Stabilisation Workshop 02 AUSTRALIA April 2019

Tensar design workshop: TensarPave operation April 2019
Australia, April 2019
Workshop:
Design of pavements using
mechanical stabilisation
Mike Dobie
Tensar International Limited
Regional Manager Asia Pacific
Design program for pavements
Setting up
TensarPave
 Files have been sent by e-mail (download link)

 Extract the entire folder of Tensar program files and
sub-folders to your C: drive
 The recommended location for saving the files is:
C: > Program files (x86) > Tensar International
> TensarPave
 Create this location using Windows Explorer
2 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019
Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Copyright  Tensar International Limited 2019 1
Setting up
TensarPave
 Extract the program files to this TensarPave folder
Setting up
TensarPave
 Locate the file TensarPave.exe and make a short-cut

Setting up
TensarPave
 Make a shortcut to TensarPave.exe
 Then run the program

 The program needs a code to run
Setting up
TensarPave
 Regional options
 Windows control
panel
 Set location to
Australia
 This ensures that
you get appropriate
options, methods,
geogrids, etc
 TensarPave will
check your location
on first start

Setting up
TensarPave
 Code
 See following slides
 Code will be of this form:
xxxx xxxx xxxx/xxxx xxxx
 Cut-and-paste into an e-mail
 Send to kenshi@tensar.co.id

10

11
12

Design of pavements
Methods used incorporating mechanical stabilisation

Based on the principle of confinement
Tensar subgrade Tensar Spectra Tensar modulus Tensar Austroads
stabilisation (AASHTO) methods (Austroads Figures
(LR1132) (BRP Report 752) 8.4 & 12.2)
AC
Granular base
Sub-base
Subgrade
13
Austroads Pavement Design
Austroads
Design guide published 2012
 AGPT02-12: Guide to Pavement

technology
 Part 2: Pavement Structural
Design
14

Austroads
 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)
15
Austroads
 Extended to low volume roads using Figure 12.2

Figure 12.2 Figure 8.4
0
Minimum thickness of base material
100 CBR
Granular thickness (mm)
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
Design traffic (ESA)
16

Figure 8.4 relationship (Figure 12.2 different)

t  [219  211(log10 CBR)  58(log10 CBR )2 ]log10(ESAL / 120)
Traffic given
by number Total granular thickness
of 80kN For AC surfacing: sub-base
ESAL
reduced by AC thickness
Pavement B Surfacing
Pavement layers
condition represented by
limited by their total granular
roughness SB
thickness t (mm)
Rut depth
generally <
20mm Subgrade represented by its CBR (%)
17
Figure 8.4
Design input
 Controlling design input parameters Subgrade CBR
Traffic given
by number
of 80kN
ESAL
B Surfacing
Pavement layers
represented by
their total granular
SB
thickness t (mm)
18

Figure 8.4
Input
 Controlling design input parameters CBR
Traffic given
by number
of 80kN
ESAL
B Surfacing
Pavement layers
represented by
their total granular
SB
thickness t (mm)
19
Figure 8.4
Input
ESAL
t
B Surfacing
SB
20

Tensar Austroads Pavement Design
Adding mechanical stabilisation to the sub-base

Adapting the Figure 8.4 method
21
Concept of the mechanically stabilised layer - MSL
fSN
Based on testing, mechanical stabilisation

results in enhancement of the layer
properties:
- Higher layer coefficient “a” defined by fSN
- Higher effective modulus
22

Independent assessment
of fSN – CROW
Report published in
Netherlands
23
Independent assessment of fSN - CROW
2.0 0.5
Punched & stretched geogrids None
0.4 Extruded &

Thickness reduction
stretched geogrids
0.3
Woven
geogrids
0.2
Woven
geotextiles
fSN 0.1
Non-woven
1.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
CBR (%)
24

Figure 8.4 with stabilisation

Input
ESAL
t
TX
B Surfacing
TX
SB
25
26

TensarPave
desktop
Non stabilised follows

Figure 8.4 (or 12.2)
27
Various icons and

controls
28

Control access to
various inputs
29
Adjust the inputs

and view results
30

31
32

33
34

35
36

37
38

39
Figure 8.4 with stabilisation

Input
TensarPave selects the CBR

However the grade may be user
grade of TX geogrid ESAL
customised within limits defined
based on maximum
in IB/TriAx_Selection available t
particle size and CBR of
from the Tensar website TX
the supporting material
B Surfacing
TX
SB
Grade of TX
selected
40

