STATIC PUNCTURE RESISTANCE OF NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILES

Adam Bolt 1, Angelika Duszyńska 2

1,2
Gdańsk University of Technology, ul. Narutowicza 11, 80-233 Gdańsk, Poland.
E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract. The knowledge of mechanical strength reduction for geotextiles and geotextile-related products connected
with their mechanical damage during installation and usage is very important to control their behaviour in soil. In this
paper different kinds of geotextiles puncture tests and their applicability are discussed. CBR puncture tests conducted
according to EN ISO 12236, for non-woven geotextiles, with different mechanical and physical parameters, are pre-
sented. The tests results obtained for undisturbed (before placement in embankment) and recovered (after placement
in embankment) geotextiles are discussed.

Keywords:. non-woven geotextile, separation, laboratory tests, puncture resistance, CBR test, tensile strength.

1. Introduction by measuring the change over time in ultimate tensile

strength (and percentage of elongation at failure) and
Geotextiles for separation and protection have been puncture resistance.
used in soil construction for near forty years. The devel- Based on field drop tests, conducted in Singapore
opment of new different geotextiles and related products (Wong et al. 2000) was shown the influence of different
and rising numbers of applications contributed to elabo- site conditions on puncture resistance of geotextiles. Den-
rating methods of testing and classification parameters of sity, type of soil and presence of secondary stones gener-
geotextiles. ate different failure mechanisms to cause punctures in the
Geotextiles of all types can be damaged during in- geotextiles.
stallation. Reduction of mechanical strength is often con- Other data were obtained from field and laboratory
nected with mechanical damage caused by direct contact simulated damage trials on various geotextiles conducted
between soil backfill and geosynthetics under load. The in Ireland (Naughton and Kempton 2002). They showed
placement of aggregate upon a fabric can cause damage that the retained strength is correlated to mass per unit
but this can be minimised by good installation practices. area, strain energy and the deflected shape of geotextiles
Various tests have been developed which seek to model in situ.
installation damage in the laboratory. A comprehensive review of field test results by
The searching of optimal methods for the determina- Hufenus et al. (2002) indicates that the installation dam-
tion of puncture resistance of geosynthetics leads to the age of geotextiles depends on geotextile type, aggregate
new proposition of tests. The most prevalent tests of me- gradation and grain shape, aggregate lift thickness, com-
chanical durability are dynamic puncture test (cone drop paction energy and type of compaction equipment. Due to
method) according to EN ISO 13433 and the static punc- the large number of variables affecting the results of field
ture test according to CBR method described in EN ISO tests, mostly qualitative evaluations of the available in-
12236. The newest test method simulating static puncture formation can be obtained.
of geotextiles and geotextile-related products is ”pyramid Hufenus et al. (2002) carried out field installation
test” according to EN ISO 14574. This standard was tests on the 1:1 scale on different geotextiles. The find-
developed to quantify the efficiency of geosynthetics in ings regarding installation and compaction damages on
protecting different sub-bases. (Bolt et al. 2003). geosynthetics have been used to determine corresponding
The literature shows (Collins and Holtz 2005) that reduction factor, which must be taken into account for
geotextiles’ strength loss primarily occurs during con- rating of constructions reinforced with geosynthetics in
struction, and further strength loss in geotextiles due to order to determine their long-term tensile strength.
aging degradation is negligible over the service life of the In this paper, the special emphasis was put on the
geotextile. The durability of geotextiles can be evaluated standard CBR puncture. The aim of the present study was

