puncture resistance of geotextiles and evaluation of the g

puncture resistance of geotextiles and evaluation of the g

PUNCTURE RESISTANCE OF GEOTEXTILES

AND EVALUATION OF THE G-RATING

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

by

Paul Angelo Maisano B. Eng. (Civil) (Hons)

A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Victoria

University of Technology, for the degree of Master of Engineering.

Department of Civil and Building Engineering

Victoria University of Technology

Victoria, Australia

March 1995

FTS THESIS

677.40287 MAI

30001004467090

Maisano, Paul Angelo

Puncture resistance of geotextiles and evaluation of the g-rating

TO M Y WIFE:

Cathy

DECLARATION

This thesis contains no material which has previously been submitted for an award or degree at any University. T o m y knowledge the work reported in this thesis is original and contains n o material published by other investigations, except where appropriate reference has been given to the source of the material.

P. A. Maisano

ii

SYNOPSIS

T h e puncture resistance of geotextiles in Australia is measured in terms of the G-

Rating, which is the product of CBR and drop cone puncture test results.

CBR and drop cone puncture tests were conducted on 24 geotextiles to provide upto-date results, and to evaluate the G-Rating. CBR puncture tests using modified plungers were also conducted to assess the accuracy of shape factors quoted in the literature- 3.0 for angular aggregate and 0.8 for rounded aggregate. Wide strip tensile tests were also conducted to compare with CBR puncture test results.

The results of the testing program show no relationship between wide strip tensile test results and CBR puncture test results. The modified plunger CBR puncture test results show that shape factors are not only shape dependent, but are fabric dependent as well, with the results somewhat different from those commonly quoted. The exponent used to calculate the G-Rating varies for the same fabric tested at different drop heights in the drop cone puncture test. Also, the restriction of elongation in CBR puncture tests to 80 per cent by the G-Rating classification system, was found unnecessary for all the geotextiles tested, as elongation at failure in all cases did not exceed 80 per cent.

A Rupture Index classification is proposed, being the product of failure load and vertical plunger displacement at failure in a CBR puncture test. It is considered to be simpler than the G-Rating as it relies on the results of only one test. The

Rupture Index calculated for a given fabric will not vary by more than the inherent variability of the specimens tested. However, G-Rating values were shown to vary considerably for the same fabric tested at different drop heights in the drop cone puncture test. iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T h e author is grateful to m a n y people and organisations for their assistance during the term of the project. Many thanks are extended especially to the following:

Mr D. O. Jordan, Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil and Building Engineering, for his invaluable advice, guidance and patience as my principal supervisor. His assistance and friendship throughout this period is greatly appreciated.

Mr R. G. Brown, Senior Geotechnical Engineer, VicRoads, for his helpful advice and input, particularly his help in conceptualising much of the project in the initial stages.

Technical staff of the Department of Civil and Building Engineering (Mr J. Sibly,

Mr N. Welgus and Mr L. Martin) for the fabrication of various pieces of testing equipment used in the testing program.

Victoria University of Technology for the provision of a VUT - Postgraduate

Research Award.

Geofabrics Australasia Pty Ltd for their provision of geotextile samples. In particular, Mr R. McKenna for his invaluable advice, discussion and critique of various aspects of the project, and Mr T. Loffel for many discussions and for use of the Geofabrics Australasia library.

Soil Filters Australia for their provision of geotextile samples. In particular Mr J.

Day for many worthwhile discussions and advice on many aspects of the project. iv

Polyfelt Geosynthetics Pty Ltd for their provision of geotextile samples. In particular Mr M. Sadlier (formerly of Polyfelt Geosynthetics) for several discussions about the project.

Rheem Australia Ltd for their provision of geotextile samples. In particular Ms L.

Fern for several discussions about the project.

Nylex Corporation Ltd for their provision of geotextile samples. In particular Mr

G. Burdeu for several discussions about the project.

Sarlon Industries Pty Ltd for their provision of geotextile samples, in particular Mr

M. Kandilas.

Geosynthetic Testing Services for permission to use their testing laboratory for the entire testing program. In particular Mr R. Kang for his advice and Ms B. Grant for many hours of assistance and patience throughout the testing period. Special thanks are extended to all the staff of Geofabrics Australasia Pty Ltd and

Geosynthetic Testing Services for making my stays at Albury pleasant ones.

My research colleagues Anthony, Simon, Soheil, Stuart and Brian for their friendship, assistance and support in many general discussions, and for providing a pleasant working atmosphere.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife Cathy for her patience, encouragement and support throughout the project, and also my family for their support throughout the course of my studies. v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ii

SYNOPSIS iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

NOTATION xv

l.O INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Aim and scope of research 1

1.3 Layout of thesis 2

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Introduction 4

2.2 Geotextile definitions 5

2.2.1 General 5

2.2.2 Geotextile properties 6

2.2.3 Geotextile functions 7

2.2.3.1 The separation function 7

2.2.3.2 Applications requiring separation 10

2.3 Geotextile test methods 12

2.3.1 Introduction 12

2.3.2 The use of existing textile test methods 12 vi

Page No.

2.3.3 N e w test methods for geotextiles 13

2.3.3.1 T h e C B R puncture test 14

2.3.3.2 T h e drop cone puncture test 21

2.3.3.3 T h e wide strip tensile test 23

2.4 Puncture resistance of geotextiles 25

2.5 Geotextile survivability 28

2.5.1 Field testing of geotextiles 31

2.5.2 E x h u m i n g of geotextiles 32

2.6 Geotextiles in Australia 36

2.6.1 Introduction 36

2.6.2 Major Australian geotextile publications 37

2.6.3 Geotextile classification 37

2.7 Conclusion 40

3.0 TESTING PROCEDURES AND CALCULATION METHODS 42

3.1 Introduction 42

3.2 Materials tested 42

3.2.1 Sampling procedure 44

3.3 Testing equipment and procedures 44

3.3.1 C B R puncture tests 45

3.3.2 D r o p cone puncture tests 47

3.3.3 W i d e strip tensile tests 49

3.4 Calculation methods 51

3.4.1 Fabric elongation 51

3.4.1.1 C B R puncture tests using a flat plunger 51

3.4.1.2 Pyramid-tipped plunger C B R puncture tests 56

3.4.1.3 Hemispherical plunger C B R puncture tests 59 vii

4.0 RESULTS OF TESTING P R O G R A M 63

4.1 Introduction 63

4.2 CBR puncture tests 63

4.2.1 Tests using a flat CBR plunger 63

4.2.1.1 Comparison of CBR tensile strength and wide strip tensile strength 66

4.2.1.2 Fabric elongation 70

4.2.2 Tests using a modified plunger 72

4.2.2.1 Pyramid-tipped plunger CBR puncture test 72

4.2.2.2 Hemispherical plunger CBR puncture test 75

4.2.2.3 Relationship between failure load under flat and modified plungers 77

4.2.2.4 Shapes factors for practical use 81

4.3 Drop cone puncture test 82

4.4 Geotextile Rupture Index 86

4.4.1 Introduction 86

4.4.2 Definition and application of the Rupture Index 87

4.4.3 The use of vertical plunger displacement instead of elongation 88

4.4.4 The use of modified plungers to calculate Rupture Index values 89

4.5 Mass per unit area of geotextiles 93

4.5.1 Correlation between mass per unit area and mechanical properties 96

4.5.1.1 Flat plunger CBR puncture test 97

4.5.1.2 Pyramid-tipped plunger CBR puncture test 99

4.5.1.3 Hemispherical plunger CBR puncture test 100

4.5.1.4 Standard and modified drop cone puncture tests 101

5.0 GEOTEXTILE USER SURVEY 104

5.1 Reason for survey 104

5.2 Geotextile user survey 104

5.2.1 General 104 viii

5.2.2 Results of the questionnaire

5.2.2.1 Users surveyed 107

5.2.2.2 Geotextile functions quoted 108

5.2.2.3 Damage 111

5.2.2.4 Method of choice 114

5.3 Conclusions 116

6.0 EVALUATION OF THE G-RATING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 118

6.1 Definition of the G-Rating 118

6.2 The effect of elongation at failure in a CBR puncture test 119

6.3 The effect of drop cone test results on G-Rating values 120

6.4 Suggested modifications to the G-Rating 124

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 125

7.1 Conclusions 125

7.2 Suggestions for further work 128

BIBLIOGRAPHY 130

APPENDICES

A Derivation of a - 8 relationship for the hemispherical plunger

A. 1 Derivation of a - 8 relationship for 8 < r

A.2 The a - 8 relationship for 8 = r

A.3 Derivation of a - 8 relationship for 8 > r

B Geotextile user survey

C CBR puncture test data tables

D Drop cone puncture test data tables

E Wide strip tensile test data tables

F Mass per unit area data tables ix

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.1 Failure mechanisms associated with the use of geotextiles involved in the

Page No.

separation function a) pumping and prevention using geotextiles and, b) stone sinking into subgrade and prevention using geotextiles

