Index Testing of the Junction Strength of Geogrids

J. Kupec & A. McGown

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
geotech@strath.ac.uk
A. Ruiken
Technische Universität Darmstadt, Germany.
axle_r@gmx.de

ABSTRACT: Geogrids consist of orthogonal sets of tensile bars with junctions at the points of cross-over of
the bars. The stiffnesses of the two sets of bars may be very different or be similar, indeed one set of bars may
be very much weaker than the other so that the geogrid may only effectively resist uniaxial loading. Thus two
classes of geogrid reinforcements may be identified; uniaxial geogrids, which develop tensile stiffness and
strength primarily in one direction, and biaxial geogrids which, develop tensile stiffness and strength in two
orthogonal directions. However, apart from different stiffnesses and strength in orthogonal directions,
geogrids may exhibit different forms of junctions. These junctions may have several functions, including
maintaining the geometrical form of the structure during transport and installation; enabling stresses and
strains to be transferred through the geogrid and from the soil into the geogrid, so called interlocking between
the soil and the grid. To date, all junction test methods aim to determine Index, (quality control), properties.
These tests are not necessarily related to the design (Performance) requirements of the geogrids. Thus in this
paper, two junction strength Index tests are described and then related to the operational requirements of
uniaxial and biaxial geogrids.

1 INTRODUCTION In this paper, the differences in the nature of

geogrids manufactured by different processes are
Geogrids are produced in a variety of geometrical identified. The different operational behaviours of
forms using a wide range of polymeric materials and these geogrids are then discussed. Details are given
numerous manufacturing techniques. Two classes of of two Index test methods for junction strength
geogrid reinforcements may be identified; uniaxial testing. Test results are presented, compared and
geogrids, which develop tensile stiffness and strength related to the operational behaviours of different
primarily in one direction, and biaxial geogrids geogrid types.
which, develop tensile stiffness and strength in two
orthogonal directions. Uniaxial and biaxial geogrids
exhibit markedly diverse behaviours and are 2 GEOGRID TYPES
employed in very different applications.
Another characteristic of geogrids is that they may The load-strain behaviour of geogrids may vary
possess different forms of junctions, including significantly in two orthogonal directions. This is
entangled, heat bonded, welded and integral associated with variations in the material and
junctions. For geogrids with entangled or integral geometrical properties of bars and junctions in these
junctions, the junctions usually lie along the central directions, Kupec & McGown (2004) and McGown
axis of the bars. Thus, for most loading conditions & Kupec (2004).
any forces passing through the junctions develop Uniaxial geogrids usually exhibit a high stiffness
only shear in the material forming the junction. For in one particular direction and a very low to
geogrids with heat-bonded or welded junctions, the negligible stiffness in the other direction. The main
junctions are usually offset from the central axis of function of the secondary cross-members and
the bars. Thus, for some loading conditions torque junctions are to provide geometrical stability during
forces may be applied to the junctions. As a result transport and installation, but they may also provide
there can be a degree of rotation of the bars entering the possibility of interlock with the soil in which they
the junctions and tearing of one set of bars away are placed. Such uniaxial geogrids are intended for
from the other set, particularly at large deformations, use in plane strain applications.
Ziegler & Timmers (2004). Therefore, under some Biaxial geogrids exhibit stiffness and strength in
conditions junctions may be subject to both shear and two orthogonal directions. In these materials, the bars
torque forces. and junctions provide geometrical stability during