41
42

43
44

45
46

47
48

49
50

51
52

53
54

55
56

Assessing need for geocomposite

Sub-base/subgrade interface
 Occurs at the
interface
between fill and
subgrade
 Under the
action of
repeated
loading (eg.
from wheels)
 Can subgrade
particles pass
into or through
the fill?
Subgrade
57

 If the subgrade
soil can pass
into the fill,
then the fill will
become
contaminated
 Its properties
will deteriorate
 In extreme
cases subgrade
soil can appear
at the fill
surface
58


 Can be solved
by using a
suitable
geocomposite
 Geogrid
combined with
a geotextile
 A procedure is
required to
determine if a
geocomposite is
required
59

Approach
 We can examine the physical
properties of the fill and the
subgrade
 Based on this it is possible to decide
whether or not a geocomposite is
required
 In the case of a well graded

aggregate placed over a firm
compacted clay (ie. images shown
here) a geocomposite may not be
required
60


Approach
 However in the case of a uniform fill
(such as a drainage material or rail
ballast) placed over a wet silty
subgrade, a geocomposite almost
certainly will be required
 In TensarPave the grading (PSD) of

the subgrade may be compared to
the grading of the fill
 These are called “filter rules”
 Look at D15(fill) and D85(subgrade)
61

Sub-base/subgrade interface (filter rules)
Clay Silt Sand Gravel
100
90 Fill
Particle size
Percentage passing (%)
80 Subgrade distribution
70 (PSD) curves
for clayey silt
60
subgrade and
50 well graded
40 sandy gravel fill
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size (mm)
62


100
90 Fill
D85 (subgrade)
80 Subgrade = 0.046mm
70
60
50
40
30 D15 (fill)
= 0.04mm
20 Check ratio:
10 D15(fill)/D85(subgrade)
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size (mm)
63

100
Ofoegbu 1981
 Researchers have Vaughn 1982
examined filter Lund 1949
USBR 1955
stability by
Gravel
Sherard 1984
comparing 10 Karpoff 1955
D15(fill) and USACE 1953

D15 fill (mm)
Lafleur 1984
D85(subgrade) Bertram 1940
 These results
show situations
Sand
1
which were
UNSTABLE
Solid symbols UNSTABLE
Silt Sand Gravel

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10
D85 subgrade (mm)
64


100
Ofoegbu 1981
 The open symbols Vaughn 1982
show situations Lund 1949 D15(fill)/D85(subgrade)
USBR 1955 8
which were
Gravel
Sherard 1984
STABLE 10 Karpoff 1955
USACE 1953
 Based on this if
D15 fill (mm)
Lafleur 1984
D15(f)/D85(s) < 8, Bertram 1940
the fill is able to

prevent subgrade 1 Sand
particles from
entering Open symbols STABLE
Silt Sand Gravel

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10
D85 subgrade (mm)
65

100
Ofoegbu 1981
 This is called a Vaughn 1982
“filter rule”, and Lund 1949 D15(fill)/D85(subgrade)
USBR 1955 8 5
the normal limit
Gravel
Sherard 1984
used for design is 10 Karpoff 1955
5.0 (Terzaghi) USACE 1953

D15 fill (mm)
Lafleur 1984
Bertram 1940
 “Piping” criterion
Sand
Open symbols STABLE

Silt Sand Gravel

0.1
0.01 0.1 1 10
D85 subgrade (mm)
66


 We can use a secondary

criterion by looking at
D50(f)/D50(s)
 This ratio should be less than
25 for a satisfactory filter
 “Blocking” criterion
67

100
90 Fill
80 Subgrade
70
D50 (subgrade) D50 (fill)
60
= 0.015mm = 8mm
50
40
30
20 Check ratio:
10 D50(fill)/D50(subgrade)
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size (mm)
68


 Subgrade soils
which have the
greatest
tendency to
“infiltrate”
overlying fill are
low plasticity
silts and fine
sand
 They have small
particle sizes
but are
relatively
“mobile”
69

Sub-base/subgrade interface (subgrade plasticity)
 Higher plasticity
silts and clays
have finer
particles but
are more stable
 Based on the
filter rules, such
fine soils would
almost always
require a
geocomposite
70