(after Koerner, 1990) 9

Figure 2.2 Schematic cross-section of the C B R puncture test

(after M c G o w n et al., 1981) 15

Figure 2.3 Variables for C B R puncture test elongation calculations

(after M u r p h y and Koerner, 1988) 20

Figure 2.4 Schematic view of the drop cone test 22

Figure 2.5 Influence of sample width on strength (after Myles and Carswell, 1986) 24

Figure 2.6 Geotextile puncture analysis showing subgrade reaction (after John, 1987) 27

Figure 2.7 N u m b e r of holes per square metre versus strength retained

(after Koerner and Koerner, 1990) 35

CHAPTER 3

Figure 3.1 Dimensions of the pyramid-tipped C B R plunger 46

Figure 3.2 Dimensions of the hemispherical C B R plunger 47

Figure 3.3 Variables for C B R puncture test elongation calculations 51

Figure 3.4 Fabric elongation calculated from plunger displacement 52

Figure 3.5 Visualisation of shear stresses at interface of plunger and fabric 53

Figure 3.6 Variables for C B R puncture test failure elongation calculations

(after Cazzuffi et al. 1986) 54

Figure 3.7 Schematic view of actual specimen shape during C B R puncture test 56

Figure 3.8 Variables for calculating fabric elongation for a pyramid-tipped plunger 57

Figure 3.9 Variables for calculating fabric elongation for a hemispherical plunger 59

Figure 3.10 Schematic three-dimensional view of hemispherical plunger test 61

Figure 3.11 Vertical plunger displacement (8) as a function of a 62

CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.1 Failure hole diameter versus calculated exponent value 85

Figure 4.2 Schematic view of CBR puncture test showing exaggerated angle p

(after Waters, 1984) 88

Figure 4.3 Comparison of Rupture Index values with CBR test failure loads 91

Figure 4.4 Rupture Index values versus pyramid-tipped CBR plunger failure load 92

Figure 4.5 Rupture Index values versus G-Rating values 93

Figure 4.6 Idealised plot of mass per unit area against CBR fa ilure load showing

A and B values for use in Equation 4.6 98

CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.1 Geotextile use by type 110

Figure 5.2 Geotextile type and corresponding application 110

Figure 5.3 Geotextile use by function 111

XI

LIST OF TABLES

Page No.

CHAPTER 2

Table 2.1 Criteria and properties related to the separation function

(after Christopher and Holtz, 1985) 10

Table 2.2 Applications and controlling functions of geotextiles

(after Christopher and Holtz, 1985) 11

Table 2.3 Calculated shape factors for pyramid-tipped plunger tests

(after Werner, 1986) 19

Table 2.4 Fabric survivability requirement (after Christopher and Holtz, 1985) 29

Table 2.5 Geotextile damage from field tests (after Dixon and Osborn, 1990) 32

Table 2.6 Classification of fabrics in terms of the G-Rating (after Waters et al., 1983) 39

Table 2.7 G-Rating categories for varying subgrade strengths

(after Waters et al., 1983) 39

CHAPTER3

Table 3.1 S u m m a r y of geotextiles tested 43

Table 3.2 Comparison of elongation values from different equations 55

CHAPTER 4

Table 4.1 Comparison of measured and manufacturer quoted C B R failure load 65

Table 4.2 Comparison of measured and calculated strength per unit width in k N . m 68

Table 4.3 Elongation values from C B R puncture and wide strip tensile tests 71

Table 4.4 Comparison of flat and pyramid-tipped plunger C B R failure loads 74

Table 4.5 Comparison of flat and hemispherical plunger C B R failure loads 76

Table 4.6 Failure load and shape factor values for a pyramid-tipped plunger 78

Table 4.7 Failure load and shape factor values for a hemispherical plunger 80 xii

Table 4.8 Exponents for drop cone tests at different heights 83

Table 4.9 G-Rating ranges and values with corresponding Rupture Index values 92

Table 4.10 Measured mass per unit area compared to manufacturer's stated value 95

Table 4.11 A and B values to be used in Equation 4.6 for a flat C B R plunger 99

Table 4.12 A and B values to be used in Equation 4.6 for a pyramid-tipped plunger 99

Table 4.13 A and B values to be used in Equation 4.6 for a hemispherical plunger 101

Table 4.14 A and B values to be used in Equation 4.7 for D

5 0 0

values 102

Table 4.15 Hole diameter ratio from A S 3706.5 and linear regression 103

CHAPTER 6

Table 6.1 G-Rating values using exponents calculated three different w a y s 122 xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AS

ASTM

BS

CBR

DIN

EOS

FHWA

NATA

NRRL

NSW

QMRD

SNRA

Australian Standard

American Society for Testing and Materials

British Standard

California bearing ratio

Deutsches Institut fur N o r m u n g (German Standard)

Equivalent opening size

Federal Highway Administration

National Association of Testing Authorities

Norwegian Road Research Laboratory

N e w South Wales

Queensland Main Roads Department

Swedish National Road Administration

XIV

NOTATION

a = Horizontal distance between inside of clamping rings and outside of plunger

A = Rupture resistance

Gradient of line of best fit

A c

= Surface area of the frustum of a cone for a flat C B R plunger

A

F

= Surface area of frustum of cone (for hemispherical plunger)

A s

= Surface area of segment of sphere

B = Intercept of line of best fit with D

5 0 0

axis

Intercept of line of best fit with F cal

axis d = Nominal aggregate diameter

Diameter of C B R plunger d c

= Average diameter of contact area d, = Diameter of hole corresponding to h, d

2

= Diameter of hole corresponding to h

2 d

50

= Nominal aggregate size at 50 per cent passing d

125

= Diameter of hole for a drop height of 1 2 5 m m d

2

5o = Diameter of hole for a drop height of 2 5 0 m m d

500

= Diameter of hole for a drop height of 5 0 0 m m d

75 o = Diameter of hole for a drop height of 7 5 0 m m diooo = Diameter of hole for a drop height of 1 0 0 0 m m disoo

=

Diameter of hole for a drop height of 1 5 0 0 m m cbooo

=

Diameter of hole for a drop height of 2 0 0 0 m m

D

5 0 0

= Predicted d

500

value

F cal

= Predicted C B R puncture test failure load

Fmod

=

C B R puncture test failure load using a modified plunger

F net

= Net puncture force xv

Fp = C B R puncture test failure load using a flat plunger

F req

= Required puncture resistance

G = Geotextile strength rating h, = First drop height h

2

= Second drop height h

5 0

= Drop height required to produce a 5 0 m m diameter hole p = Average normal stress on the geotextile q

R

= Subgrade reaction stress r = Radius of C B R plunger

R = Radius of the geotextile specimen

RI = Rupture Index

S = Shape factor for plungers

Sf = Shape factor for aggregate

T = Tensile force per unit width x = Distance between inside of clamping rings and outside of plunger at failure xp = Fabric length between inside of clamping rings and tip of pyramid-tipped plunger at failure x

R

= Distance between inside of clamping rings and centre of tip of hemispherical plunger at failure

Greek Symbols

a = Half of angle subtended by the fabric in contact with the plunger

(3 = Angle between test specimen and vertical edge of the plunger

8 = Vertical plunger displacement at failure load e = Fabric elongation

\x = M a s s per unit area xvi

CHAPTER 1

l.O INTRODUCTION

1.1 General:

Puncture resistance is an important property for geotextiles used in separation applications. It enables them to withstand the stresses of installation with little or no damage. T h e installation phase is well recognised as the most critical for geotextile survivability.

There have been many tests developed to measure puncture resistance, including the C B R puncture test and the drop cone puncture test. These tests have been used in s o m e parts of Europe for over 15 years, and have been used in Australia for over ten years. They were standardised in Australia in 1990. In Australia the results of the C B R and drop cone tests are used to classify geotextiles by the G-Rating classification system.

VicRoads is a very large user of geotextiles in Victoria, mainly as a separation layer under sealed roads. Their current specifications are written in terms of the G-

Rating, which w a s developed from tests conducted in the early 1980s (Brown,

1991).

1.2 Aim and scope of research:

The aim of this research was to provide up-to-date results from CBR and drop cone puncture tests, and to evaluate the G-Rating classification system. S o m e existing drop cone test results have s h o w n that the exponent used to calculate the equivalent

1

drop height w a s considerably in error for s o m e fabrics. A user survey w a s m a d e of all Victorian municipalities, VicRoads divisions, and s o m e major contractors, to see whether the G-Rating is c o m m o n l y used for selection purposes.

The G-Rating does not include a direct measure of tensile strength. The CBR puncture test w a s originally called the 'Tensile Strength Test', and a comparison between the results of this test and the wide strip tensile test w a s performed, with a view to adding a measure of tensile strength into the G-Rating classification system if necessary.

To show the effect of various shapes on fabric behaviour, CBR puncture tests were performed with plunger tips m o r e nearly resembling real aggregate shapes than the flat C B R plunger. T h e results of these tests were used to validate the values currently quoted for shape factors in the literature.