797
transport and installation and almost always provide due to bearing stresses in front of the cross-members.
interlock with the soil in which they are placed. Possibly at Serviceability Limit State conditions, and
Biaxial geogrids may be divided into anisotropic almost always at Ultimate Limit State conditions, the
and isotropic biaxial geogrids. Anisotropic biaxial stresses and strains in Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
geogrids exhibit dissimilar stiffnesses in two Structure are likely to be large. Thus under uniaxial
principal directions. They are used in anisotropic and anisotropic loading/strain conditions, the
loading conditions, i.e. where there is a primary and a behaviour of junctions is likely to be dominated by
secondary degree of loading/strain. Isotropic biaxial shear forces developed due to bearing stresses
geogrids exhibit very similar stiffnesses and strengths mobilised in front of the cross-members, combined
in two orthogonal directions and are used in isotropic with torque forces due to vertical displacement of the
loading conditions, i.e. where there is almost an cross-members, Fig. 1a. However, for isotropic
equal degree of loading/strain in orthogonal biaxial loading/strain conditions the behaviour of
directions. junctions is likely to be dominated by shear forces
The operational behaviours of uniaxial and biaxial generated due to loads and strains in two orthogonal
geogrids varies greatly and it is important to use directions, Fig. 1b.
appropriate types of geogrids for uniaxial,
anisotropic and isotropic loading/strain situations.
5 INDEX TESTING OF JUNCTION
STRENGTHS
3 JUNCTION TYPES AND THEIR
BEHAVIOURS Two Index tests were employed to determine the
junction strength of a range of geogrids. The first test
The junction types now in use are entangled fibres or was the well established test method developed by
filaments, heat or chemically bonded, laser or the Geotextile Research Institute [GRI] at Drexel
microwave welded bars or integral junctions formed University in the USA and the second, a newly
during the uniaxial or biaxial drawing of punched developed test method at the University of
sheets. All types of junctions provide geometrical Strathclyde in the UK, Kupec et al (2004).
stability during transport and installation and to some
degree enable interaction with the fill in which they
are placed. 5.1 GRI GG2 (1987) Test Method
Geogrids formed with entangled or heat-bonded
junctions generally only possess adequate junction This test methodology for junction strength testing
strength to transfer stresses from one set of bars to was developed at a time when the only geogrids
another when they are subject to significant normal exhibiting significant unconfined junction strength
confining stresses. were integral junction geogrids. These have junctions
Geogrids formed with welded or integral junctions in the same plane as the tensile bars. This test
most often exhibit sufficient unconfined junction methodology was intended to provide Index (quality
strength to transfer stresses from one set of bars to control) test data and not Performance (design) test
another under either uniaxial or biaxial loading/strain data and is appropriate to the geogrids for which it
conditions. was developed. Figure 2 shows the clamping
arrangement used in this test method.

4 OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
5.2 Strathclyde Test Method, after Kupec et al (2004)
Most Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Structures
exhibit very small strains and loads under normal This test methodology for junction strength testing
operational conditions. Long-term monitoring of full- was recently developed for geogrids with welded
scale structures and laboratory modelling of load junctions, i.e. for geogrids possessing junctions
supporting structures indicate that very small which are not in the same plane as the tensile ribs.
deformation levels in reinforcing elements are This test methodology was again intended only to
developed, Stolarski and Gartung (2001), Murate et provide Index (quality control) test data and not
al (2001) and Zornberg & Arriaga (2003). design (Performance) test data. The clamping
The behaviour of junctions of both uniaxial and arrangement is shown in Figure 3.
biaxial geogrids at these low operational strain levels
is likely to be dominated by shear forces developed

798
 NOTE: Deformation of cross-members in pull-out, after
Ziegler & Timmers (2004)

a) Pull-out behaviour in uniaxial loading/strain b) Grid behaviour in isotropic loading/strain

situations situations

Figure 1. Geogrid behaviour under isotropic and anisotropic loadings

Figure 2. Clamping arrangements after GRI GG-2 (1987)

on
anB
ABA
mping
ove
riction A Section A-A Section B-B
plan
B
Area Ktilled

Area
B
A
Figure 3. Clamping arrangements, after Kupec et al (2004)

799
 Table 1. Properties of isotropic biaxial geogrids tested
Product Type Polymer Manufactures
(isotropic biaxial Nominal
geogrid) Strength*
MD / XMD
[kN/m]
A Polypropylene 80 / 80
B Polypropylene 60 / 60
C Polypropylene 40 / 40
D Polypropylene 30 / 30
E Polyester 60 / 60
F Polyester 40 / 40
(a) Junction Rupture (b) Shear displacement G Polyester 30 / 30
and separation Molecular State: Highly oriented, semi-cristalline
Macro Structure: Pre-stretched monolithic flat
Figure 4. Modes of failure
bars welded at right angles
*NOTE: Short-term strength according to
Manufacturer Specification

Table 2. Test data obtained after GRI-GG2 (1987) Table 3. Test data obtained after Kupec et al (2004)

