table

3
Table 1 Design Approaches and Procedures for Base/Sub Base Reinforcement Develop er Geosynthe tic Type Applicabi lity Distress mode and Design Format Empirica l Support Maximum Range of Improvemen t Giroud and Noiray (1981) Geotextil e Empirical method 75 mm Rut depth Quasista tic analysis 30% to 50% reduction in base course thickness Penner et al. (1985) Speci c geogrid Based on C.B.R 4.3 to 5.7% 20 mm Rut depth/ Equation and chart Lab Test 30% to 50% reduction in base course thickness Burd and Houlsby (1986) Genetic Geosynthe tic Isotropic elastopla stic surface deformation/ FE M Computer Programe F.E.M Improvemen t after 4 mm surface deformatio n Barksda le et al. (1989) Genetic Geosynthe tic Isotropic elastopla stic surface deformati on/ FE M Computer Programe Field Result 4% to 18% reduction base thickness Barksda le et al. (1989) Geogrid C.B.R 2.4% Vertical deformati on charts, computer programe Field Test 4% to 18% reduction in base course thickness Webster (1993) Specific Geogrid Based on C.B.R 3 Rut depth (25 mm)/ Field Test BCR = 5% to 45%

Upload: pratibha-singh

Post on 19-Dec-2015

4 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

gg

TRANSCRIPT

Table 1 Design Approaches and Procedures for Base/Sub Base ReinforcementDeveloperGeosynthetic TypeApplicabilityDistress mode and Design FormatEmpirical SupportMaximum Range ofImprovement

Giroud andNoiray (1981)

GeotextileEmpirical method75 mm Rut depthQuasistaticanalysis

30% to 50% reductionin base coursethickness

Penner et al.(1985)

Specic geogrid Based on C.B.R4.3 to 5.7%

20 mm Rut depth/ Equation and chart

Lab Test

30% to 50% reductionin base coursethickness

Burd andHoulsby (1986)GeneticGeosyntheticIsotropicelastoplasticsurfacedeformation/FE M ComputerProgrameF.E.MImprovement after4 mm surfacedeformation

Barksdale et al.(1989)

Genetic Geosynthetic

Isotropicelastoplasticsurfacedeformation/

FE M ComputerPrograme

Field Result4% to 18% reductionbase thickness

Barksdale et al.(1989)

GeogridC.B.R 2.4% Verticaldeformation charts,

computer programe

Field Test4% to 18% reductionin base coursethickness

Webster (1993)SpecificGeogrid

Based on C.B.R 3to 8%

Rut depth (25 mm)/ Design charts

Field Test BCR = 5% to 45%

Tensar (1996)SpecificGeogrid

Based on C.B.R1.9 to 8%20 to 30 mm rutdepth/equations,charts, computerprograme

Lab & test trackcorrelate to fieldtest

Traffic Benefit Ratio(TBR) = 1.5 to 10

J.G. Collin, T.C.Kinney (1996)

GeogridC.B.R 1 to 8%Surface ruttingFull Scale Lab.test

Traffic Benefit Ratio(TBR) = 2 to 10%

Akzo-Nobel(1998)

Specific GG-GTComposite

Not statedBearing capacity/Equation & charts

Plate Load Test(Meyer 7 Elias,1999)

BCR = 32% to 56%

Perkins S.W.(1999)

Geogrid - --Permanent surfacedeformation

Full Scale Lab.test

At least 30% reductionin base coursethickness

Giroud & Han(2004)

GeogridTheoretical designmethod

allowable rut depth,e.g. 75 mm.

Empirical testcalibrated withfield test

Up to 30% reductionin base coursethickness

Rudolf Hufenus,Rueegger et. at(2005)

GeogridC.B.R 1 to 4% Rut depthFull scale Fieldtest

Up to 30% reductionin base coursethickness

Bassam Saadand Hani Mitri(2006)

Geogrid -Surfacedeformation

3D F.E.MReduction of Ruttingstrain up to 16 to 34%

Imad L. Al-Qadiet.at (2010)

Geogrid C.B.R 4%Surface ruttingFull scale testReduction inpavement response upto 23-31%