This research is specifically related to geotextiles generally used as separators in road applications.

1.3 Layout of thesis:

Chapter Two is a review of the current literature with respect to puncture resistance and tensile strength, geotextile field performance and exhumation of geotextiles.

The history of geotextile use in Australia since the m i d 1970s is summarised, together with the current system of geotextile classification in Australia.

2

Chapter Three contains a description of the geotextiles tested and a discussion of the tests conducted and the reasons for choosing them. The test methods used and the environments in which the tests were conducted are described. Alternative methods of calculation for geotextile elongation are discussed and the reasons for the choice of the preferred method are given.

Chapter Four contains the results of the testing program. Detailed descriptions of fabric behaviour are given and CBR puncture test results are compared with wide strip tensile test results. A Rupture Index classification is proposed and a relationship is developed between mass per unit area and mechanical properties.

Chapter Five contains a discussion of a survey of geotextile users. The results are presented, together with comments from respondents regarding material selection and fabric damage.

Chapter Six contains an evaluation of the G-Rating classification system based on the results of the testing program and the user survey. Modifications to the G-

Rating as currently used are proposed.

Chapter Seven summarises the conclusions reached in Chapters Three, Four, Five and Six. Further work is recommended based on logical extensions of the testing program. Work in areas not investigated, but seen as relevant to the separation function, is also recommended.

3

CHAPTER 2

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW:

2.1 Introduction:

This literature review summarises the advances made in geotextile testing in the past two decades, specifically related to the puncture resistance of geotextiles used for separation. It also summarises the current state of testing and specification for geotextiles in Australia. T h e exhumation of geotextiles is reported o n and the outcomes of such studies with respect to puncture resistance and strength loss in general are included.

The references used were taken mainly from the four international geotextiles conferences, namely the International Conference o n the U s e of Fabrics in

Geotecnics (Paris, France, 1977), the Second International Conference on

Geotextiles (Las Vegas, U.S.A., 1982), the Third International Conference on

Geotextiles (Vienna, Austria, 1986) and the Fourth International Conference on

Geotextiles, G e o m e m b r a n e s and Related Products (The Hague, Netherlands, 1990).

United States Federal H i g h w a y Administration ( F H W A ) publications on geotextile engineering and design and Standards from Europe, the United States and Australia were also sources of information.

The review is limited to geotextile testing, specification and field performance. No detailed description is given of fabric structure and manufacture as this has been adequately covered by other publications, for example, Koerner (1990).

4

2.2 Geotextile definitions:

2.2.1 General:

When geotextiles began to be used in the 1950s, they were referred to in the same terms as textile fabrics. This was partly due to the early names given to geotextiles which included filter fabric, engineering fabric, geofabrics and civil engineering fabric (Christopher and Holtz, 1985). The definition of Alfheim and Sorlie (1977) is: "...a synthetic material produced like a cloth with a structure of plastic fibres or filaments. The fibres being either directionally oriented (woven) or randomly oriented (non-woven). The fibres are held together by physical, mechanical, thermic or chemical bonding, or a combination of these methods." (sic).

As geotextiles were initially used either as construction expedients or in temporary constructions, a clear definition of geotextiles or, indeed, detailed information on geotextile properties, was not required. The use of geotextiles has since become more specialised and the need for a clear definition has arisen. The definition used in this thesis is that of ASTM D4439 (1987): "Any permeable textile material used with foundation, soil, rock, earth, or any other geotechnical engineering-related material, as an integral part of a man-made project, structure or system."

All woven geotextiles are manufactured in three sequential steps: extrusion, beaming and weaving. On the other hand, non-wovens are produced by different methods including needle punching, heat bonding and resin bonding, and, due to their method of manufacture, possess properties different from woven fabrics, including lower modulus, a higher elongation at break and higher flexibility and deformability (Raumann, 1982). Composite geotextiles usually consist of a non-

5

w o v e n which is needle punched onto a w o v e n base, or one or m o r e alternating layers of woven and/or non-woven fabrics.

2.2.2 Geotextile properties:

The properties of geotextiles are related to the functions they serve. The five categories of geotextile properties indicated by Koerner (1990), are physical, mechanical, hydraulic, endurance and degradation properties. Those related to the separation function include mechanical properties such as puncture resistance, tear resistance and tensile strength, and hydraulic properties such as equivalent opening size (EOS) and soil retention characteristics. Physical properties, such as mass per unit area and thickness, are indirectly related to separation as they affect the robustness of materials and also, to some extent, mechanical properties.

Mechanical properties are usually measured on geotextiles in isolation. The results obtained may therefore be conservative, as values of mechanical properties tend to be higher when the geotextiles are tested inside a soil mass (Christopher and Holtz,

1985).

The properties considered in this thesis include puncture resistance and tensile strength. Puncture resistance is required to resist perforation of the fabric by aggregate, tree stumps or rough ground during installation, and to resist forces caused by soil or aggregate under stress pushing the geotextile into voids within the fill (Koerner, 1990). Tensile strength is necessary for the separation function, as differential movement horizontally or vertically between materials above and/or below the geotextile may lead to a tensile stress in the geotextile.

6

2.2.3 Geotextile functions:

T o date, there have been approximately fifteen functions of geotextiles quoted in the literature. However, some of these functions are very specialised and fall outside the scope of this thesis, which is concentrated on geotextile puncture resistance related to the separation function. The four major functions quoted in the literature are separation, filtration, drainage and reinforcement (Christopher and

Holtz, 1985; Koerner, 1990; Lasalle et al., 1982; Giroud, 1979; Koerner, 1984;

Brorsson and Eriksson, 1986; De Groot et al., 1986; Nijhof et al., 1986; Austroads,

1990). A fifth major function, that of a moisture barrier, is quoted in some literature, but fabrics modified for use as a moisture barrier fall outside the definition of geotextiles given in ASTM D4439 (1987).

The filtration and drainage functions of geotextiles are only indirectly related to mechanical strength. Provided a geotextile has adequate mechanical strength or robustness to resist damage such as holes or tears, the filtration and cross-fabric drainage functions will depend upon its characteristic opening size. However, this may change as tensile stress is applied to the geotextile and the openings within it are altered in size and shape.

2.2.3.1 The separation function:

The main function dealt with in this thesis is separation, which seems to be the most widely reported. It is the function of keeping apart two dissimilar materials which would otherwise interpenetrate each other. Separation is related to mechanical properties although it, too, is affected by the opening size of the fabric.

7

A concise definition of geotextile separation is given b y Koerner (1990) as: "The introduction of a flexible synthetic barrier placed between dissimilar materials so that the integrity and functioning of both materials can remain intact or be improved." The effect of adding a flexible synthetic barrier, or geotextile, is often synergistic because geotextiles can complement the strength of a soil/aggregate system. This can be illustrated by analogy with reinforced concrete, which uses steel, having excellent tensile characteristics, to complement concrete which, although strong in compression, is weak in tension. Similarly, with geotextiles placed in soil/aggregate systems, the geotextile, which is good in tension, is used to complement the soil, which is good in compression but poor in tension (Fluet,

1988).

The stability of an aggregate system consisting of discrete particles depends on the friction generated between the particles to remain intact. The addition of a geotextile has a confining effect, thus adding stability in most cases, as well as acting as a barrier to the intrusion of fine grained soil particles. The mixing of fine grained soils and aggregate can lead to failure by pumping, commonly seen in railway track bases, where fine soil particles are 'pumped' up between aggregate particles. This causes lubrication of the aggregate, reducing inter-particle friction, and adversely affecting the drainage capacity of the granular material as the fine particles fill the voids within the aggregate. At the same time, the aggregate sinks into the fine grained subgrade (Koerner, 1990). This will also cause a loss in aggregate strength which, in the case of a road, can lead to rutting, cracking, potholes and, eventually, total pavement failure. The function of separation is shown schematically in Figure 2.1 with pumping and aggregate sinking shown separately for clarity.

8

Figure 2.1 Failure mechanisms associated with the use of geotextiles involved in the separation function a) pumping and prevention using geotextiles and, b) stone sinking into subgrade and prevention using geotextiles (after Koerner, 1990).

To perform the separation function, a geotextile must be robust enough to survive the installation process. Robustness during installation directly depends o n the mechanical properties of the geotextile. S o m e of the mechanical properties relevant to the separation function include tensile strength, puncture resistance, tear resistance and impact resistance (Christopher and Holtz, 1985; Koerner, 1990; D e

Groot et al., 1986). A m o r e complete, though not all-inclusive, list can be seen in

Table 2.1.

As the separation function requires the fabric structure to remain intact, the relevant mechanical properties must be those that will provide stability, thus ensuring continuity of the geotextile. T h e geotextile should be able to resist puncturing during installation and in service (Lasalle et al., 1982). However, should the geotextile b e c o m e punctured, this defect must not be able to propagate through the fabric. Hence, tear resistance is also important to maintain continuity should a minor rupture or puncture occur.