Junction Geogrid Junction Geogrid

A B C D E F G A B C D E F G
1 632 441 363 371 1443 985 841 1 753 644 520 566 2445 1097 1415
2 646 427 366 386 2056 1014 726 2 796 557 439 571 2380 1173 1264
3 439 438 353 380 2251 1064 875 3 1035 633 470 520 2564 1213 1228
4 549 424 345 370 2060 1013 900 4 785 629 460 596 2434 1203 1233
5 641 505 339 373 2103 1061 567 5 579 618 460 530 2315 1334 1168
6 608 380 367 390 2134 967 915 6 655 579 470 535 2337 1061 1173
7 498 461 376 384 2160 1080 862 7 612 633 505 672 2423 1163 1137
8 497 356 364 388 1773 1029 801 8 774 492 687 601 2456 1087 1163
9 443 448 353 375 1383 1018 911 9 264 622 561 566 2369 1203 1203
10 548 389 383 337 1976 997 788 10 720 590 480 515 2217 1082 1087
11 566 397 321 376 1984 856 944 11 655 579 510 621 2423 1026 1324
12 525 466 333 403 2027 1017 960 12 709 622 460 500 2445 1208 1259
13 374 486 304 366 1401 1073 911 13 709 655 439 637 2358 1092 1269
14 547 407 310 371 2107 991 808 14 644 525 465 485 2619 1087 1289
15 462 330 310 378 2049 1019 947 15 492 514 470 682 2478 1137 1097
16 620 435 376 375 1922 810 886 16 633 688 490 561 2326 975 -/-
17 218 443 342 364 1722 758 745 17 547 622 556 571 2272 920 -/-
18 519 429 347 339 2112 667 548 18 894 655 480 490 2586 819 -/-
19 461 467 345 345 2094 687 599 19 731 633 500 530 2489 950 -/-
20 604 371 404 361 1892 515 686 20 709 677 642 525 2489 490 -/-
Average 520 425 350 372 1932 931 811 Average 685 608 503 564 2421 1066 1221
Standard 104 44 26 17 258 160 128 Standard 156 53 65 57 103 180 88
Deviation 20% 10% 7% 4% 13% 17% 16% Deviation 23% 9% 13% 10% 4% 17% 7%
All values in [N] All values in [N]

800
Table 4 Comparison of test results for welded this manner, the junction clamp must be customised
geogrids made from Polypropylene [PP] for each geogrid product.
For the testing, the bottom clamp used was an
Welded Geogrid [PP] unmodified high-friction clamp that holds the sample
A B C D across its full width in the standard manner. The top
clamp was modified according to GRI GG-2 (1987)
Nominal Strength [kN/m] 80/80 60/60 40/40 30/30
or Kupec et al (2004). A prepared test specimen was
inserted into the clamps, the clamps were then closed
AVG GRI-GG2 [N] 520 425 350 372 and secured, and placed into the tensile testing
machine. The tests were conducted at a cross head
AVG Strathclyde [N] 685 608 503 564 speed of about 50mm/minute. After testing, the
specimen was removed from the clamps and
GRI-GG2 /
[%] 76% 70% 70% 66% examined to determine the mode of failure, Fig. 4.
Strathclyde
GRI GG-2 (1987) suggested the testing of at least
10 specimens to determine specimen variation and
reproducibility, however, the number of specimens
Table 5 Comparison of test results for welded was increased with up to 20 samples tested to
geogrids made from Polyester [PET] account for specimen variation and to check various
welding positions.
Welded Geogrid [PET]
E F G
6 TEST RESULTS
Nominal Strength [kN/m] 60/60 40/40 30/30
Seven geogrids with welded junctions manufactured
AVG GRI-GG2 [N] 1932 931 811 with either Polypropylene [PP] or Polyester [PET]
and Nominal Strength ranging from 30 to 80kN/m
AVG Strathclyde [N] 2421 1066 1221 were tested. Their properties are presented in Table 1.
Twenty samples for each geogrid product were
GRI-GG2 / prepared and tested as described in GRI GG2 (1987).
[%] 80% 87% 66%
Strathclyde Test data, in form of junction rupture strength, for
each geogrid are given in Table 2, together with the
standard deviations and average values.
Twenty samples for each geogrid product were
prepared and tested, as detailed in Kupec et al (2004).
5.3 Index Testing Test data for each junction are given in Table 3,
together with the standard deviations and average
The number, size and conditioning of the test values.
samples for both tests were identical. The test Tables 4 and 5 shows the average test results from
procedures were also identical. Thus, all the test the seven geogrids obtained by the two different test
specimens were cut and prepared according to BS methods. As can be seen from the test data the
EN 20139 (1992) and exposed to the test junction strengths obtained from the GRI GG2
environment of 20ºC and 60% relative humidity at (1987) test method is consistently lower than the
least 24 hours prior to testing. The tensile test Strathclyde test method, i.e. samples tested under
machine employed for the testing was capable of shear forces only exhibited significantly higher
reaching loads up to 20kN applied at a constant rate strengths than those tested with a combination of
of deformation. A calibrated load cell was attached to shear and torque forces.
an electronic data logger. The load cell was
calibrated up to the maximum load expected to be
reached during testing, which was 1.5kN. 7 CONCLUSIONS
The only difference between the two test
methodologies lay in the clamping arrangements, as • Geogrids with different directional properties,
shown in Figures 2 and 3. The GRI GG2 (1987) manufactured by various methods were identified
clamp allows shear and torque to develop in and their differences in tensile stiffness and
junctions which are not in the same plane as the strength were discussed.
tensile bars. The Strathclyde, Kupec et al (2004), • Different junction types were identified and
clamp ensures that only shear is applied to such classified in to two broad categories, i.e.
junctions. In order for the Strathclyde clamp to act in junctions that possess adequate unconfined
junction strength to transfer stresses from one set

