic A, machine

direction.

12 Monotonic Test
10
8
Load (kN/m)
6 Cyclic Test
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Strain (m/m)
Figure 3: Cyclic and monotonic wide-width tension tests on geosynthetic E, machine

direction
For the geotextiles used in this study (Geosynthetics A, B and C), the initial load-
strain behavior is generally the least stiff part of the curve, meaning the initial
modulus is the lowest of all cyclic or tangent values, thereby showing a hardening
effect. The results from Geosynthetic A, which are similar to Geosynthetics B and C,
are shown in Figure 2. In most cases, little stress-relaxation is observed for the lower
steps and less is observed in the machine direction as compared to the cross machine
direction. This results in cyclic modulus values for the lower steps that are closer to
the tangent modulus values. As stress-relaxation increases for the higher steps, the
cyclic modulus becomes greater. On the other hand, for the geogrids tested in this
study (Geosynthetics D, E, F, and G), the initial load-strain behavior is generally the
stiffest portion of the curve, thereby showing a softening effect. The results from
Geosynthetic E, which are similar to Geosynthetics D, F and G, are shown in Figure
3.
For the geotextile materials, the cyclic modulus tends to increase significantly with
increased strain level, as shown in Figure 4 – a plot of the cyclic modulus as a
function of permanent strain for all the materials, oriented in the machine direction.
Conversely, the cyclic modulus in the geogrids remains relatively constant for all
levels of permanent strain. The points at zero strain were determined from the initial
modulus of the monotonic curves. Results in the cross machine direction show
similar behaviors. In the absence of strain induced in the material during compaction,
these results would suggest that the values at zero strain be used for early load
applications. It might also be argued that values for the early load cycles be evaluated
for a small value of strain (e.g., 0.2 %) to represent the dynamic strain in the material
during load application.

1800
1600
1400
Geosynthetic A
Cyclic Modulus (kN/m)
1200 Geosynthetic B
1000 Geosynthetic C
Geosynthetic D
800
Geosynthetic E
600
Geosynthetic F
400 Geosynthetic G
200
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Permanent Strain Level (%)
Figure 4: Cyclic tensile modulus versus permanent strain for all geosynthetics, machine
direction
These results have the following implications for reinforced pavement modeling. For
stiffer materials like the geogrids, cyclic loading tends to create a state in the material
where the stiffness of small-strain amplitude load cycles is equal to a constant for any
level of permanent strain. These results suggest that a constant elastic modulus
should be used for the reinforcement for any level of pavement load application. This
constant modulus value can be approximated by averaging the cyclic modulus values.
However, for softer materials like the geotextiles, modifications to the material
models are required to incorporate this non-linear behavior.
Summary & Conclusions

The cyclic wide-width, strain-controlled tension tests showed great promise for
providing values of elastic modulus for the two principal directions of the material.
These tests were modeled after the existing ASTM standard wide-width tension tests
(ASTM D4595 for geotextiles and ASTM D6637 for geogrids) with the exception of
the cyclic loading protocol, and were used to determine the elastic modulus in the
machine and cross machine directions for seven geosynthetics. The elastic modulus
was computed as a resilient modulus after a large number of load cycles were applied
at a given permanent strain value. In general, the modulus of the geotextile materials
changed with permanent strain, while the modulus of the geogrids remained relatively
constant with permanent strain. This implies that the material models used in finite
element modeling must be non-linear to account for materials that show non-linear
behavior like the geotextiles. Therefore, improvements in the model should include a

method of calculating an equivalent isotropic modulus from orthotropic values that

are a function of permanent strain in the reinforcement.
Additional work is needed to establish the most efficient loading protocol for this test
and to evaluate this test for other reinforcement products. In particular, it may be
discovered that loading to a particular permanent strain, followed by stress relaxation
or creep and subsequent reloading, provides the same information without applying
multiple load cycles. Additional testing should also be performed to establish the
influence of strain rate, temperature and confinement on the measured elastic
modulus for conditions pertinent in pavements, as indicated in the literature review.
References
Allen, T.; Bell, J.R. and Vinson, T.S. (1983) “Properties of Geotextiles in Cold
Regions Applications”, Transportation Research Record, Report No. 83-6,
Transportation Research Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Ashmawy, A.K. and Bourdeau, P.L. (1996) “Response of a Woven and a Nonwoven
Geotextile to Monotonic and Cyclic Simple Tension”, Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 493-515.
ASTM (2003), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol. 04.13, West Conshohocken,
PA, USA.
Austin, D.N., Wu, K.J. and White, D.F. (1993) “The Influence of Test Parameters and
Procedures on the Tensile modulus of Stiff Geogrids”, Geosynthetic Soil
Reinforcement Testing Procedures, STP 1190, S.C. Jonathan Cheng, Ed., ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA, pp. 90-110.
Bathurst, R.J. and Cai, Z. (1994) “In-Isolation Cyclic Load-Extension Behavior of
Two Geogrids”, Geosynthetics International, Vol 1, No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Budiman, J. (1994) “Effects of Temperature on Physical Behaviour of
Geomembranes”, Proceedings: Fifth International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, Singapore, September 1994, pp. 1093-
1096.
Bush, D.I. (1990) “Variation of Long Term Design Strength of Geosynthetics in
Temperatures up to 40° C”, Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, The Hague, Netherlands,
pp.673-676.
Calhoun, C.C. (1972) “Development of Design Criteria and Acceptance
Specifications for Plastic Filter Cloths”, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, Technical Report No. S-72-7.
Cazzuffi, D. and Sacchetti, M. (1999) “Temperature Effects on Tensile-Creep
behavior of High-Strength Geosynthetics”, Proceedings: Geosynthetics’ 99
Conference, 723-733.
Elias, V., Yuan, A., Swan, R. and Bachus, R. (1998) “Development of Protocols for
Confined Extension/Creep Testing of Geosynthetics for Highway Applications,”
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, D.C., Report No. FHWA-RD-97-143, 211p.