9

Table 2.1 Criteria and properties related to the separation function (after

Christopher and Holtz, 1985)

Criterion

Constructability*

Durability

Mechanical

Property

Strength

Thickness

Weight

Puncture resistance

Cutting resistance

M o d u l u s

Flexibility

Tear resistance

Chemical resistance

W e t and dry stability

Abrasion resistance

Tensile strength

Fatigue

Burst strength

Puncture resistance

Tear strength

* This is assumed to refer to the ability to survive the construction process.

2.2.3.2 Applications requiring separation:

In the areas of subgrade stabilisation and coastal/river bank protection, the separation function dominates. In other applications, such as drainage, use under embankments and as a pipe wrap, separation is a secondary function (Christopher and Holtz, 1985). It is safe to say that, if the separation function is lost, even if it is not the primary function, other functions will not be fulfilled adequately or, in some cases, at all. A geotextile that cannot perform its separation function adequately

(due to some form of damage), cannot provide drainage or filtration to the required standard. Ingold (1988) states that, for the filtration function, reference is never

10

m a d e to mechanical properties such as puncture and tear strength. H o w e v e r , he also states that, if a geotextile is ruptured during installation, its proper functioning as a filter can be severely hampered.

In order to illustrate the functions required for different applications, Table 2.2 is provided which lists s o m e applications of geotextiles indicating which of the four major functions dominates, the applications involving secondary functions and those relevant to each application.

Table 2.2 Applications and controlling functions of geotextiles (after Christopher and Holtz, 1985)

P r i m a r y

Function

Separation

Application S e c o n d a r y

Function(s)

Unpaved roads (temporary & permanent) Filter, drain, reinforcement

Paved roads (primary & secondary)

Filter, drain

Construction access roads

Working platforms

Filter, drain, reinforcement

Filter, drain, reinforcement

Railroads (new construction)

Railroads (rehabilitation)

Pre-loading (stabilisation)

Paved and unpaved parking facilities

Coastal and river protection

Filter, drain, reinforcement

Filter, drain, reinforcement

Reinforcement, drain

Filter, drain, reinforcement

Filter, drain, reinforcement

Drainage

Retaining walls

Vertical drains

Reinforcement

Sub-base reinforcement in roadways

Load redistribution

Bridging non-uniform soft soil areas

Separation, filter

Separation, filter

Filter

Separation

Separation

Filter

Trench drains

Pipe wrapping

Base course drains

Structural drains

Reverse filters for erosion control

Separation, drain

Separation, drain

Separation, drain

Separation, drain

Separation, drain

11

2.3 Geotextile test methods:

2.3.1 Introduction:

The textile industry has been producing and testing fabrics for many years. The tests developed over these years have been those which indicate the strength of fabrics in terms relevant to the textile industry. It was soon discovered that textile testing was not strictly relevant to the functions of geotextiles and geotextile test methods were required which would measure properties relevant to the end uses of the geotextiles.

2.3.2 The use of existing textile test methods:

Some textile tests have been incorporated into the geotextile testing spectrum. The diaphragm burst test - ASTM D3786 (1987), and the grab tensile test - ASTM

D1682 (1964), are two examples. While these tests can be useful in providing strength properties, they do have some fundamental disadvantages.

The diaphragm burst test is conducted over a test area which is 31mm in diameter.

The specimen is rigidly clamped and a rubber membrane against the specimen is expanded under pressure until the geotextile bursts. A test specimen of this small size can give artificially high results for the burst strength of staple fibre fabrics where the length of fibres is 50mm or greater (Christopher, 1992). In this case, the strength of individual fibres is being tested, which is generally greater than the inter-fibre friction holding them together. This could be misleading for designers who might assume the results of such a test on these fabrics to be an accurate reflection of the geotextile's large-scale burst resistance.

12

A similar problem associated with specimen size is encountered w h e n testing using the ball burst test described in ASTM D3787 (1980). In the test a 25mm diameter ball is pushed through a fabric specimen 45mm in diameter which is clamped along its outer edge (Koerner, 1990). The ball is a good choice for simulating rounded aggregate but not so good for simulating angular aggregate. A test similar to this has been carried out with an 8mm diameter blunt-ended steel piston on the same size specimen (Koerner et al., 1986). It is possible for a piston as small as this to slip between yarns in woven fabrics, especially those of the slit film type, thus giving misleading results.

The grab tensile test is widely used by geotextile manufacturers, mainly for quality control purposes, and is quoted in many geotextile specifications. The specimen is

100 x 150mm in size, but the jaws are only 25mm wide and the specimen is placed so that the jaw is located in the centre of the 100mm edges. When gripped in this manner, fabrics have a tendency to exhibit a Poisson's ratio effect where the fabric

"ropes-up" over the middle portion of the test specimen (Koerner, 1990). This leads to a higher failure load than for specimens gripped across their entire width, as the overhanging fabric inhibits necking and increases the amount of fibres available to resist the applied load (Curiskis, 1994).

2.3.3 New test methods for geotextiles:

Since the mid to late 1970s, many tests have been developed for geotextiles, with the purpose of quantifying engineering properties. As a result, a variety of tests have become available to geotextile designers/users. Initially, this was a good thing as manufacturers, suppliers, designers and users could choose the tests which would yield results relevant to the intended application. However, this situation has since

13

deteriorated to the point where it is possible for manufacturers to quote results from tests that are better suited to their particular type of product. Thus, for example, a staple fibre fabric manufacturer may quote puncture resistance after testing 45mm diameter specimens and compare this to test results for a woven fabric on 150mm diameter specimens. This would result in a biased comparison.

Although sample size plays an important role, so too do testing conditions and strain rate. Geotextiles, being visco-elastic materials, are known to give higher strength values when tested at higher strain rates (Warwick, 1991). The stress resistance mechanism in a geotextile consists of both fibre stress and inter-fibre friction. Tests at a slow rate of strain rely on the inter-fibre friction and tests at a fast strain rate rely on fibre strength (Anjiang et al., 1990). At a slow strain rate, fibres re-align themselves and the area over the which the friction acts is increased, but this does not lead to higher strength values because the friction between the fibres does not reach as high a level as the stress within the fibres. At a fast strain rate fibre re-alignment does not have time to occur, and resistance to failure is governed by fibre strength.

The first tests designed specifically with geotextile functions in mind were the CBR puncture test and the drop cone puncture test. Both tests are described in some detail in sections 2.3.3.1 and 2.3.3.2 respectively.

2.3.3.1 The CBR puncture test:

The need for tests relevant to the applications of geotextiles led to the development of the CBR puncture test at the Norwegian Road Research Laboratory (NRRL) as reported by Alfheim and Sorlie (1977), although they referred to it as a tensile

14

strength test. This early description recognised the tensile behaviour of the geotextile in the test, where essentially two-dimensional stress is induced within its plane.

The CBR puncture test utilises a standard CBR mould and 50mm diameter plunger.

The geotextile is clamped between two rings which sit on top of the mould and the plunger is pushed into the specimen at a constant rate. Figure 2.2 shows a schematic cross-section of the C B R puncture test setup.

Figure 2.2 Schematic cross-section of the C B R puncture test (after M c G o w n et al., 1981)

Warwick (year unknown) concluded that the results of CBR puncture tests could only be used to compare different fabrics, and are not representative of field strength. This is in part consistent with other investigations, especially the work of

M u r p h y and Koerner (1988), w h o found that the C B R puncture test could be used to compare the strength of all types of geotextiles such as wovens, non-wovens and composites, and also geomembranes, geocomposites and geonets.

Over the years since its development, this test has been referred to as either a burst or puncture test but, as M u r p h y and Koerner (1988) put it, the C B R puncture test

15

"...is an axi-symmetric strength test and should be considered as such." Koerner

(1990) states that the C B R puncture test should be considered as a form of bi-axial tensile test, because the fabric between the outer edge of the plunger and the inner edge of the C B R m o u l d is theoretically in a pure state of axi-symmetric tension.

Cazzuffi et al. (1986) conducted a series of tests on non-woven geotextiles, and found that the C B R load at failure multiplied by 2n yielded values very similar to the strength per unit width measured in 5 0 0 m m wide strip tensile tests. A t this width, a wide strip test approximates m o r e closely the 'true' strength value (Myles and Carswell, 1986), and the similarity to C B R puncture test results indicates the effectiveness of the latter as a form of bi-axial tensile test.

Lhote and Rigo (1987) conducted CBR puncture tests on a continuous filament, needle punched, non-woven geotextile. A silty soil w a s added beneath the geotextile to simulate m o r e closely the field situation. Its bearing capacity was varied from 12 to 67 kPa by altering its water content. Specimen diameters of

1 5 0 m m and 1 2 0 m m were used to determine the effect of a smaller test area. The inclusion of the silt produced a higher C B R load at failure, m o r e so for the larger diameter specimens. It is not stated whether they considered that the higher failure loads recorded were due to the bearing capacity of the soil alone, or to what extent soil/geotextile interaction w a s a factor.

