Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Table 1 Design Approaches and Procedures For Base/Sub Base Reinforcement

    Uploaded by

    Pratibha Singh
    28 views2 pages
    This document summarizes different approaches and empirical support for using geosynthetics like geogrids and geotextiles to reinforce base/subbase layers in pavement structures. It provides a table comparing 11 different developer's or researcher's designs and procedures, including the type of geosynthetic they focused on, how they modeled distress modes, the empirical support and testing methods used, and the reported maximum range of thickness reduction or improvement achieved through reinforcement. The table shows a variety of design methods ranging from empirical to finite element modeling, with field testing, laboratory testing or both used to support reductions in base course thickness from 4-56% or improvements in rutting resistance.

    Original Description:

    gg

    Original Title

    Table

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes different approaches and empirical support for using geosynthetics like geogrids and geotextiles to reinforce base/subbase layers in pavement structures. It provides a table comparing 11 different developer's or researcher's designs and procedures, including the type of geosynthetic they focused on, how they modeled distress modes, the empirical support and testing methods used, and the reported maximum range of thickness reduction or improvement achieved through reinforcement. The table shows a variety of design methods ranging from empirical to finite element modeling, with field testing, laboratory testing or both used to support reductions in base course thickness from 4-56% or improvements in rutting resistance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views2 pages

    Table 1 Design Approaches and Procedures For Base/Sub Base Reinforcement

    Uploaded by

    Pratibha Singh
    This document summarizes different approaches and empirical support for using geosynthetics like geogrids and geotextiles to reinforce base/subbase layers in pavement structures. It provides a table comparing 11 different developer's or researcher's designs and procedures, including the type of geosynthetic they focused on, how they modeled distress modes, the empirical support and testing methods used, and the reported maximum range of thickness reduction or improvement achieved through reinforcement. The table shows a variety of design methods ranging from empirical to finite element modeling, with field testing, laboratory testing or both used to support reductions in base course thickness from 4-56% or improvements in rutting resistance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Table 1 Design Approaches and Procedures for Base/Sub Base Reinforcement

    Developer Geosynthetic Applicability


    Type

    Distress mode
    and Design
    Format

    Empirical
    Support

    Maximum
    Range of
    Improvement

    Giroud
    and
    Noiray
    (1981)

    Geotextile

    Empirical
    method

    75 mm Rut
    depth

    Penner et
    al.
    (1985)

    Specic
    geogrid

    Based on
    C.B.R
    4.3 to 5.7%

    20 mm Rut
    depth/ Equation
    and chart

    Burd and
    Houlsby
    (1986)

    Genetic
    Isotropic
    Geosynthetic elastoplastic

    surface
    deformation/
    FE M Computer
    Programe

    F.E.M

    Barksdal
    e et al.
    (1989)

    Isotropic
    Genetic
    elastoplastic FE M Computer
    Geosynthetic surface
    Programe
    deformation/

    Field
    Result

    Barksdal
    e et al.
    (1989)

    Geogrid

    C.B.R 2.4%
    Vertical
    deformation
    charts,

    computer
    programe

    Field Test

    Webster
    (1993)

    Specific
    Geogrid

    Based on
    C.B.R 3
    to 8%

    Rut depth (25


    mm)/ Design
    charts

    Field Test

    Based on
    C.B.R
    1.9 to 8%

    20 to 30 mm rut
    depth/equations,
    charts, computer
    programe

    Lab & test


    track
    correlate
    to field
    test

    Traffic
    Benefit Ratio
    (TBR) = 1.5
    to 10

    C.B.R 1 to
    8%

    Surface rutting

    Full Scale
    Lab.
    test

    Traffic
    Benefit Ratio
    (TBR) = 2 to

    Tensar
    (1996)

    J.G.
    Collin,
    T.C.

    Specific
    Geogrid

    Geogrid

    Quasistatic 30% to 50%


    analysis
    reduction
    in base
    course
    thickness
    Lab Test
    30% to 50%
    reduction
    in base
    course
    thickness
    Improvement
    after
    4 mm surface
    deformation
    4% to 18%
    reduction
    base
    thickness
    4% to 18%
    reduction
    in base
    course
    thickness
    BCR = 5% to
    45%

    Kinney
    (1996)
    AkzoNobel
    (1998)

    Perkins
    S.W.
    (1999)

    10%

    Specific GGGT
    Composite

    Not stated

    Bearing
    capacity/
    Equation &
    charts

    Plate Load
    Test
    (Meyer 7
    Elias,
    1999)

    --

    Permanent
    surface
    deformation

    Full Scale
    Lab.
    test

    Theoretical
    design
    method

    allowable rut
    depth,
    e.g. 75 mm.

    Geogrid -

    BCR = 32%
    to 56%

    At least 30%
    reduction
    in base
    course
    thickness

    Giroud &
    Han
    (2004)

    Geogrid

    Rudolf
    Hufenus,
    Rueegger
    et. at
    (2005)

    Geogrid

    C.B.R 1 to
    4%

    Rut depth

    Full scale
    Field
    test

    Up to 30%
    reduction
    in base
    course
    thickness

    Bassam
    Saad
    and Hani
    Mitri
    (2006)

    Geogrid

    Surface
    deformation

    3D F.E.M

    Reduction of
    Rutting
    strain up to
    16 to 34%

    Surface rutting

    Full scale
    test

    Reduction in
    pavement
    response up
    to 23-31%

    Imad L.
    Al-Qadi
    et.at
    (2010)

    Geogrid
    C.B.R 4%

    Empirical
    test
    calibrated
    with
    field test

    Up to 30%
    reduction
    in base
    course
    thickness

    You might also like