801
 of bars to another and those that require
significant confined pressures before they are
able to transfer stresses.
• For different types of applications and
operational environments, it was shown that the
uniaxial or biaxial junction behaviour is REFERENCES
dominated the geogrid ‘in-soil’ behaviour.
• It was found that at low strains under either BS EN 20139, 1992: Textiles standard atmospheres
uniaxial or biaxial load/strain conditions only for conditioning and testing, British Standard
shear forces are likely to develop at the junctions. Institution, London, UK.
• For large strains under uniaxial or highly GRI-GG2-87 1987: Geogrid junction strength.
anisotropic conditions shear and torque forces Geosynthetic Research Institute, Philadelphia,
develop in the junctions. USA.
• It is suggested that the established GRI GG-2 Kupec, J., & McGown, A. 2004: The biaxial load-
(1987) test method, which generates shear and strain behaviour of biaxial geogrids. Proceedings
torque forces on a junction, is applicable to of the 3rd Asian Regional Conf. on Geosynthetics,
geogrids with integral junctions and welded Seoul, Korea, to be published.
junctions when large strains are mobilised. Kupec, J., McGown, A. & Ruiken, A. 2004: Junction
• It is suggested that the test method developed at strength testing for geogrids. Proceedings of 3rd
the University of Strathclyde, Kupec at al (2004), European Conf. on Geosynthetics – EuroGeo3,
is applicable to low uniaxial strains and any München, Germany, Vol. 2, p.717-722.
isotropic biaxial loading conditions for both McGown, A. & Kupec, J. 2004: A new approach to
integral and welded junctions. the assessment of the behaviour of geogrids
• It is suggested that the operational performance subject to biaxial loading. Proceedings of 3rd
of geogrids with heat-bonded and woven European Conf. on Geosynthetics – EuroGeo3,
junctions is dependent on the applied confining München, Germany, Vol. 2, p.643-648.
pressures. Therefore, ‘in-soil’ testing at Murate, O., Uchimura, T. Ogata, k., Tayama, S.,
operational confining pressures instead of Ogisako, E., Kojima, K., Nishimura, J., Hirata, M.
unconfined ‘in-isolation’ testing is recommended & Miyatake, H. 2001: Long-term performance and
for these types of geogrids. seismic stability of reinforced soil structures
• It is emphasised that the junction strength test reported in Japan. Landmarks in Earth
methods presented were developed as Index Reinforcement - Proc. Int. Symposium on Earth
(quality control) tests only and are not suitable as Reinforcement, Fukuoka, Japan, vol. 2, pp. 1065-
Performance (design) test methods. 1091.
• It is important to use an appropriate Index Stolarski. G, & Gartung, E. 2001: Geogrid-reinforced
(quality control) test method. The test method to road embankment over an old dump. Landmarks in
be used may vary with the geogrid type. Earth Reinforcement - Proc. Int. Symposium on
• Although, an attempt has been made in this paper Earth Reinforcement, Fukuoka, Japan, vol. 1, pp.
to relate test results obtained from Index (quality 281-285.
control) testing to operational conditions, i.e. Ziegler, M. & Timmers, V. 2004: A new approach to
plane-strain or isotropic strain conditions at SLS design geogrid reinforcement. Proceedings of 3rd
and ULS conditions, care has to be taken to European Conf. on Geosynthetics – EuroGeo3,
ensure that an appropriate interpretation of such München, Germany, Vol. 2, p.661-666.
test data is undertaken. Zornberg, J.G. & Arriaga, F. 2003: Strain distribution
within geosynthetic-reinforced slopes. ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering; vol. 129, no. 1, pp. 32-45.

802