Tests which attempt to model geotextile interaction with aggregates cannot model each shape and size of aggregate used. A shape factor is used to account for the difference in shape between a flat C B R plunger and various aggregate or rock shapes. Werner defines it as

16

Where:

F req

= Required puncture resistance (N).

F p

= C B R puncture test failure load using a flat plunger (N).

Sf = Shape factor for aggregate.

Werner (1986) and Lhote and Rigo (1987) quote shape factors of 0.8 for round, blunted stones and 3.0 for sharp, very angular stones. Both papers cite "Designing with geosynthetics" course notes (Bell and Koerner, 1984) as the source of shape factor values. Attempts were m a d e to obtain these course notes from the second author, but they are not available. According to Werner, interpolation between the two extremes is possible but requires judgement and experience. H e reports crushed rock as having a shape factor of between 2.0 and 3.0, depending on the angularity of the particles. N o test results are given to substantiate the values of shape factor quoted.

The implication of a value of 0.8 for rounded stone is that it requires a greater force to push a plunger with a hemispherical tip through a fabric than a flat-ended plunger. A s the value of 2.0 to 3.0 for angular stone implies a penetration force under a pyramid-tipped plunger of only one-half to two-thirds that of a flat-ended plunger, it is hard to see w h y a value greater than one should not also apply for a hemispherical plunger.

Another way to account for the different shapes of aggregate is to use plungers that model these shapes. T h e most obvious plungers to better simulate the shapes of aggregates would be those with rounded or pointed tips. Very little mention has

17

been m a d e of plungers with hemispherical tips in the literature apart from thenexistence (Warwick, 1991).

Lhote and Rigo (1987) state that the results for a pyramid-tipped and a flat CBR plunger are very different, but give no supporting data. When testing with a flat plunger and a modified plunger, a shape factor is given by Equation 2.2, where F mod is the failure load from a CBR puncture test using a modified plunger.

F

P r mod

Where:

S = Shape factor for plungers.

S = - 2 - (2.2)

Most of a geotextile sample is assumed to be in axi-symmetric tension in a flat plunger CBR puncture test (Koerner, 1990). However, the base of a CBR plunger is flat and may not be representative of real aggregates. Therefore, the behaviour of a geotextile on contact with aggregate (or an angular plunger) would be expected to differ from that under a flat plunger. Lhote and Rigo (1987) proposed that the bearing effect at the base of a flat CBR plunger gives way to a more local effect at the tip of a pyramid-tipped plunger.

Werner (1986) conducted CBR puncture tests on 150mm diameter specimens using a 50mm diameter plunger with a three-sided pyramidal tip, which resulted in large reductions in CBR failure load compared with tests using a flat plunger. Shape factors calculated using Equation 2.2 for suffer fabrics such as wovens and heat bonded non-wovens differ considerably from the value of 3.0 commonly quoted for angular aggregate (see Table 2.3).

18

Table 2.3 shows that a shape factor of 2.0 to 3.0 would be valid for angular aggregate w h e n using a pyramid-tipped plunger on a needle punched non-woven fabric. However, on the basis of this data, this value for the shape factor would be invalid for other types of geotextiles. Hence, it appears that shape factors not only depend on the shape of the aggregate, but are fabric dependent as well.

Table 2.3 Calculated shape factors for pyramid-tipped plunger tests (after Werner,

1986)

Geotextile type

Needle punched, non-woven

Heat bonded non-woven

Slit film w o v e n

Percentage loss

in strength

50-66

70-75

85

Corresponding shape factor

2.0 - 2.9

3.3-4.0

6.7

The use of a 2 5 m m diameter plunger with a four-sided pyramidal tip, in puncture tests o n two needle punched fabrics and one heat bonded fabric, is described by

Foch (1990). The specimens tested with this plunger were 8 0 m m in diameter. H e found that the failure load under the pyramid-tipped plunger, compared with that for a flat C B R plunger on 1 5 0 m m diameter specimens, w a s significantly less. The reduction in failure load for a needle punched fabric w a s 78 per cent, and 88 per cent for the heat bonded fabric. These strength losses correspond to shape factors of approximately 4.5 for the needle punched fabrics and approximately 8.3 for the heat bonded fabric. This indicates that heat bonded fabrics m a y offer m u c h less resistance to penetration by a pointed plunger than by a flat plunger. Only one of the geotextiles is specified in sufficient detail in the paper to enable the manufacturer to be identified. This geotextile exhibited a smaller reduction in failure load than the other fabrics. A s the company for which the author of the

19

paper w a s a representative also produced this geotextile, it m a y have been named for commercial reasons.

In a CBR puncture test, elongation at failure (as %) may be calculated by Equation

2.3, taken from DIN 54.307 (1982), with the variables defined in Figure 2.3. e =

x-a a

xlOO

Load (N)

2 .2 x=A/a + o

(2.3)

Figure 2.3 Variables for C B R puncture test elongation calculations (after Murphy and Koerner, 1988)

Where:

R = Radius of the geotextile specimen ( m m ) . r = Radius of CBR plunger (mm).

8 = Vertical plunger displacement at failure load (mm). a = Horizontal distance between inside of clamping rings and outside of plunger (mm). x = Distance between inside of clamping rings and outside of plunger at failure (mm).

20

Cazzuffi et al. (1986) calculated elongation differently, using the change in area of the geotextile sample. Their relationship is given in Equation 2.4. In their tests this method gave values for elongation at failure which were very similar to the elongation at failure measured in 5 0 0 m m wide strip tensile tests on the same materials.

n(R+r)x+nr

2

-nR

7 nR

2

xlOO (2.4)

Equation 2.3 does not take into account any deformation of the fabric in contact with the base of the plunger, whereas Equation 2.4 does. Therefore, it seems that

Equation 2.3 is not going to adequately represent actual elongation behaviour. This is because actual elongation behaviour is three-dimensional and would be better represented by a three-dimensional expression such as Equation 2.4, than by a twodimensional expression such as Equation 2.3.

2.3.3.2 The drop cone puncture test:

The drop cone puncture test uses the normal CBR mould and a 1 kg cone dropped from a height of 5 0 0 m m . T h e apex angle of the cone is 45° and the tip can be machined to a small radius (1 or 2 m m ) or left unmachined ( A S 3706.5, 1990). The

1 5 0 m m diameter geotextile specimen is gripped between two rings which sit on top of the mould. The diameter of the hole thus formed is measured. Figure 2.4 shows a schematic layout of the drop cone test.

The drop cone puncture test was developed at the NRRL because early experience showed that s o m e types of geotextiles had a greater tendency than others to puncture w h e n aggregate w a s d u m p e d on them (Alfheim and Sorlie, 1977). This

21

form of dynamic puncture could not be related to tensile strength, so it w a s necessary to develop a dynamic test to simulate this condition. T h e original n a m e given to this test w a s the cone penetration test. According to Alfheim and Sorlie, the results of the drop cone test should not be taken as a measure of the field performance of geotextiles, but should only be used to compare the penetration resistance of geotextiles in the laboratory for classification purposes.

Figure 2.4 Schematic view of the drop cone test

In this test, puncture resistance is measured in terms of the diameter of the failure hole. T h e larger the diameter of the hole, the lower the puncture resistance of the specimen, and vice-versa. In Australia, the actual hole diameter under a standard drop height is used in a simple formula to calculate the drop height (h

50

) required to cause a 5 0 m m diameter hole (Waters, 1984).

Lawson (1982) observed geotextiles in the field to determine the effect of rock drop height on geotextile puncture resistance, and found that puncture d a m a g e w a s approximately proportional to the square root of the drop height. H e stated that the

22

drop cone test appeared ideally suited to "depicting" the dynamic puncture resistance of geotextiles. The dynamic nature of this test makes it a much better indicator of the likely behaviour of geotextiles when rock is dropped onto them, compared with a CBR puncture test or wide strip tensile test. However, Lawson looked at rip-rap in erosion control structures, where the size of the rocks is much larger than the aggregates used in road making. Therefore, his approximate relationship, based on large rocks, may not translate to geotextiles used for separation under roads, as the drop height is generally smaller and the size of rock used is much smaller.

2.3.3.3 The wide strip tensile test:

The wide strip tensile test was developed from the simpler strip tensile tests used on ordinary fabrics. In strip tensile tests, the specimen is gripped along its full width, as opposed to the grab tensile test, where it is gripped over one quarter of its width.

The narrowest strip in common usage is 50mm but, at this width, edge effects dominate behaviour, and the stress-strain conditions imposed on the geotextiles are not representative of those to which they are exposed in the field. In most cases in the field, the geotextile is loaded under plane strain conditions where lateral contraction is restricted by friction between the geotextile and the surrounding soil, compared with strip tensile tests where lateral contraction can occur. This lateral contraction, which is relatively constant in magnitude, is a higher percentage of specimen width for narrow specimens, thereby having a greater effect on these specimens.