Hsuan, Y.G. (1998) “Temperature Effect on the Stress Crack Resistance of High
Density Polyethylene Geomembranes”, Proceedings: Sixth International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Denver, CO, pp. 371-374.
Kinney, T.C. and Xiaolin, Y. (1995) “Geogrid Aperture Rigidity by In-Plane
Rotation,” Proceedings of the Geosynthetics ’95 Conference, Nashville, TN, Vol.
2, pp. 525-538.
Kongkitkul, W., Hirakawa, D. and Tatsuoka, F. (2002) “Viscous Deformation During
Cyclic Loading of Geosynthetics Reinforcement”, Proceedings: 7th International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Nice, Vol.1, pp.129-132.
McGown, A.; Andrawes, K.Z. and Yeo, K.C. (1985) “The Load-Strain-Time
Behaviour of Tensar geogrids”, Proceedings: Polymer Grid Reinforcement, pp.
11-17.
NCHRP (2003), NCHRP Project 1-37A, Development of NCHRP 1-37A Design
Guide, Using Mechanistic Principles to Improve Pavement Design.
NCHRP (2000), “Harmonized Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of
Resilient Modulus for Flexible Pavement Design, Volume 1: Unbound Granular
Material,” NCHRP Project 1-28a Draft Report, 198p.
Perkins, S.W.; Christopher, B. R.; Cuelho, E.V.; Eiksund, G.R.; Hoff, I.; Schwartz,
C.W.; Svanø, G.; and Watn, A. (2004) “Development of Design Methods for
Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements.” Final report to the Federal
Highway Administration, Document Reference No. DTFH61-01-X-00068.
Raumann, G. (1979) “A Hydraulic Tensile test with Zero Transverse Strain for
Geotechnical Fabrics”, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 69-76.
Soong, T.Y.; Lord, A.E. and Koerner, R.M. (1994) “Stress Relaxation Behavior of
HDPE Geomembranes”, Proceedings: Fifth International Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Singapore, September 1994,
pp. 1121-1124.
Soong, T.Y. and Lord, A.E. (1998) “Slow Strain Rate Modulus Assessment Via
Stress Relaxation Experiments”, Proceedings: Sixth International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Denver, CO, pp. 711-715.
Tsuboi, M., Imaizumi, S. and Miyaji, H. (1998) “Effect of the temperature on Tensile
Behavior of Geomembranes”, Proceedings: Sixth International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Denver, CO, pp. 201-204.
Van Zanten, ed. (1986) “Geotextiles and Geomembranes in Civil Engineering”, A.A.
Balkema.


1962 - Determining Geosynthetic Material Properties Pertinent To Reinforced Pavement Design - Engineering

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1962 - Determining Geosynthetic Material Properties Pertinent To Reinforced Pavement Design - Engineering

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Determining Geosynthetic Material Properties Pertinent to Reinforced

E.V. Cuelho1, S.W. Perkins2 and S.K. Ganeshan3

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Table 1: Summary of literature review of temperature effects on geosynthetic material

PP (3) Tensile strength at failure

Cazzuffi and HDPE (1)

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Cyclic Tension Testing

Table 2: Geosynthetic materials used in testing.

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Cyclic Test Protocol

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Table 3: Loading steps for cyclic, wide-width tension tests.

Results & Analysis

Figure 2: Cyclic and monotonic wide-width tension tests on geosynthetic A, machine

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Figure 3: Cyclic and monotonic wide-width tension tests on geosynthetic E, machine

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Summary & Conclusions

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

method of calculating an equivalent isotropic modulus from orthotropic values that

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Copyright ASCE 2005 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen