Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
of Engineers
Cold Regions Research &
Engineering Laboratory
Geotextile Reinforcement of
Low-Bearing-Capacity Soils
Comparison of Two Design Methods
Applicable to Thawing Soils
Karen S. Henry
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
Approved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited
DTIC QUALITY INSPECTBD 4
June 1999
19991117 138
Geotextile Reinforcement of
Low-Bearing-Capacity Soils
Comparison of Two Design Methods
Applicable to Thawing Soils
KarenS. Henry
Prepared for
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
June 1999
PREFACE
This report was written by Dr. Karen Henry, Research Civil Engineer of the Civil
Engineering Research Division, Research and Engineering Directorate, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover,
New Hampshire.
Funding for this work was provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
Project/Contract No. AT42, TO-007, Use ofGeosynthetics to Rapidly Reinforce Thawing Soils.
The author thanks Professor Mark Evans of West Point Military Academy for
technical review of the manuscript. His review questions required responses that
added significantly to the breadth and depth of this work. She also thanks George
Blaisdell of CRREL for technical review as well as for numerous discussions of this
topic and encouragement. Finally, the contributions of Professor Robert D. Holtz of
the University of Washington are acknowledged. This work was initiated as an
independent study project while the author was a graduate student under his guidance.
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising or promotional
purposes. Citation of brand names does not constitute an official endorsement or
approval of the use of such commercial products.
CONTENTS
Page
Preface
Introduction
Method currently used by the Army
Design example
Theory
Applicability for U.S. Army use on thawing soils
Alternative method presented by Giroud and Noiray
Design example
Theory
Applicability for use by the U.S. Army
Comparison of Giroud and Noiray method with Army method
'.
Validation of calculation techniques
Stress distribution through the aggregate layer
Design curves for Army vehicles
Recommendations for future work
Summary and conclusions
Literature cited.....
"
1
1
3
4
6
6
6
9
12
13
13
13
15
15
21
21
23
25
29
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
Page
1. Aggregate thickness design curve for single-wheel load on gravelsurface roads
2
2. Aggregate thickness design curve for dual-wheel load on gravelsurface roads
2
3. Aggregate thickness design curve for tandem-wheel load on gravelsurface roads
3
4. Wheel and axle configurations
4
5. Design aggregate thickness chart for 88.95-kN wheel load
5
6. Aggregate thickness, h0\ and reduction of aggregate thickness, Ah,
resulting from the use of geotextile as a function of soil cohesion
for 12-in. rut depth
7
7. Aggregate thickness, h0', and reduction of aggregate thickness, Ah,
resulting from the use of geotextile as a function of soil cohesion
for 8-in. rut depth
8
8. Diagram of "membrane effect" of geotextile reinforcement of thawing
soil, and shape of deformed geotextile
9
9. Definition of tire contact area for dual tires, and equivalent contact
area used in analysis
10
10. Wheel load distribution by the aggregate layer to the subgrade
11
11. Static loading design curves from Barenberg et al. and design
points generated for this report according to method
documented in Appendix B
14
iii
12. Static loading design curves without geotextile from Giroud and Noiray
and points generated for this report according to method
documented in Appendix B
13. Static loading design curves with geotextiles from Giroud and Noiray
and points generated for this report according to method
documented in Appendix B
14. Static loading design curves adapted from Giroud and Noiray and
Barenberg et al. for 10- and 20-ton trucks with tire pressure of
414 kPa
15. Field performers vs. theoretical prediction by Giroud and Noiray for
unreinforced test sections and reinforced test sections
16. Design curves for static loading for 10-ton dump truck, according
to Barenberg method and Giroud and Noiray method
17. Design curves for static loading for 20-ton dump truck, according
to Barenberg method and Giroud and Noiray method
14
15
16
17
18
19
TABLES
Table
1. Traffic loading data for Army vehicles
2. Thickness of plastic zone in the subgrade for dual-tired truck loading
and aggregate layer of thickness 0.15 m
3. Tensile modulus values of geotextiles at 5% strain and at failure
based on information in Geotechnical Fabrics Report
4. Maximum vertical stress at various depths below applied wheel load
of 115 kN and contact pressure of 414 kPa according to Newmark
and trapezoidal stress distribution used by Giroud and Noiray
IV
Page
6
11
13
16
INTRODUCTION
Thawing fine-grained soils are often saturated
or even supersaturated and thus have extremely
low bearing capacity. Geotextiles have been used
in the construction of low-volume, unsurfaced
roads on weak and saturated soils to reinforce the
base course-subgrade interface and therefore are
good candidates for use in stabilization of thawing soils. To stabilize weak soil with a geotextile
for trafficking, the geotextile is placed directly on
the soil and then covered with aggregate. The design involves selecting aggregate thickness and the
geotextile. There are two commonly used techniques for designing for soil reinforcement using
geotextiles, one of which is prescribed in U.S.
Army guidance.
The current Army design technique for static
loading of low-volume roads on low-bearing-capacity soils was examined for ease of use and applicability to the reinforcement of thawing soil,
specifically for Army vehicles. Static loading is
defined as up to 100 passes of a vehicle at the maximum wheel load and a minimum rut depth of 0.10
m (4 in.). Information about Army vehicle loading and design curves for specific Army vehicles
is provided in this report to help make the design
technique easier to use.
Another design method that offers the potential to reduce required aggregate thickness over
the geotextile (and thus cost) was compared with
the Army method. Theory and results from both
design methods are presented in this report. Although both design methods include traffic loading for up to 1000 vehicle passes, here we deal only
with design for static loading, which involves a
maximum of 100 vehicle passes.
in.
70-
60en
a
O
c
o
50
40
H
<l)
en
ao
<
20
0)
CJ)
10
0
kPa
100 psi
Figure 1. Aggregate thickness design curve for single-wheel load on gravel-surface roads.
(From TM 5-818-8.)
aggregate that meets base course requirements is
presumably required. Field Manual FM5-430-001
(1994) recommends that base course material have
minimum CBR values of 80 to 100. Soils that yield
these values include crushed rock, mechanically
stabilized aggregates, and well-graded gravel (e.g.,
FM5-430-001; Holtz and Kovacs 1981). Further
1|
evidence for the requirement of high-quality aggregate is the fact that the design technique is
based on experiments that used crushed-rock aggregate (Barenberg et al. 1975).
Guidance for selecting wheel loads and contact
pressures to use with this design is not given in
TM5-818-8; thus, it is now provided. For single and
l l I I |
1[r;
Wheel Load, W
89.0 kN (20,000
71.2 kN (16,000
53.4 kN (12,000
40.0 kN ( 9,000
17.8kN( 4,000
1| I I I I |
5
10
lb)
lb)
lb)
lb)
lb)
500
kPa
1 I I I I |
100 psi
50
cNc
Figure 2. Aggregate thickness design curve for dual-wheel load on gravel-surface roads. (From
TM 5-818-8.)
in.
70,
605040H
0)
13
30-
r-
Wheel Load, W*
194.6 kN (43,750 lb)
166.8 kN (37,500 lb)
106.8 kN (24,000 lb)
77.8 kN (17,500 lb)
35.6 kN ( 8,000 lb)
a = 0.66 (Barenberg et al. 1975)
W = Sum of load on all four
wheels on one side of
Xhe axle
20 - 0.5 10-|
0
50
100 psi
Figure 3. Aggregate thickness design curve for tandem (dual)-wheel load on gravel-surface
roads. (From TM 5-818-8.)
Design example
Given an 80-kN (18,000-lb) maximum expected
single axle load (40-kN or 9,000-lb wheel load) on
a dual-tired vehicle, determine the aggregate thickness required with and without geotextile for a
1. Calculate dVcas (52) (3.3) = 172 kPa (25 psi) without geotextile, and (52)(6) = 312 kPa (45 psi) with
geotextile.
2. Enter Figure 2 with a cNc value of 172 kPa (25
psi) for a wheel load of 40 kN (9,000 lb) to obtain a value of 0.32 m (13 in.) of aggregate required without geotextile. Using a cNc value of
312 kPa (45 psi) for the same wheel load, 0.20 m
(8 in.) of aggregate is required with geotextile.
3. Determine whether the cost of the geotextile
exceeds the cost of 0.12 m (5 in.) aggregate,
which would be saved by using the geotextile.
4. If it is advantageous to use a geotextile, specify
one using Tables 2-2 through 2-4 in TM5-818-8
(based on the need for the geotextile to survive
/ =1.8 to 2.0 m
/ =1.8 to 2.0 m
(1)
(2)
in.
"iir
50-
11|IIT
1.2
40 1.0
I 30H
I-
3a
jj? 20|
With Geotextile
oi
O)
<
10
Undrained Shear
Strength
CBR
"
I
0
I I
10
30
20
'
'
50 kPa
f ir
7
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
40
1.25
psi
1.50
Figure 5. Design aggregate thickness chart for a 88.95-kN (20,000-lb) wheel load. (From
Barenberg et al. 1975.)
(3)
6c
(4)
zaUowable = 3-3c
Gross vehicle
weight
(kN/lb)
Load on
rear axles
(kNAb)
Maximum
wheel load
(kN/lb)
33.31/7,489
146.80/33,000
302.48/68,000
289.14/65,000
Not available
324.30/72,906
21.65V4.869
138.59/31,156
169.0/38,000
187.94V4.225
258.0/58,000
324.30/72,906
10.83/2,434
41.58/9,346
50.7/11,400
56.4/12,680
77.4/17,400
113.51/25,520
Tire
pressure
(kPa/psi)
241/35
345/50T
483/701
Not available
414/60
414/60
Notes:
*No rear axle load was given; it was assumed that 65% of the gross vehicle load is applied on the rear axles.
tFrom Jeffrey Stark (personal communication, CRREL, 1997).
Ground
clearance
(m/in.)
0.41/16
0.30/12
0.30/12
0.52/20
0.30/12
Not available
in.
35
30
25
20-
10-
5I
0
60
UndrainedShear \~
Strength 0
>
'
>
80
10
120 kPa
100
12
'
14
'
16
psi
CBR
S-
SO
25
20-
<
CD
<3>
1510
CD
K= 450
K= 400
K= 300
K= 200
K= 100
K= 10
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
kN/m
D
I
80
UndrainedShear I
Strength 0
'
'
'
120
100
I
16
140 kPa
18
Figure 6. Aggregate thickness, h0' (top), and reduction of aggregate thickness, Ah (bottom),
resulting from use ofgeotextile as a function of soil cohesion for 12-in. rut depth. N is number of vehicle passes andKis tensile modulus ofgeotextile. (From Giroud andNoiray 1981.)
i.u
35-
\
0.8 - - \
\
*o
c
CO
m
c
zc
o
1-
?5
0.6
20
<t>
a
a>
ro
<
|\
0.4
15
10
0.2
-\\.
_
\.
^~~~~-------_____w = ioo
"-_____N=1U
40
20
Undrained Shear I
Strength 0
120 kPa
100
80
60
T~^T^"
I
8
10
14
12
16
psi
CBR
m
1.0
iii
353025<D
<0
TO
CD
<
15
at
10
at
u
a>
Q
4rifor:
<3) K= 50kN/m
@ K= 200 kN/m
(D K= 350 kN/m
0.6
?0
CD
c
a
0.8 -
0.4
5
140 kPa
I
16
18
Figure 7. Aggregate thickness, h0' (top), and reduction of aggregate thickness, Ah (bottom),
resulting from use ofgeotextile as a function of soil cohesion for 8-in. rut depth. N is number of vehicle passes and K is tensile modulus ofgeotextile. (From Holtz and Sivakugan
1987.)
aggregate layer should probably be a minimum
of 0.10 to 0.15 m (4-6 in.) to prevent damage to
the geotextile as discussed below.
Notice that for the same conditions without
geotextile, less aggregate is recommended by the
Giroud and Noiray design method than by the
Army method0.2 m (8 in.) compared with 0.25
Geotextile
Subgrade Soil
Initial Location
of Geotextile
Geotextile
(6)
V2
PV2
B-
(7)
Pc
Table 2 presents values for Hmin for a minimal ag-
(a)
Aggregate
r~\
(b)
Soil mechanically
associated with ^1
adjacent tires
_ B
e
10
Aggregate
Surface
s^MMMMw^^,
Geotextile
2a-
Subgrade/Aggregate^
Interface
Figure 10. Wheel load distribution by aggregate layer to subgrade (Giroud and Noiray 1981).
Plastic zone
thickness, offhighway truck
Hmin (m/in.)
80 kN (18,000 lb)/
480 kPa (70 psi)
0.42/16.5
0.47/18.5
60 kN (13,500 lb)
480 kPa (70 psi)
0.38/15
0.43/17
Axle load
kNQb)/
tire pressure
kPa (psi)
d) s =
s=
(9)
(10)
(12)
2ra'
for a> a'
2a +3aa'-a'2
2
ra'
for a > a' and
a + a'
(11)
12
Table 3. Tensile modulus values of geotextiles at 5% strain and at failure based on information in Geotechnical Fabrics Report (1996).
K at 5% strain
(kN/m)/(lb/in.)
Construction,
mass/area
Product
Amoco 2044
Carthage FX-400MF
Contech C-300
Huesker Comtrac 800
Linq GTF 550T
Linq GTF 1000T
Synthetic Industries
Gtx. 200ST
Synthetic Industries
Gtx. 4x4
TNS W300
USA Spantex 5710
Webtec, TTHPG-50
Webtec, TTHPG-57
XD
MD
(oz/y&)
Katfm lure
(kN/m)/(lb/in.)
MD
XD
W-PP, na
W-PP, 427/12
W/S-PP, 200/6
W-PET, 1430/42
W-PET, na
W-PET, na
W/S-PP, 150/4
420/2400
386/2206
174/994
7200/41150
404/2309
1050/6000
174/994
760/4340
456/2606
210/1200
800/4572
404/2309
1050/6000
192/1097
700/4000
542/3098
306/1749
7910/45206
876/5006
1402/8012
233/1333
875/5000
783/4475
383/2186
667/3810
876/5006
1402/8012
300/1715
W/C-PP, 440/13
384/2195
454/2595
500/2858
583/3334
W-PP, 203/6
K-PET, 2566/76
W-PP, na
W-PP
100/570
8000/45720
200/1143
700/4000
280/1600
4000/22860
220/1257
700/4000
290/1657
10000/57150
267/1524
538.5/3078
310/1772
4167/23814
260/1486
487.5/2786
Notes: na = not available, W = woven, K = knitted, PP = polypropylene, PET = polyester, MD = machine direction, XD
= cross-machine direction.
nii|iii|ir
Iir
501.2
} This Study
1.0
CO
CO
<D
c
0.8
o 30I
sz
"co
0.6
<
0.4
10-
0.2
0
I
50 kPa
ii
i"r
Undrained Shear I
Strength 0
CBR
psi
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
r
1.25
1.50
Figure 11. Static loading design curves from Barenberg et al. (1975) and design points generated
for this report according to method documented in Appendix B.
m
1.4
in.
50
1.2
CO
CO
0)
c
2
o
40 1 0
_
30
co
96,000 lb)
a (90 psi)
Vehicle
OH
0.6
80 kN (18,000 lb)
= 480 kPa (70 psi)
Highway Vehicle
20
<
0.4
10
0-
0.2
0
Undrained Shear I
Strength 0
CBR
140 kPa
'
\
2
'
I
4
'
I
6
'
T
8
10
12
20
psi
Figure 12. Static loading design curves without geotextile from Giroud and Noiray (1981) and
points generated for this report according to method documented in Appendix B.
14
in.
m
I.U U
VI
35
i \
0.8 h- A
30
1
90
'
a>
0)
I
.u
25-
^
cu
20-
0.6
-lo
CO
0.4 _lo
15-
D)
O)
\,
<
} This Study
100.2 1
^^^^
5
u
i\.
10
1
Undrained Shear
Strength (
1
20
1
30
1
40
TTI1L 1 I
60
70
80
(]
1
50
CBR
10
'
'
1 DOkPa
I
14
12
psi
Figure 13. Static loading design curves with geotextiles from Giroud and Noiray (1981) and points
generated for this report according to method documented in Appendix B.
in.
50-
V)
(A
40-
m
1.4
1.2
1.0
CD
C
1-
30-
&
O)
S
a
0.8
0.6
20-
<
0.4
10
0.2
140 kPa
Undrained Shear
Strength
CBR
|
rj
|
2
|
4
|
6
|
8
I '
10
I
12
I '
14
I
16
I '
18
I
20
psi
r
0
Figure 14. Static loading design curves adapted from Giroud and Noiray (1981) and Barenberg et
al. (1975) for 10- and 20-ton trucks with tire pressures of 414 kPa (60 psi).
15
Stress
according to
trapezoidal
stress
distribution
(kPa/psi)
Stress
according
to Boussinesq
(Newmark)
method
(kPa/psi)
400.1/58.0
342.1/49.6
265.7/38.5
210.0/30.5
151.1/21.9
116.2/16.9
91.2/13.2
73.0/10.6
59.6/8.6
49.4/7.2
275.4/39.9
198.1/28.7
151.0/21.9
120.4/17.5
99.7/14.5
85.2/12.4
74.8/10.8
67.3/9.8
61.9/9.0
57.9/8.4
Ratio of the
trapezoidal
stress to the
Boussinesq stress
0.69
0.58
0.57
0.60
0.66
0.73
0.82
0.92
1.04
1.17
*The Boussinesq method used to generate results in this report did not add
the pressure due to the weight of the overburden (= yz) whereas the trapezoidal method used did. The calculations were carried out in this manner to be
consistent with how the original researchers presented them. If the weight of
the overburden were added to the stresses estimated by the Boussinesq
method, the differences in stresses at depths of up to 1 m would be even
greater than those listed in Table 5.
in.
15-
m
0.5
1 I I I I 11
it I I I II |
1,' I j -f i 11
0.4-
10Field Trial:
r = 5cm(2in.)
r= 10 cm (4 in.)
-Su = 30kPa
5-
Ar =15 cm (6 in.)
(4-4 Psi)
Austin etadl.)
-Su=40kPa r = 5cm (2 in.)
(5.8 psi) O r= 10 cm (4 in.)
Z
0-1
0.5
1i i Win |
d>
</>
as
CQ
15-
i i i i 111
i i i i 1111 ii iin
0.4
0.3
10-
i i i 111
/+>
^X^X"^ ~
^x1^
iA)
yS/
5-
<&$X
^X
0.1
0.2
0-1
XX
^i i Wii
A
i
Field Trial:
r = 5 cm (2 in.) r= 10 cm (4 in.)
r= 15 cm (6 in.) i
i i ii i
1
10
100
1000
Figure 15. Field performance vs. theoretical prediction by Giroud and Noiray (1981)
for unreinforced test sections (top) and reinforced test sections (bottom). (From
Fannin and Sigurdsson 1996.)
The possibility of using Boussinesq stress distribution through the aggregate layer could be
added to the Giroud and Noiray (1981) design
technique. In addition, shapes other than a circularly loaded area should be considered, and work
that examines stress distributions through aggregates other than crushed rock should also proceed.
This would allow the confident use of design techniques for relatively low-quality aggregate that
might be the only option for theater of operations
military construction.
the pressure measured in compacted clay-soil below the rock layers was reasonably approximated
by a Boussinesq distribution beneath circular
plates. Barenberg et al. (1975) based their theory
on tests that utilized "crushed stone aggregate,"
and, based on the work of McMahon and Yoder
(1960), a Boussinesq stress distribution through it
is a reasonable assumption for such an aggregate.
Unfortunately, Steward et al. (1977) did not describe the aggregate that was used in tests to validate the Barenberg et al. (1975) design method.
17
18
m
1.0
MM
<
350.8 -
30CO
CO
25-
^
aj
20-
0.6
as
0.4
1510
With Geotextile
0.2
50'
i
o
10
20
I
30
M
50
40
Undrained Shear |~
Strength g
i
60
I
i
70
10
I
90
80
12
I
100 kPa
1r
14
psi
CBR
m
1.0
in.
35
0.8
30
CO
25-
0.6
^20-
ra
15 -
0.4
CD
O
<
la0.2
s'
o-
90
Undrained Shear I
Strength 0
'
I
2
100
10
12
14
CBR
Figure 16. Design curves for static loading (up to 100 passes) for 10-ton dump truck, according to
Barenberg (1975) method (top) and Giroud and Noiray (1981) method (bottom). Use of upper figure
is recommended until further research is conducted.
19
m
1.0
in.
'
'
'
I
60
'
'
I
90
35
301
0.8
CO
CO
c
_o
25
0.6 -
CD 20
co
O)
15-| 0.4 -
With Geotextile
O)
10
0.2
0I
0
0
10
20
30
40
Undrained Shear \~
Strength o
50
70
10
80
12
100 kPa
14
psi
CBR
in.
35
30|
c
o
25
\-
20
'si
aj
ra
15
10
5-I
Undrained Shear r
Strength '
CBR
Figure 17. Design curves for static loading (up to 100 passes) for 20-ton dump truck, according to
Barenberg (1975) method (top) and Giroud and Noiray (1981) method (bottom). Use of upper figure
is recommended until further research is conducted.
20
LITERATURE CITED
21
putation of stresses in elastic foundations. University of Illinois Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 12.
Perloff, W. H. (1975) Pressure distribution and
settlement. Foundation Engineering Handbook, H.F.
Winterkorn and H.Y. Fang, eds. Chapter 4. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, p. 148-196.
Soderman, K.L., and J.P. Giroud (1992) Relationship between uniaxial and biaxial stresses and
strains in geosynthetics. Geosynthetics International,
2(2): 495-504.
Steward, J.E., R. Williamson and J. Mohney
(1977) Guidelines for use of fabrics in construction and maintenance of low-volume roads. US
Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, Division of Engineering.
TM5-818-8/AFJMAN 32-1030 (1995) Engineering
use of geotextiles. Headquarters, Departments of
the Army and the Air Force, Washington, D.C.
Yoder, E.J., and M.W. Witczak (1975) Principles of
Pavement Design, Second edition. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
22
<1
lto2
>3
>350(50) <350(50)
>350(50) <350(50)
>350(50) <350(50)
NR
NR
NR
H
100/41
150/6
300/12
450/18
H
H
M
M
NR
NR
H
M
H
H
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
"Maximum aggregate size not to exceed one half of compacted cover thickness.
b
For low-volume, unpaved roads (average daily traffic less than 200 vehicles).
c
Minimum cover thickness is limited to existing road bases and is not intended for use in new construction.
H = high, M = medium, NR = not recommended.
Required
survivability
level
Grab
strength
(kNAb)
ASTMD4632
Puncture
resistance
Q<N/lb)
ASTMD4833
Trapezoidal
tear strength
(kNAb)
ASTMD4533
H
M
270/180
180/115
100/75
70/40
100/75
70/40
Test method
Additional requirements
Apparent opening size
1. <50% soil finer than 0.075 mm, AOS <0.6 mm
2. >50% soil finer than 0.075 mm, AOS > 0.3 mm
ASTMD4751
Permeability
ASTMD4491
"geotextile
>
^soil
Ultraviolet degradation
At 150 hr exposure, 70% of strength retained for
all cases
ASTM D 4355
Geotextile acceptance
ASTM D 4759
23
Unsewn overlap
(mm/in.)
Sewn overlap
(mm/in.)
<1
1-2
2-3
>3
NR
965/38
762/30
610/24
229/9
203/8
76/3
NR = Not recommended.
24
(B-l)
where a = atan(r / z), and r is the radius of the circle and z is the depth at which
the stress determination is desired (z is located directly below the center of the
circularly loaded area).
The expression for a is substituted into eq B.l and is rearranged to yield
atan(-l = acos(l-o)\
(B.2)
(i-g)1
l-(l-0)3
For a range of soil cohesion, c, and a known applied stress, the stress that can be
tolerated at the subgrade is given by either 3.3 c (without geotextile) or 6.0 c with
geotextile. Thus, the ratio of soil strength to applied pressure, e.g., a = (3.3c/contact
pressure) is used to determine the thickness of the aggregate layer needed. Example work sheets from the Mathcad 6.0 software used to make these calculations
follow.
25
r = 0.29735 m
, v
"y"J
6.0c
ConPress
r^[
- = 0.97557
ft
1.45038
2.90075
4.35113
5.80151
7.25189
8.70226
z(c,r) = r
[1-<)3
1-[l-o(c)]f
c
z(c,r)
0.89647
0.58732
0.43709
0.33620
0.25473
0.17497
m
m
m
m
m
m
1.000 000
2.000 000
3.000 000
4.000 000
5.000 000
6.000 000
104
104
104
104
104
104
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
m- 1
1
rrr
1
rrr
1
nr
nr 1
1
rrr
seer2
sec-2
sec-2
sec-2
sec-2
seer2
26
e = 2.0 m
P = 230 000 newton
r = 0.3m
B =.
B = 0.745 m
L=
L=
If
-527 m
a(h) + aprime(h)
1+
2-s(h)
a(h)
a(h)
2.s(h)
In
^)Jl +
2s(h)
a(h)
1+
1+
2[r-s(h)]
1 aprime(h) j
2^
aprime(h) ,
2.
r S h
- ' > +
aprime(h)
2[r-s(h)]
1 aprime(h)
27
eh:
()
b(h) + bprime(h)
a(h) + aprime(h)
-1
Cu(K,P,h) =
K- e(h)
71 + 2
Cu (K, P, h)
5.181 104kgnr 1 seer2
0m
-2
0.1 m
0.2 m
2.099 10 kg m- seer
0.3 m
0.4 m
0.5 m
0.6 m
0.7 m
0.8 m
0.9 m
1 m
WRITEPRN(Gir20t) = Cu (K, P, h)
28
a(h)Jl + [ a(h) 1
[2-s(h)J
Form Approved
Public reporting burden for this collection erf information Is estimated to average i hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestion for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington,
VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
2. REPORT DATE
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank)
June 1999
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
WU: TO-007
4A161102AT4Z
6. AUTHORS
Karen S. Henry
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
Thawing fine-grained soils are often saturated and have extremely low bearing capacity. Geosynthetics are used to
reinforce unsurfaced roads on weak, saturated soils and therefore are good candidates for use in stabilization of
thawing soils. To stabilize the soil, a geotextile is placed on it, then the geotextile is covered with aggregate. Design
involves selection of aggregate thickness and geotextile. There are two commonly used design techniques for
geotextile reinforcement of low-volume roads, and the Army uses one of them. The theory and use of the two
design methods for static loading (i.e., up to 100 vehicle passes) are presented and compared in this report. The
design method not used by the Army offers the potential to reduce aggregate thickness over the geotextile because
it accounts for the fact that the geotextile helps support the traffic load (when in tension) and confines the soil
between the wheels and the subgrade. However, this alternative method appears to be unconservative with respect to stresses estimated at the subgrade surface. Thus, the current Army design technique should be used until
more research is conducted. In the meantime, straightforward design curves for Army 10- and 20-ton trucks as
well as vehicle loading and tire pressure information for a number of other vehicles are included in this report to
help make the current design method easy to use.
Future work should consider adopting a hybrid design method that provides realistic estimates of stresses at the
subgrade and accounts for the tensile properties of geotextiles. In addition, aggregates other than the high-quality
crushed rock that is inherently assumed by each design method should be accounted for in new design development.
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
14. SUBJECT TERMS
Military vehicles
Geosynthetics
36
Reinforcement
Geotextiles
16. PRICE CODE
Thawing soils
Low-bearing-capacity soils
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
UNCLASSIFIED
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
UL
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102