The effect of sample width on the uni-axial strength of geotextiles was studied by

Myles and Carswell (1986). Tensile tests were performed on geotextile samples

23

ranging in width from 5 0 m m to one metre, with the full specimen width gripped in the jaws. They found that, as sample width approached one metre, the strength per unit width converged to a constant value, which they called the true strength value.

This is shown in Figure 2.5.

100 200 500

SAMPLE WIDTH (mm)

1000

Figure 2.5 Influence of sample width on strength (after Myles and Carswell, 1986)

To perform tests on one metre wide samples requires specialised clamping mechanisms in order to avoid sample slippage, and relatively sophisticated testing equipment. It takes considerably longer to prepare a test specimen of this size than for a 5 0 m m wide specimen. This test is not a relatively quick and inexpensive means of testing geotextiles and is really a performance indicating test, as opposed to an index test.

The majority of authors is generally in favour of the use of 2 0 0 m m wide specimens for tensile testing. Myles and Carswell (1986) and Anjiang et al. (1990) found that testing on 2 0 0 m m wide samples gave a closer approximation to the true strength of

24

the geotextile being tested than narrower strip tests. Myles and Carswell found that, at this width, test results overestimated the failure load of a high strength woven by approximately 10 per cent, and underestimated that of a lightweight non-woven by approximately 20 per cent, (see Figure 2.5)

Shrestha and Bell (1982) compared 200mm wide samples tested under unrestricted conditions, and 200mm wide samples tested under plane strain conditions. Their conclusion was that, at 200mm, the strength of normally tested samples was less than ten per cent lower than for samples tested under plane strain conditions. Their results indicate that the difference between the true strength and the strength at

200mm, is much smaller than that given by Myles and Carswell (1986). Shrestha and Bell simulated plane strain conditions by using wooden brackets and pins to restrict necking. The effect of these pins on strength values and material behaviour was not commented on. The tests by Myles and Carswell may be a better approximation of plane strain conditions as they tested very wide specimens, where the effects of necking were inhibited by the width of the specimen, thereby probably approximating field behaviour more closely than Shrestha and Bell.

2.4 Puncture resistance of geotextiles:

The definition of puncture resistance which is used in this thesis is: resistance to the

intrusion of aggregate, soil or other material into the geotextile which would cause

perforation of the geotextile. A perforation is considered to be a hole, tear or rip in the geotextile.

25

T h e resistance of geotextiles to puncturing stresses is an important element of geotextile strength. M a n y geotextile functions rely on the geotextile remaining intact - referred to as continuity by Giroud (1987). H e points out that, as granular materials are m a d e up of discrete particles, they can be dispersed but, due to their structure, geotextiles cannot be dispersed. This is important as any punctures or tears will lead to a loss of continuity which can allow the undesirable dispersion of soil particles.

Investigations of puncture resistance have been reported by many authors, some of w h o m have derived, either theoretically or empirically, expressions for the puncture resistance of geotextiles, usually as a function of the applied pressure (usually tyre pressure or surcharge) and aggregate size. Other factors include variables such as subgrade bearing stress, aggregate shape (sphericity), initial void diameter and thickness of aggregate layer.

Geotextile puncture resistance has been taken by most authors as being proportional to the square of the diameter of the aggregate. M o s t relationships for puncture resistance are expressed in terms of aggregate diameter and assume the surcharge acts on a spherical aggregate particle of diameter 'd'. These relationships are generally of the form s h o w n in Equation 2.5 (John, 1987). S o m e m a y use different variable n a m e s or break up variables differently, but they all generally give similar values (Lhote and Rigo, 1987; Werner, 1986; Koerner, 1990). p^d

2

)

J

F

r e q

= Y ^ (2-5)

Where:

F req

= Required puncture resistance (N). p = Average normal stress on the geotextile (Pa). d = Nominal aggregate diameter (m).

26

John (1987) also adds to this expression a term which takes subgrade bearing stress

(q

R

) into account, as s h o w n in Equation 2.6. This situation is illustrated in Figure

2.6. If no subgrade reaction is assumed, then this relationship is identical to

Equation 2.5.

F net

=j(pd

2

-q

R d c

2

) (2.6)

Where:

F net

= Net puncture force (N). p = Average normal stress o n the geotextile (Pa). d = Nominal aggregate diameter (m).

<1

R

= Subgrade reaction stress (Pa). d c

= Average diameter of contact area (m).

Figure 2.6 Geotextile puncture analysis showing subgrade reaction (after John, 1987)

Exact values for d c

are not given in John (1987), neither does he give a method for calculating values of d c

. H o w e v e r , two estimates of d c

are given, being 0.5d for rounded aggregate and 0.25d for angular aggregate. These variables assume spherical particles but, as real aggregates are non-spherical, dimensions d and d c represent average dimensions. John uses d c

values as he assumes that the net

27

puncture force is resisted by a radial tension around the contact area perimeter

(7id c

). When using Equation 2.6 to obtain an equivalent CBR plunger load, d c

must be 50mm. The value of d c

depends on the size and shape of the aggregate and, as this is not necessarily 50mm, he proposed an approximate conversion factor for required puncture strength in terms of puncture force and the ratio of contact area diameters. This relationship is given in Equation 2.7 where the value of 0.05 is the diameter of the CBR plunger in metres.

0.05 F net

Freq * — f ^ {2.1)

Giroud (1979) proposed an approximate relationship for puncture resistance which is given as Equation 2.8. It is almost identical to Equation 2.5, the only difference being that the pressure is applied to the geotextile through a square area instead of a round one. This is acceptable if the aggregate is assumed to be arranged cubically.

A square area, the side of which is equal to the diameter of a round area, is greater than a round area by a factor of 1.27 ie. 4/7i, giving greater values of F req

.

F req

= pd

2

(2.8)

2.5 Geotextile survivability:

In Christopher and Holtz (1985) the term 'survivability' for geotextiles is defined as

"...resistance to damage during construction and initial operation." The installation/construction process is frequently mentioned in the literature as the source of the greatest stress on geotextiles performing a separation function.

28

Christopher and Holtz (1985) developed a ranking system for geotextile installation survivability based on the severity of construction conditions. Survivability is ranked in five categories - low, moderate, high, very high and not recommended.

The 'not recommended' ranking indicates a situation where the use of a geotextile is not recommended because of possible overstressing, whereas the 'low' ranking indicates less severe installation conditions, where a fabric requires only low survivability to be deemed acceptable for use. Table 2.5 is reproduced from

Christopher and Holtz and shows the survivability rankings for all fabric types, based on ground pressure from construction equipment and type of subgrade preparation.

Table 2.4 Fabric survivability requirement (after Christopher and Holtz, 1985)

Subgrade

Preparation

Conditions

L o w ground pressure equipment

(<27 kPa)

Construction equipment

M e d i u m ground pressure equipment

(>27<55 kPa)

High ground pressure equipment

(>55 kPa)

Subgrade is smooth and level.

Subgrade has been cleared of large obstacles.

Minimal site preparation is provided.

L o w

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

Very high

High

Very high

Not recommended

* N O T E : Initial lift thickness of cover material 150-300mm.

29

W h e n considering the results of tests on geotextiles in the laboratory, it must be borne in mind that they will not have been adversely affected by in-situ conditions such as exposure to moisture, excessive exposure to ultraviolet light and physical damage during installation or in service. If a geotextile cannot survive the process of installation, then its long term durability becomes unimportant as a design consideration.

Nowatzki and Pageau (1984) investigated the effect of holes on geotextile tensile strength by conducting tests on 50 x 250mm specimens in which round holes, ranging in diameter from zero (ie. no hole) to 12.5mm, were cut in the centre of the specimens. Their results showed that, for woven fabrics, the loss of tensile strength was between two and 40 per cent for a hole diameter to specimen width ratio of less than ten per cent, for loads applied in the machine direction. For loads applied in the cross-machine direction, the loss of tensile strength was between 24 and 45 per cent. They found that a hole diameter to specimen width ratio of less than ten per cent had very little effect on tensile strength for the non-woven geotextile tested.

The mode of failure for the materials with holes was similar for both wovens and non-wovens. The hole gradually stretched until it became oval-shaped, continuing until strands at the edge of the hole broke. This type of failure follows basic mechanics theory which treats holes as stress concentrators. Tests were also conducted on specimens in which slit cuts perpendicular to the direction of loading were made in the specimen. The results of these tests were said to compare favourably with the round hole tests, but no supporting data was given. The governing factor for tensile strength reduction was said to be the percent reduction in width and not the shape of the cut.

30

2.5.1 Field testing of geotextiles:

Three types of field test were carried out by Dixon and Osborn (1990) on a staple fibre non-woven, a continuous filament non-woven and a high strength woven. The first test involved dropping a two tonne angular granite block from one metre onto a geotextile placed on a layer of sandy gravel. T h e second test involved placing a geotextile onto a layer of levelled rock ( d

5 0

= 1 2 5 m m ) , covering it with 1 5 0 m m of sand, and trafficking it with a 67 tonne excavator (number of passes not given).