 Experience has
shown that this
is not the case,
and provided
D15 of the fill is
0.4mm or less,
then fine plastic
soils may
remain stable
 Local
experience is
always
important in
these situations
71

 Look at subgrade 100
plasticity Glacial Till (Stanlow)

Volcanic Clay (Java)
80
London Clay (typical)
Plasticity index
Subgrade soils (Lebanon)

60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Liquid limit
72


 Look at subgrade 100
plasticity Glacial Till (Stanlow)

Volcanic Clay (Java)
 If PI < 10 (A-4 & 80
London Clay (typical)
A-5 soils), then
Plasticity index
Subgrade soils (Lebanon)
likely that 60
geocomposite is
required
40
 Material is likely to
be silty with little
20
clay binder, so
particles are likely
to be more mobile 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Liquid limit
73

Stages of procedure in TensarPave

 Data required
 Initial considerations
 Stage 1: subgrade plasticity
 Stage 2: fill grading
 Stage 3: interface between subgrade and fill
 Stage 4: other requirements
 Conclusion
74


Reminder!!!!
 The principles
and filter rules
used in this
procedure
assume that
the fill material
is stabilised by
interlocking
with suitable
geogrid
apertures
Subgrade
75
76

77
78

79
80

81
82

AASHTO 1993 Flexible Pavement Design
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavements 1993

1993 was the last guide using this design method
AASHTO 1993 design guide

 There had been 1986, 1972
(interim) & 1961 (interim)
before the 1993 guide
 Methods for flexible pavements
(AC surface), rigid pavements
(concrete surface) and low
volume roads (gravel surface or
thin AC/sealing)
 Guide contains a lot more than
that
83

1993 was the last guide using this design method
AASHTO 1993 design guide

 All design methods are
empirical and based on the
AASHTO “Road Test” (carried
out mid 1950’s to early 1960’s
at Ottawa in Illinois, USA)
 This is summarised on the
following slides
84


The AASHTO “Road Test”
 Field testing
1958-60
 Consisted of 6
“loops” (4
large, 2 small)
 468 sections
for flexible
pavements
 368 sections
for rigid
pavements
 Reached about
1 million ESAL
85

86


 Heavy clay
subgrade for all
loops: A-7-6
and A-6 soils
87

 Construction of
a loop with AC
surfacing
 Consisted of
surface course
of well graded
limestone, max
¾” with 5.4%
binder
 Binder course of
well graded
limestone, max
1” with 4.5%
binder
88


 Loading typical
of trucks in
1950/60’s
89

Limitations and deficiencies

 Duration: only 2 years
 Climate: one location, so one climate (affected by frost)
 Subgrade: only one type, heavy clay
 Pavement materials: only one AC type and two types of
granular base course
 Loading: trucks typical of 1950/60’s, lower loads & lower
tyre pressures compared to today
 ESAL: only reached about 1,000,000 ESAL
 Reliability: approach not fully validated
This has lead to development of mechanistic design
methods (NCHRP 1-37A Pavement Design Guideline)
90


Review of method for flexible pavements
 Empirical design method based on the AASHTO Road

Test (as described in the previous slides)
 Method for flexible pavements provides design for the
full pavement section
 Intended for ESAL > 50,000
 This may be done using a nomograph (Part II, Figure
3.1)
 Or by solving the controlling equation (Part I, Chapter
1.2 and Part II, Figure 3.1)
 This is summarised on the following slide
91
Flexible pavement design  PSI 

log10  
log10 W18  ZRS0  9.36 log10 (SN  1)  0.2   4.2  1.5   2.32 log M  8.07
10 R
1094
0.4  5.19
(SN  1)
Traffic given
by number Reliability term
of 18 kip
(80kN)
ESAL W18
AC
Pavement
condition B Pavement layers
given by its represented by
present SB their structural
serviceability number SN
index PSI (p)
Subgrade represented by its resilient modulus MR
92

Flexible pavement design

Design input
 Controlling design input parameters Reliability (%)
Standard deviation
Traffic given
Initial serviceability
by number
of 18 kip Terminal serviceability
(80kN) Resilient modulus
ESAL W18
AC
B Pavement layers
represented by
SB their structural
number SN
93