1083
to determine the influence of installation and the estima- 2.2. CBR test
tion of puncture resistance of geotextiles, and compari-
sons of undisturbed strength parameters with recovered The CBR test simulates big stones pressed into geo-
test samples. Completed information on geotextiles prop- synthetic laying on soft sub-base. This test according to
erties may be used to obtain first order approximation PN-EN ISO 12236 is standardized worldwide. It deter-
between the static puncture strength and mass per unit mines the puncture resistance of geotextiles and geotex-
area. An experimental investigation was conducted in tile-related products by pushing a 50 mm diameter flat-
order to develop correlation between the static puncture ended plunger through the centre of 150 mm diameter
strength and other mechanical and physical properties of specimen until failure is recorded. The specimen is se-
geotextiles. The aim of the study was to determine the cured between the clamping rings of the clamping sys-
influence of installation and the estimation of puncture tem, without any support (see Fig 2). The test result is the
resistance of geotextiles, and comparisons of tensile mean of the push-through force, the mean of the push-
strength parameters of undisturbed and recovered sam- through displacement and the coefficient of variation.
ples of non- woven geotextiles.

2. Procedures of puncture tests

2.1. Cone drop test

The dynamic perforation test, called worldwide

“cone drop” test indicates the likely performance of geo-
textile submitted to installation stresses. It provides evi-
dence of the suitability of the geotextile to withstand
possible damage in separation and filtration functions,
especially when the aggregate placed onto the geotextile
is sharp or angular in shape.
The test standardized in EN ISO 13433 simulates Fig 2. An arrangement for CBR test
dropping sharp stones onto geotextile surface. It specifies
the determination of the resistance of geotextiles and The CBR puncture test gives an indication of the
geotextile-related products to the penetration by a steel ability of the geotextile to withstand slow puncture initia-
cone, of 45° tip angle, dropped from a fixed height tion. It enables the selection of a geotextile with sufficient
(500 mm) onto the centre of 150 mm diameter specimen. robustness to minimise installation damage and ensure
The specimen is secured, without any support (see Fig 1), the required properties are maintained for the service life
between the clamping rings. The degree of penetration is of the product.
measured by insertion of narrow-angle graduated cone
into the hole. The test result is the mean hole diameter in 2.3. Pyramid test
mm and the coefficient of variation.
The pyramid puncture resistance test, according to
EN ISO 14574 simulates a geosynthetic’s efficiency in
protecting a geomembrane or other contact surface
against sharp rigid elements under short term loading.
The standard specified two methods to determine the
pyramid puncture resistance of geosynthetic on rigid and
soft support.

Fig 3. Pyramid test configuration with rigid support

Fig 1. An arrangement for cone drop test
To simulate the static puncture of geotextile on rigid
The smaller the hole, the greater the resistance of support, test specimen lies flat on an aluminium plate (see
geotextile to damage. When used in combination with Fig 3) supported by a steel base, and a force is extorted
other direct tensile test results, it provides a convenient the centre of the test specimen by a steel pyramid until
means of qualitative comparison. perforation occurs. The puncture load is registered by
1084
electrical circuit between the loading piston and the alu- with the aid of a vibrating roll – eight passes. Traffic
minium plate. The recorded push-trough load (the aver- damage was simulated by several passes of four axle
age of test values) is considered to be representative for truck. Fig 5 shows the cross-section of field trials.
the protection efficiency of specimen.
melaphyre 0.30 m
Loading piston geotextile
Electrical circuit
Test sample Contact plate embankment