The third test involved the use of 7.5 tonne rocks as a base, with smaller rocks and gravel in the voids. A geotextile w a s placed on top of this and covered with

2 0 0 m m of sand. This w a s then trafficked with a tracked mobile crane (number of passes and mass of crane not given).

The staple fibre fabric showed less damage than the other fabrics in all three tests

(refer to Table 2.4). The high strength w o v e n exhibited severe damage, including splitting and lacerations. The comparatively little damage to the staple fibre fabric was attributed to the localisation of damage, because the smaller fibre lengths allow higher local elongation in the immediate vicinity of the damaged area. This is consistent with the results of W e h r (1986). W e h r reported on field trials of geotextiles in test pits under railway ballast over a ten year period. H e found that damage in needle punched geotextiles exhumed after ten years of service w a s never in zones of greatest elongation.

31

Table 2.5 Geotextile d a m a g e from field tests (after Dixon and Osborn, 1990)

Geotextile

Staple fibre non-woven

Continuous filament non-woven

High strength w o v e n

D r o p p e d block trial 1

Small localised hole

Large hole with s o m e shredding

Very large hole

Extensive splitting

Trafficking trials 1 & 2

Small pitted holes

Large holes

Extensively lacerated

2.5.2 E x h u m i n g of geotextiles:

In general, exhuming of geotextiles has shown that in-service stresses have not hindered satisfactory performance. Rathmayer (1982) stated that, although the properties of some fabrics had changed, samples exhumed from 22 sites throughout

Finland appeared to have performed satisfactorily as both separators and filters. He also stated that, for fabrics used as part of permanent structures, the working stresses do not affect design criteria. Strength requirements must, therefore, be related to the installation procedure.

In 1973, the Swedish National Road Administration (SNRA) initiated a field test to measure the performance of nine geotextiles used as separators, including woven and non-woven (needle punched and heat bonded) fabrics. Samples of these geotextiles were tested prior to installation and the strength measured in these tests is the initial strength. Further samples were exhumed five and then ten years after installation. The strength measured in these tests is the residual strength, usually expressed as a percentage of initial strength. Visual examination of these geotextiles after ten years showed no signs of migration of fines. Strip tensile tests

(50mm wide) showed that a high strength woven lost approximately 50 per cent of its initial strength, and for the non-woven geotextiles exhumed, the change in

32

strength w a s between a 10 per cent loss and a 14 per cent gain. T h e conclusion of this research w a s that measured strength loss did not appear to have affected the proper functioning of any of the geotextiles examined (Brorsson and Eriksson,

1986).

Hausmann et al. (1990) conducted laboratory abrasion tests on geotextiles using a modified Deval attrition test (BS 812, 1951). T h e hole diameters found in drop cone tests gave a good qualitative indication of strength loss due to abrasion, as hole diameters increased with increasing abrasion. In the same investigation, geotextiles were exhumed from 15 sites in N e w South Wales ( N S W ) and tested in narrow strip tensile tests, where the observed loss of initial strength w a s between 15 and 73 per cent. Heavier non-wovens exhibited less damage than lighter ones, but composite geotextiles exhibited the least damage of all fabrics tested. This is consistent with the findings of Ruddock (1977) w h o stated that, " A considerable reduction in the loss of strength...is achieved by the addition of a light needled layer to a w o v e n fabric."

Sprague and Cicoff (1989) reported on the installation of a woven and a non-woven geotextile beneath a road pavement in Greenville County, South Carolina.

Geotextile samples were exhumed from beneath the pavement after compaction, but prior to the completion of the road. M o s t of the samples exhibited puncture damage to a minor extent. The Mullens Burst tests and puncture tests carried out on these samples were set up to avoid these puncture holes. A s would be expected, the loss in strength w a s small, although there were still s o m e puncture holes in almost every test specimen. F r o m this work, it w a s concluded that slit film w o v e n and needle punched non-woven geotextiles s h o w the same degree of installation survivability,

33

under similar conditions. However, these conclusions seem dubious as the major puncture areas were purposely avoided for testing, hence producing biased results.

Bonaparte et al. (1988) exhumed samples of two different heat bonded fabrics from seven existing unpaved roads. T h e age of the materials ranged from 1 to 12 years.

Testing found the residual strength w a s between 50 and 90 per cent of initial strength, varying with the severity of installation conditions. Tests were also performed to determine the cause of the measured loss in strength. Differential scanning calorimetry and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy analyses showed very little polymer degradation. Scanning electron photomicrographs indicated the primary cause of strength loss to be mechanical d a m a g e to the macroscopic structure of the geotextile. A t s o m e sites, the geotextiles sustained considerable installation damage. However, as the overlying road conditions at all sites had not deteriorated since construction it w a s assumed that they still performed adequately as separators. T h e traditional view of survivability, where geotextiles are said to have survived if they sustain only minor damage, w a s questioned. Their observations were that these fabrics had functioned as good separators even though they had sustained considerable installation damage.

The most extensive survey of geotextile survivability available at the time of writing is that of Koerner and Koerner (1990). Sixty-six geotextiles, including w o v e n slit film, w o v e n monofilament, non-woven heat bonded and non-woven needle punched fabrics, were e x h u m e d from 48 sites and wide strip tensile, grab tensile, puncture, trapezoidal tear and Mullens Burst tests were conducted on all geotextile samples. T h e exhuming w a s carried out as soon as possible, but always within one w e e k of installation. T h e n u m b e r of holes greater than 6 m m w a s recorded for each sample. A plot of strength retained against the number of holes

34

per square metre, reproduced here as Figure 2.7, shows the data points divided into three arbitrary groups. For samples with 0 to 6 holes per square metre (A), the strength retained was between 100 and 67 per cent. The next group was samples with 6 to 30 holes per square metre (B), for which the strength retained was between 85 and 45 per cent. The third group (C) was deemed unacceptable as there were more than 50 holes per square metre and the strength retained was between 60 and 15 per cent.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Number of holes per square metre

Figure 2.7 N u m b e r of holes per square metre versus strength retained (after Koerner and Koerner, 1990).

It is desirable to compare the results of Koerner and Koerner to those of Nowatzki and Pageau (1984) (see page 29). However, one hole in a 5 0 m m by 2 5 0 m m would correspond to 80 holes per square metre. The results of Koerner and Koerner show a residual strength of less than 40 per cent for this number of holes, whereas the m i n i m u m residual strength quoted by Nowatzki and Pageau is 55 per cent. The size of the holes m a d e by Nowatzki and Pageau ranged in diameter up to 12.5mm, whereas Koerner and Koerner only recorded holes greater than 6 m m .

35

In the published w o r k mentioned in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2, there are no results given which would enable specific geotextiles to be allotted survivability rankings to Christopher and Holtz (1985). A specific research program would be required for this purpose.

2.6 Geotextiles in Australia:

2.6.1 Introduction:

The first types of geotextiles available in Australia were heat bonded non-wovens and lightweight slit film wovens (Sadlier, 1988). These products were used by several government authorities, such as the Queensland Government Railways and the State Rail Authority of NSW, who found them to perform rather poorly under railroad ballast.

In the mid 1970s, needle punched non-wovens were introduced into Australia.

Both the NSW and Queensland railway authorities conducted full scale tests on a variety of geotextiles, and produced reports to aid in geotextile selection for applications such as ballast separation, drainage and erosion control. These reports were important as, at the time, there were no standardised methods for geotextile testing in Australia. Hence, anything that could aid in geotextile selection, especially if it was based on the results of field trials, was readily accepted and used

(Finn and Sadlier, 1986).

As reported by Sadlier (1988), a survey by the Commonwealth Department of

Housing and Construction in 1980, found that a number of state road authorities were using geotextiles. These included the Queensland Main Roads Department

36

( Q M R D ) , the N S W Roads and Traffic Authority and the Victorian Country Roads

Board (now part of VicRoads). T h e main use of geotextiles by these bodies w a s for subgrade separation under road pavements .

2.6.2 Major Australian geotextile publications:

The first major Australian geotextile publication was the QMRD report 'Evaluation of Geotextiles' (Waters et al., 1983). This report initiated m u c h of the research into geotextiles which has since been undertaken in Australia. It w a s also the basis, along with s o m e American Standards, for the draft geotextile Standard issued in

1987.

The second major Australian geotextile publication was the Austroads 'Guide to

Geotextiles' developed in January, 1990. Austroads is an association of road authorities from the six states and two territories of Australia, and a federal government department (Austroads, 1990). This publication included references to the draft Standard. In October, 1990, the geotextile Standard A S 3706 w a s published. This w a s followed by the design manual by W a r w i c k (1991). The manual summarises the major filter criteria from the leading geotextile authorities worldwide. It also mentions various test methods and the use of modified plungers in C B R puncture tests. It is the most extensive geotextile reference written in

Australia.