Input
 Controlling design input parameters abbreviated ZR
S0
Traffic given
p0
by number
of 18 kip pt
(80kN) MR
ESAL W18
AC
B Pavement layers
represented by
SB their structural
number SN
94


Input
 We can examine the AFPF by plotting PSI SN = 3.94
versus W18 for given input parameters
MR = 34.5 MPa
0
R = 50%
PSI = (p0 – pt)
3
10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
W18
95

Input
MR = 34.5 MPa
0
R = 50%
PSI = (p0 – pt)
1 R = 80%
3
10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
W18
96


Input
MR = 34.5 MPa
0
R = 50%
R = 80%
PSI = (p0 – pt)
1 Design Design
requires:
PSI
= p0 - pt
2 = 4.2 - 2.0
= 2.2
Gives W18
= 1,808,000
3
10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
W18
97

Input
 For required design input parameters find SN to ZR
provide required W18
S0
p0
pt
MR
W18
AC
B Pavement layers
represented by
SB their structural
number SN
98


Input
 SN is determined from the properties of the ZR
pavement layers
S0
p0
pt
MR
W18
AC
B Pavement layers
represented by
SB their structural
number SN
99

Input
pavement layers
S0
 Layer 1: asphalt layers p0
 Layer 2: aggregate base course pt
 Layer 3: aggregate sub-base MR
W18
Layer 1 AC D1
Layer 2 B D2
Layer 3 SB D3
SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3
100


Input
pavement layers
S0
 D1, D2 & D3 are the layer thicknesses p0
 a1, a2 & a3 are the layer structural coefficients pt
 m2 & m3 are drainage factors (granular layers only) MR
W18
AC
a1,2,3
B
D1,2,3
m2,3
SB
SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3
101
102

103
104

105
106

TensarPave
desktop
107
Tensar Spectra method (AASHTO 1993)
Flexible pavement design  PSI 

log10  Input

log10 W18  ZRS0  9.36 log10 (SN  1)  0.2   4.2  1.5   2.32 log M  8.07
1094 10 R ZR
0.4 
(SN  1) 5.19 S0
Traffic given
p0
by number Reliability term
of 18 kip pt
(80kN) MR
ESAL W18
W18
AC
Pavement a1,2,3
condition B Pavement layers D1,2,3
given by its represented by
m2,3
present SB their structural
serviceability number SN
index PSI (p)
108

Resilient modulus (MR)

Input
ZR
Subgrade condition most commonly given by S0
CBR (%) or undrained shear strength (Su) p0
MR (psi)  1500  CBR (AASHTO Part I, Chapter 1.5) pt
MR (MPa)  10.34  CBR
MR
W18
AC
a1,2,3
B
D1,2,3
m2,3
SB
109
110

111
112

113
114

Structural number for pavement layers (SN)

Input
SN = a1d1 + a2d2 + a3d3
ZR
where: a1, a2, and a3 are structural layer coefficients
d1, d2 and d3 are layer thicknesses (inches) S0
p0
pt
MR
W18
AC D1
a1,2,3
B D2 Pavement layers D1,2,3
represented by
m2,3
SB their structural
D3 number SN
115

Input
SN = a1d1 + a2d2m2 + a3d3m3
ZR
where: a1, a2, and a3 are structural layer coefficients
d1, d2 and d3 are layer thicknesses (inches) S0
m2 and m3 take into account drainage quality and p0
duration of conditions approaching saturation for pt
untreated layers
(AASHTO Part I, Ch 1.2 & Part II, Ch 2.3 & 2.4) MR
W18
AC D1
a1,2,3
B D2 Pavement layers D1,2,3
represented by
m2,3
SB their structural
D3 number SN
Designing for water conditions
116

Designing for water conditions NB: water has a major influence
AASHTO Part II, Ch 2.4.1 & Table 2.4 provide modification factors (m2 and
m3) to be applied to unbound layers to allow for their drainage capacity
Quality of drainage Percentage of time pavement structure is exposed to