Upper fixing ring 0.5 4.0 m 0.5

Lower fixing ring
PU-foam 150mm

1 :1
5.
1: 1

.5
o 150mm
Fig 5. The cross-section of field trials

The physical properties of three kinds of non-woven

Fig 4. Pyramid test configuration with soft support needle-punched geotextiles P009, P011 and P013 used in
the test, mass per unit area (determined according to
The static puncture test with pyramid-ended plunder EN ISO 9864) and thickness (determined according to
and soft support is presented in Annex A of EN ISO EN ISO 9863-1) for the undisturbed geotextile before
14574. In this method the test specimen is secured be- placement in embankment (I) and the recovered (II) test
tween the clamping rings of the CBR-cylinder (see samples after placement in embankment, are presented in
Fig 4). A resilient PU-foam (compressible foam which Table 1 (Bolt et al. 2006).
regains its original thickness after release of the load) is
used as a support. This foam is situated inside a steel Table 1. Physical property of nonwoven geotextiles
CBR-cylinder as compression based. The flexible contact P009 P011 P013
Property
plate is placed on PU-foam under geotextile sample to I* II** I* II** I* II**
capable closing of signalling electrical circuit. The test Mass per unit
procedure is similar to the test procedure on rigid support. 825 875 1078 1217 1280 1375
area [g/m2]
Thickness[mm]
3. Performed tests at load
2 kPa 6.03 4.20 7.19 5.89 8.02 6.01
3.1. Testing machine 20 kPa 5.16 3.75 6.51 5.30 7.44 5.54
200 kPa 3.44 1.98 4.52 3.11 5.27 3.51
The Zwick 1476 testing machine of accuracy class 1
was used. The press is capable of providing constant test * geotextile before placement in embankment
speed, recording force and displacement. It also provides ** recovered geotextile– after placement in embankment
an autographic read-out of force and displacement. This
machine can be equipped with a CBR cylinder and differ-
ent types of loading piston, for example: a steel plunger 3.3. Wide-width tensile test
with a diameter of 50 mm for CBR tests and a loading
Series of wide-width tensile tests were carried out
piston with a diameter of 25 mm with a polish and hard- according to EN 10319:2008. This standard describes the
ened pyramid-shaped apex for “pyramid tests”. index test method for the determination of the tensile
properties of geotextiles and related products, using
3.2. Materials
a wide-width strip.
The products used in the tests were mechanically The tests were conducted under standard laboratory
bonded nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles made of conditions using the numbers of specified by standard.
UV-stabilized polypropylene filament, commonly used as The test, for all kinds of geotextiles, uses conditioned test
separator or protective layer for geomembranes and seal- specimens of 200 mm width and of 100 mm length.
ing layers. A test specimen is held in the jaws of a tensile testing
In order to quantify the magnitude of the strength machine, operated at a rate of strain of (20 ± 5) % per
reduction factors the tests were carried out for original minute, and a longitudinal force applied until the speci-
products and recovered test samples. men ruptures.
For the recovered test samples the field trials were The tests were carried out to investigate the uniaxial
conducted on 4,0 m by 3,5 m sections of each geotextile. stress-strain behaviour of nonwoven needle-punched
The geotextiles were placed on an overload embankment geotextiles (Fig 6). Five specimens for three products:
built-up with coarse sand and all-in aggregate. The geo- P009, P011 and P013 were tested in both machine direc-
textiles were then covered with melaphyre to minimum tion and cross direction. The results of the wide-width
depth of 300 mm. The melaphyre layer was compacted tensile tests of the P009, P011 and P013 non-woven geo-

1085
textiles in two directions based on ten samples are pre- dures. The test specimens recovered from embankment
sented in Tables 2 (undisturbed geotextile before place- were not washed or rinsed before testing. These speci-
ment in embankment) and 3 (recovered test samples after mens had clogged particles during testing, so it could lead
placement in embankment). to the strengthening of the samples.
90

80

tensile strength at break

70

60

[kN/m]
50

40

30
I II I II
I II
20

10

0
P009 P011 P013
Geotextile

Fig 7. Comparison of average value of tensile strength

Fig 6. View of wide-width tensile test for undisturbed (I) and recovered (II) test samples

Table 2. Tensile parameters of undisturbed geotextile (I) Collins and Holtz (2005) found that a general de-
crease in percentage of elongation at failure occurred
Tensile strength at break Tensile strain at break
[kN/m] [%]
during construction and that very little change has oc-
Prod- curred in the period since construction.
uct cross aver- cross aver-
ma- ma-
ma- age ma- age
chine chine 3.4. CBR puncture tests
chine value chine value
P009 43,21 45,59 44,40 99,83 73,95 86,89 The static puncture resistance of non-woven geotex-
P011 66,38 67,21 66,80 118,82 108,85 113,84 tiles was determined by following the standard method
P013 81,13 79,94 80,54 121,28 116,58 118,93 according to EN ISO 12236. It determines the puncture
resistance of geotextile products by pushing a 50 mm
Table 3. Tensile parameters of recovered geotextile (II) diameter flat-ended plunger through the centre of 150
Tensile strength at break Tensile strain at break mm diameter specimen until failure is recovered. The
[kN/m] [%] geosynthetic is punctured with a plunger at an extension
Prod- rate of 50 mm/min. The specimen is secured between the
uct cross aver- cross aver-
ma- ma- clamping rings without any support (see Fig 8).
ma- age ma- age
chine chine
chine value chine value
P009 45,45 50,91 48,18 84,85 58,31 71,58
P011 67,41 63,70 65,56 97,50 93,42 95,46
P013 81,43 76,74 79,09 110,85 100,58 105,72