(time to remove moisture conditions approaching saturation
water)
< 1% 1% - 5% 5% - 25% > 25%
Excellent (2 hours) 1.40 – 1.35 1.35 – 1.30 1.30 – 1.20 1.20
Good (1 day) 1.35 – 1.25 1.25 – 1.15 1.15 – 1.00 1.00
Fair (1 week) 1.25 – 1.15 1.15 – 1.05 1.00 – 0.80 0.80
Poor (1 month) 1.15 – 1.05 1.05 – 0.80 0.80 – 0.60 0.60
Very poor (never) 1.05 – 0.95 0.95 – 0.75 0.75 – 0.40 0.40
117
118

119
120

121
122

123
124

125
Equivalent standard axle loads

Input
ZR
S0
Traffic given
p0
by number
of 18 kip pt
(80kN) MR
ESAL W18
W18
AC
a1,2,3
B
D1,2,3
m2,3
SB
126

Equivalent standard axle loads

Input
Real traffic given by ZR
distributions of various S0
Traffic given axle loads “Lx” kip (Wx)
p0
by number
of 18 kip pt
(80kN) MR
ESAL W18
W18
AC
a1,2,3
AASHTO App MM gives relationship to convert real axles into ESA D1,2,3
W  G G m2,3
log10  x   4.79 log10 (18  1)  4 .79 log10 (L x  L 2 )  4.33 log10 L2  t  t
 W18  x 18
Lx = load on a single axle or total load on one tandem axle (kips)

L2 = axle code (1 for single axle, 2 for tandem axle set)
pt = terminal serviceability index
18 = value of x when Lx is equal to 18 kips and L2 is equal to 1
127
128

129
130

131
132

Present serviceability index PSI (p)

Input
Pavement condition at any point in time is defined by PSI ZR
(present serviceability index)
S0
PSI: related to rut depth & shape, and pavement surface damage
(AASHTO Part II, Ch 2.2.1) p0
pt
MR
W18
AC
Pavement a1,2,3
condition B
D1,2,3
given by its
m2,3
present SB
serviceability
index PSI (p)
133
Present serviceability index PSI (p0)

Input
At start of pavement life initial PSI defined as p0 ZR
p0 = 5 for perfect pavement (but this can never be attained)
S0
p0 = 4.2 normally used for flexible pavements
(AASHTO Part II, Ch 2.2.1) p0
pt
MR
W18
AC
Pavement a1,2,3
condition B
D1,2,3
given by its
m2,3
present SB
serviceability
index PSI (p)
134

Present serviceability index PSI (pt)

Input
Pavement deteriorates until terminal PSI is reached - pt ZR
pt = 3.0 for 12% stating unacceptable
S0
pt = 2.5 for 55% stating unacceptable (normal limit major roads)
pt = 2.0 for 85% stating unacceptable (normal minor roads) p0
(AASHTO Part II, Ch 2.2.1) pt
MR
W18
AC
Pavement a1,2,3
condition B
D1,2,3
given by its
m2,3
present SB
serviceability PSI = p0 - pt
index PSI (p)
135
Reliability (ZR, S0)

Input
The reliability term takes into account uncertainties in ZR
material properties and the prediction, similar to
S0
geotechnical safety factor
ZR: Defines the level of reliability required p0
50% reliability results in ZR = 0, or “factor of safety” = 1.0 pt
(AASHTO Part I Ch 4 & Part II, Ch 2.1.3) MR
W18
AC
a1,2,3
B
D1,2,3
m2,3
SB
Reliability term = ZR  S0
136

137
138

139
140

141
142

143
Tensar Spectra method (AASHTO modification)
Mechanical stabilisation in pavement design

Radial performance
144

Concept of the mechanically stabilised layer - MSL
fSN
Based on testing, mechanical stabilisation

results in enhancement of the layer
properties:
- Higher layer coefficient “a” defined by fSN
- Higher effective modulus
145
Flexible pavement design with stabilisation

Input
 Apply fSN to the stabilised layer ZR
 PSI 
log10 
log10 W18  ZRS0  9.36 log10 (SN * fSN  1)  0.2   4.2  1.5   2.32 log10 MR  8.07 S0
1094
0.4  5.19 p0
Traffic given (SN * fSN  1)
by number of pt
18 kip (80kN) MR
ESAL W18
W18
AC D1
Pavement a1,2,3
B D2
condition D1,2,3
given by its
D3 m2,3
present SB
serviceability
index PSI (p)
Subgrade SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2fSN + a3D3m3

represented by its
resilient modulus MR
146

Flexible pavement design with stabilisation

Input
 Apply fSN to the stabilised layer ZR
 PSI 
log10 
log10 W18  ZRS0  9.36 log10 (SN * fSN  1)  0.2   4.2  1.5   2.32 log10 MR  8.07 S0
1094
0.4  5.19 p0
Traffic given (SN * fSN  1)
by number of pt
18 kip (80kN) MR
ESAL W18
W18
AC D1
Pavement a1,2,3
condition B D2 D1,2,3
given by its
D3 m2,3
present SB
serviceability
index PSI (p)
Subgrade SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3fSN

represented by its
resilient modulus MR
147
148

149
150

Specification (essential part of the design):

A communication which protects the quality of the
design and minimises the risk of a reduced performance
151
Relating trials to real pavements
USCoE trials from 2014-16, Phases 2 & 3

Two-layer pavement over stiff subgrade
 Comparing
sections of
different
thickness
 Loaded by
single or
tandem wheel
 Not
channelised
152


 Comparing sections of different thickness, but designed

with same target life
 Loaded by single or tandem wheel
 Not channelised
AC: 100mm (a = 0.4)

AC: 75mm (a = 0.4)
Base: 200mm (a = 0.14) Base: 150mm (a = 0.14)

RI = 19.1 TX5/TX8
SG: CBR = 6.0% SG: CBR = 6.0%
153

 Comparing
sections of
different
thickness
 Loaded by
single or
tandem wheel
 Not
channelised
154


 Comparing
sections of
different
thickness
 Loaded by
single or
tandem wheel
 Not
channelised
155

 Comparing
sections of
different
thickness
 Loaded by
single or
tandem wheel
 Not
channelised
156


 Comparing
sections of
different
thickness
 Loaded by
single or
tandem wheel
 Not
channelised
157

 Actual thicknesses
 Control CBR = 6.0% hB = 200mm hAC = 100mm
 Stabilised CBR = 6.0% hB = 150mm hAC = 75mm
 Both sections have similar performance
 About 6mm deformation after 800,000 ESAL
 Put these sections into TensarPave
158


 Sections designed to validate “equal or better

performance” between a conventional control and an
optimised TX5/TX8 MSL
Control Section 100mm HMA surface 75mm HMA surface
200mm Aggregate 150mm Aggregate

Base Base
Base quality TX5 Section
crushed stone TX8 Section
aggregate
CBR = 80 to
100% 6% CBR High Plasticity Clay
(CH) / A-7-6 Subgrade
159

Rut depth v ESAL: control (non-stabilised)
ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
0
Rut depth (mm)
10
Control
15
Control
20
25
160


Rut depth v ESAL: control compared to TX5
ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
0
Rut depth (mm)
10
Control
15
Control TX5
20
25 TX5
161

Rut depth v ESAL: control compared to TX5 & TX8
ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
0
Rut depth (mm)
10
Control
15 Control
TX5
20
TX8
25 TX5
TX8
162


Rut depth v ESAL: related to FWD surface modulus
ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 EFWD
0
Rut depth (mm)
10
Control
15 Control EFWD
TX5
20
TX8
25 TX5
400
EFWD
EFWD (MPa)
300
200
100
TX8
0
163

Rut depth v ESAL: related to tensile strain in AC
ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000 As the wheel passes
0
Rut depth (mm)
5
AC
10
Control
15 Control
TX5
20
TX8 AC
25 TX5
400
300
 AC ()
200
AC
100
TX8
0
164


Rut depth v ESAL: related to surface deformation
ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
Rut & deformation (mm)
10
Control
15
Control - rut
20
25
165

ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
10
Control
15 Control - rut
20
Control - def
25
166


ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
Heave
10
Control
15 Control - rut
20
Control - def
25
15
10
Heave
167

ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
Heave
10
Control
15 Control - rut
Heave
Control - def
20 TX5 - rut
TX5 - def
25 TX5
15
10
Heave
168


ESALs
0 200000 400000 600000 800000 1000000
Heave
10
Control
15 Control - rut
Control - def
20 TX8 - rut
TX8 - def
25
15
Heave
10
Heave
5
TX8
0
169
170


 Comparing
sections of
different
thickness
 Control
171

 Comparing
sections of
different
thickness
 Thinner
pavement
with
stabilisation
172