The difference in the test results is slight. No drastic

changes in strength and percentage of elongation at fail-
ure was observed. The ultimate tensile strengths were
nearly the same for both directions. Fig 7 shows the com-
parison between undisturbed and recovered test samples
of the average value of tensile strength at break.
The samples of non-woven geotextile P011 and
P013 recovered from soil construction have smaller
strength parameters then undisturbed test samples. Only Fig 8. View of CBR test
the sample of P009 in wide-width test behaved differently
(see Fig 7). CBR tests were conducted under standard laboratory
Also the changes of elongation at failure isn’t mean- conditions using the numbers of specified by standard.
ingful. The percentage of tensile strain at break for recov- The mean of the push-through force, the mean of the
ered non-woven geotextile specimens is about 15 percent push-through displacement and coefficient of variation
lower on average than the manufacturers’ reported val- are the results of CBR puncture tests (Bolt et al. 2003).
ues.
So small changes in mechanical properties can
probably be explained by examining the testing proce-
1086
 9000 a) 14000
a) 13000
P013
8000 P009 12000
11000
7000
10000
6000 9000

force [N]
8000
force [N]

5000 7000
4000 6000
5000
3000 4000
3000 F = 12670 [N]
2000 F = 8537 [N] L = 68.35 [mm]
2000
L = 63.48 [mm]
1000 1000
0
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
displacement [mm]
displacement [mm] b)
13000
b) 9000
12000
P013
11000
8000 P009 10000
9000
7000
8000

force [N]
6000 7000
6000
force [N]

5000
5000
4000 4000
3000 F = 11489 [N]
3000 L = 61.67 [mm]
2000
2000 F= 7858 [N] 1000
L = 57.19 [mm] 0
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
displacement [mm]
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
displacement [mm]
Fig 11. CBR puncture test of P013
Fig 9. CBR puncture test of P009 a) undisturbed geotextile, b) recovered geotextile
a) undisturbed geotextile, b) recovered geotextile
14000

12000

a) 12000
10000
10000
P011
force [N]

8000
8000
6000
force[N]

6000
4000 I II I II I II
4000
F = 11024 [N] 2000
2000 L = 69.75 [mm]
0
0 P009 P011 P013
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Geotextile
displacement [mm] Fig 12. Comparing of CBR test results for undisturbed
11000 (I) and recovered (II) test samples
b) 10000 P011
9000
The results for nonwoven needle-punched geotex-
tiles P009, P011 and P013 are compared in Table 4. The
8000
7000
tests results described in the form of force versus dis-
force[N]

6000
5000 placement of are presented in Figs 9–11. The shape of
4000 tensile curves is similar for samples of unused and ex-
3000 F = 10104 [N] humed geotextiles.
Fig 12 shows the comparison of the average value of
2000 L = 62.64 [mm]
1000
0 puncture force for undisturbed and recovered test sam-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 ples.
displacement [mm]
Table 4. The results of puncture test for geotextile
Fig 10. CBR puncture test of P011 P009 P011 P013
a) undisturbed geotextile, b) recovered geotextile Property
I II I II I II
Force [N] 8537 7858 11024 10104 12670 11489
Displace-
63.48 57.19 69.75 62.64 68.35 61.67
ment [mm]