173
174

175
176

177
178

179
Tensar subgrade stabilisation method
LR1132 single layer design
190(log10 N40  0.24)

h
Traffic given CBR 0.63 This expression is
by number referred to as
of 80kN “LR1132 sub-base
ESAL N40 design” formula
Pavement Sub-base layer

condition SB represented by its
given by its thickness, h
surface
deformation
(normally Subgrade represented Sub-base
limited to by its CBR (%) quality material
40mm)
180


Design input
ESAL N40
Deformation limit
Subgrade CBR
Sub-base layer
SB represented by its
thickness, h
181

Input
N40
Def
CBR
Sub-base layer
SB represented by its
thickness, h
182

LR1132 single layer design with stabilisation

Input
N40
190(log10 N40  0.24) Def

hs 
fSNCBR 0.63 CBR
TX
Grade of TX
SB
Stabilised sub-base
layer represented
by its thickness, hs
183
184

185
186

Tensar working platform method
Working platforms for tracked plant: based on BR

470 combined with T-value bearing capacity method
187

Input
kN W
L
D, Ds
su
Grade of TX TX
SB
Stabilised sub-base
layer represented
by its thickness, Ds
188


Width = B 13
Bearing
capacity su = 22 kPa (PS)
11
= qu
9
Thickness = H
qu/qs
Sand layer 7
Clay subgrade 5
Undrained shear
strength = su 3
Bearing capacity = qs slope
1
0 1 2 3
H/B
189

13
 Based on centrifuge
testing 11
su = 22 kPa (PS)
 Relationship between
surface bearing capacity 9
(qu) and subgrade
qu/qs
bearing capacity (qs) 7

versus aspect ratio H/B
5
 Slope of the line is T =
load transfer efficiency
3
slope
1
0 1 2 3
H/B
190


 Carry out
parametric σ1
Linear interpolation of failure At TriAx
study for wide surface between TriAx geogrid geogrid
variety of plane and vertical influence elevation yt
working extent Δy t
Non-stabilised
platform design
parameters Slope k0
Curvature at
using FEA
 Derive ct
relationships
between T and
c0 Curvature a0
su for a wide
range of σ3
conditions
191

8
 Without geogrid
for strip load No geogrid, B/L = 1
and 6
square/round
No geogrid, B/L = 0
load
 Interpolate for
T
4
intermediate
cases
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
su (kPa)
192


8
 Without geogrid "Geogrid A", B/L = 1
for strip load No geogrid, B/L = 1
and 6
square/round "Geogrid A", B/L = 0
load No geogrid, B/L = 0
 Interpolate for T
4
intermediate
cases
 Adding 2
mechanical
stabilisation
effect of 0
“Geogrid A” 0 20 40 60 80 100
su (kPa)
193
194

195
196

197
198

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 bases
 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”
199


Stabilisation Workshop 02 AUSTRALIA April 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stabilisation Workshop 02 AUSTRALIA April 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tensar design workshop: TensarPave operation April 2019

Australia, April 2019

Design program for pavements

 Files have been sent by e-mail (download link)

2 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Design program for pavements

 Extract the program files to this TensarPave folder

3 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design program for pavements

 Locate the file TensarPave.exe and make a short-cut

4 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Design program for pavements

 Make a shortcut to TensarPave.exe

 Then run the program

5 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design program for pavements

6 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Design program for pavements

8 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Methods used incorporating mechanical stabilisation

13 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Austroads Pavement Design

 AGPT02-12: Guide to Pavement

14 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Austroads Pavement Design

 Design chart Figure 8.4

Granular thickness (mm)

15 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Austroads Pavement Design

 Extended to low volume roads using Figure 12.2

16 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Austroads Pavement Design

Figure 8.4 relationship (Figure 12.2 different)

17 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Austroads Pavement Design

18 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Austroads Pavement Design

19 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Austroads Pavement Design

20 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Tensar Austroads Pavement Design

Adding mechanical stabilisation to the sub-base

21 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Tensar Austroads Pavement Design

Concept of the mechanically stabilised layer - MSL

Based on testing, mechanical stabilisation

22 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Design of pavements, trafficked areas and working platforms

Tensar Austroads Pavement Design

23 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019

Tensar Austroads Pavement Design

Independent assessment of fSN - CROW

0.4 Extruded &

24 Design of pavements with mechanical stabilisation April 2019