1087
 Analysis of CBR tests results showed that geotex- References
tiles recovered from soil construction for all test samples
have smaller puncture resistance (and push-through dis- Bolt, A. F.; Duszyńska, A.; Piotrowska, M. 2003. Static punc-
placement) then undisturbed test samples. Comparing the ture test of geotextiles and geotextiles-related products, in
Proc. of VII International Symposium on Water Manage-
mean of the push-through force for undisturbed and re-
ment and Hydraulic Engineering, Podbanské, Slovakia,
covered non-woven geotextile specimens, the change of 2003. 43–48.
8,5 percent on average was found. The mean of the push-
Bolt, A.; Duszyńska, A.; Piotrowska, M. 2006. Zmiana pa-
through displacement for recovered non-woven geotextile
rametrów fizycznych i mechanicznych geowłóknin na
specimens is about 10 percent lower on average than skutek wbudowania w nasyp [Changes of physical and
undisturbed specimen value. mechanical parameters of non-woven geotextiles as the
results of installation in embankment], in Proc. Of XIV
Conclusion National Conference of Mechanical Soil and Geotechni-
cal Engineering, Białystok– Augustów, Poland. 2006. 29–
Geotextiles of all types can be damaged during in- 38
stallation. The placement of aggregate upon a fabric can Collins, B.; Holtz, R. 2005. Long-term performance of geotex-
cause damage but this can be minimised by good installa- tile separators. Bucoda test site– phase III. Research Re-
tion practices. Various tests have been developed which port. Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC).
seek to model installation damage in the laboratory. USA. 234 p.
Laboratory tests of puncture resistance of geosyn- Hufenus, R.; Rüegger, R.; Flum, D. 2002. Geosynthetics for
thetics provided a lot of information about the behaviour reinforcement: resistance to damage during installation, in
of these products in soil. The knowledge of mechanical Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geo-
strength reduction for geotextiles and geotextile-related synthetic. Nice, France, 2002. Lisse: Balkema Publ., vol.
products connected with their mechanical damage during 4, 1387–1390.
installation and usage is very important to control their Naughton, P.J.; & Kempton, G.T. 2002. In service performance
behaviour in soil. of geotextile separators, in Proceedings of the Seventh In-
Damage tests are now being developed to simulate ternational Conference on Geosynthetics, 1505–1508.
the forces which act on a geotextile during installation Wong, W. K.; Chew, S. H.; Karunaratne, G. P.; Tan, S. A.; Yee,
and attempt to quantify their effect. By simulating the K. Y. 2000. Evaluating the Puncture Survivability of Geo-
effect of any damage during the installation process, these textiles, in Proceedings of Geo-Denver 2000. Denver,
Colorado. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 103.
tests enable the engineer who chooses geotextiles to make
186–200.
an accurate assessment of the required working strengths
of a geotextile and compare this to the performance of a EN ISO 10319 Geosynthetics – Wide-width tensile test. Brus-
sels, 2008. 20 p.
particular grade.
The choice of suitable puncture test method is EN ISO 12236 Geotextiles and geotextiles-related products –
Static puncture test. Brussels, 2006. 14 p.
mainly dependent on material structure and suitable simu-
lating determined behaviour in geoengineering. Each test EN ISO 13433 Geosynthetics – Dynamic perforation test (cone
has its value for a specific situation. drop test. Brussels, 2006. 14 p.
The CBR puncture test gives an indication of the EN 14574 Geosynthetics – Determination of the pyramid punc-
ability of the geotextile to withstand slow puncture initia- ture resistance of supported geosynthetics. Brussels,
2004. 10 p.
tion. It enables the selection of a geotextile with sufficient
robustness to minimise installation damage and ensure EN ISO 9864 Geosynthetics – Test method for the determination
the required properties are maintained for the service life of mass per unit area of geotextiles and geotextile-related
products. Brussels, 2007. 5 p.
of the product.
EN ISO 9863-1 Geosynthetics – Determination of thickness at
specified pressures– Part 1: Single layers. Brussels, 2005.
8 p.

1088