2.6.3 Geotextile classification:

The 1983 QMRD report 'Evaluation of Geotextiles' proposed a new classification system for geotextiles in Australia called the G-Rating. T h e G-Rating is given by:

37

G = V F p X h

5 0

(2-9)

Where:

G = Geotextile strength rating (N.mm)'

A

.

F p

= C B R puncture test failure load using a flat plunger (N). h

5 0

= Drop height required to produce a 5 0 m m diameter hole ( m m ) .

When the results of the CBR puncture and drop cone puncture tests were evaluated, it was found that some fabrics performed well in only one of the two tests. It was considered reasonable at the time to take the geometric mean of the two tests

(Waters etal, 1983).

The CBR puncture test and drop cone puncture tests have since been published as

Australian Standards A S 3706.4 (1990) and A S 3706.5 (1990) respectively.

In AS 3706.4, the rate of strain is 20mm/minute and the load at failure (F p

) is recorded. In A S 3706.5, a formula is given to calculate a drop height that would cause a 5 0 m m diameter hole (h

50

) from the measured hole diameter. It is given in two forms as shown in Equation 2.10. d

2

= d,

r h

Y-

\)

68

O R h

2

2

= h

(A

v-

47

d i :

\&J

Where: h, = First drop height ( m m ) . h

2

= Second drop height ( m m ) . di = Diameter of hole corresponding to h, ( m m ) . d

2

= Diameter of hole corresponding to h

2

( m m ) .

38

Six robustness classification groups were nominated and allotted ranges of G values as shown in Table 2.6. For most fabrics, G values fell into reasonably well-defined groups and the numerical boundaries were chosen from the limits of these groups

(Litwinowicz, 1993).

Table 2.6 Classification of fabrics in terms of the G-Rating (after Waters et al., 1983)

Classification

W e a k

Slightly Robust

Moderately Robust

Robust

Very Robust

Extremely Robust

G-Rating

<600

600-900

900-1350

1350-2000

2000-3000

>3000

In situations where geotextiles are used for separation purposes, selection is recommended in terms of robustness categories and soil properties. This is shown in Table 2.7. Other factors, such as the presence of vegetation and the weight of construction plant, are mentioned as further considerations, but their effect is not quantified.

Table 2.7 G-Rating categories for varying subgrade strengths (after Waters et al., 1983)

Description

Firm

Soil Properties

Undrained

Cohesion

(kPa)

25-50

Soft

Very soft

10-25

<10

C B R

(%)

2.5-5.0

1.0-2.5

<1.0

Fabric

Category

Moderately

Robust

Robust

Very

Robust

39

The G-Rating classification requires that, if elongation at failure in the C B R puncture test exceeds 80 per cent, the load at 80 per cent elongation shall be used to calculate the G-Rating (Austroads, 1990). It is not possible to say whether the 80 per cent rule is valid or not as this needs to be verified by in-situ testing. However, it can be said that the elongation of the geotextile should not be so great that it would lead to rutting beyond acceptable levels.

The second area of uncertainty regarding the G-Rating concerns the formula used for calculating h

50

(see Equation 2.10). A single exponent value is given in AS

3706.5 (1990) for all fabrics, regardless of material type or method of manufacture.

A note in AS 3706.5 states that the exponent was generally found to be between

0.55 and 0.7, with 0.68 chosen as the best approximation. As different geotextiles may produce exponents outside this range, it is possible that the exponent may need to be varied for particular fabrics. However, this also needs to be verified with testing.

2.7 Conclusion:

Of the 35 fabrics tested as part of the Queensland study (Waters et al., 1983) only about 25 are still available, and many have changed in their composition. For this reason, there appears to be a lack of knowledge of the behaviour of present-day geotextiles.

A lack of published field data inhibits any correlations between the G-Rating classification system and geotextiles in practice. The relationships between drop

40

height and hole diameter in A S 3706.5 (5) should be reviewed for currently available geotextiles.

Modified plungers should be used in CBR puncture tests to better model geotextile/aggregate interaction, and with a view to possibly incorporating such results into a classification system. A t the s a m e time, if possible, the results of these tests should be used to validate the values of shape factors for rounded and angular aggregate currently in use.

Wide strip tensile tests must also be conducted to compare previously defined relationships between C B R and wide strip tensile tests with current test results.

As a result of this literature review, and the conclusions outlined above, it was decided to investigate the behaviour of geotextiles in C B R and drop cone puncture tests, and to use the results to evaluate the G-Rating classification system. T h e results of the C B R puncture tests were also compared with wide strip tensile test results. It w a s also decided to investigate the behaviour of geotextiles under pyramid-tipped and hemispherical plungers to validate the shape factor values currently quoted in the literature.

41

CHAPTER 3

3.0 TESTING PROCEDURES AND CALCULATION METHODS

3.1 Introduction:

A testing program was undertaken which included as many of the geotextiles currently available in Australia, that could be obtained at the time. It w a s felt that this research w a s of sufficient importance to warrant such a wide spectrum of fabrics being tested.

This chapter summarises the geotextiles tested, their composition and method of manufacture. It also contains a description of the test methods and equipment used as part of the research program. In total, 1,475 tests were carried out o n 2 4 geotextiles. These included C B R puncture tests using flat, pyramid-tipped and hemispherical plungers, drop cone puncture tests at various drop heights and wide strip tensile tests.

Also included is a description of the different methods for calculating elongation in

C B R puncture tests using a flat plunger. For C B R puncture tests using a pyramidtipped plunger, the formula for elongation is given, and for tests using the hemispherical plunger, the formulae for elongation based o n t w o and threedimensional analyses, are also given.

3.2 Materials tested:

The geotextiles included in the testing program were non-woven fabrics of either needle punched or heat bonded construction, w o v e n fabrics and a composite woven/non-woven fabric. T h e non-woven geotextiles consisted of continuous

42

filaments, except for two which were m a d e of staple fibres. Table 3.1 lists the brand names of the materials tested, their composition and method of manufacture.

Table 3.1 S u m m a r y of geotextiles tested.

Manufacturer

Geofabrics

Polyfelt

Soil Filters

R h e e m

C S R H u m e s

Nylex

Sarlon

Product

Bidim

Polyfelt

Terrafix

Polytrac

N a m e

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

TS420

TS500

TS550

TS600

TS650

TS700

TS750

310R

360 R

155

C

Propex

Terram

Polyweave

2002

700 SUV

1000 SUV

3000 SUV

F

R

H R

155

110

140

280

102

180

150

Weight

(g/m

2

)

120

140

180

215

260

310

130

140

180

200

235

280

350

310

375

155

345

Material

Polyester

Polypropylene

Type of fabric

Non-woven needle punched continuous filament

Non-woven needle punched continuous filament

Polyester

Non-woven needle punched staple fibre

-Polypropylene

-Polypropylene/

Polyester

-Plain woven tape fabric

-Composite woven/nonwoven fabric

Polypropylene Plain woven tape fabric

Polypropylene

Non-woven thermally bonded continuous filament

Polypropylene Plain woven fabric

43

3.2.1 Sampling procedure:

The materials were obtained directly from manufacturers and/or suppliers and stored indoors, away from direct sunlight, and samples were not taken until the commencement of the testing program. A t this time, two days were set aside to prepare all the test specimens. The m i n i m u m length of geotextile sampled was two metres and the m i n i m u m number of specimens taken from each sample was ten.

The test specimens were taken so as to avoid areas within two metres of the end of a production roll, and within 1 0 0 m m of any edge. Areas which were obviously soiled were also avoided. All rectangular specimens were cut so that the edges were either parallel or perpendicular to the warp (machine) or weft (cross-machine) yarns for wovens, and parallel or perpendicular to the machine direction for nonwovens. For w o v e n materials, specimens were taken so that no two contained the same warp or weft yarns. The sampling procedure complied with the requirements of A S 3706.1 (1990).

3.3 Testing equipment and procedures:

The laboratory at which the tests were conducted is National Association of Testing

Authorities ( N A T A ) registered for the tests carried out. All temperature, humidity, and distance measurements were also carried out using N A T A registered equipment. All the tests were performed in a standard atmosphere, as defined by

Section 5.2 of A S 3706.1 (1990), in which the temperature w a s 23 ± 5°Celsius and the relative humidity w a s 65 ± 5 per cent. Temperature and humidity were monitored using a hygrothermograph, which w a s calibrated several times during the

44

testing program to ensure accuracy. All specimens were subjected to atmospheric conditioning by placing on a wire shelf for at least two hours in the standard atmosphere.

The flat and modified plunger CBR puncture tests and the wide strip tensile tests were carried out on an Instron 4302 testing machine. The load cell used for the

C B R tests w a s a U K 877, 10 k N static load cell. The data w a s collected and analysed to A S 3706.4 (1990) for the C B R puncture tests and A S 3706.2 (1990) for the wide strip tensile tests, by Instron series IX Automated Materials Testing

System, version 2.5 I M .

The drop cone puncture tests were carried out on a drop cone test apparatus constructed to meet the requirements of A S 3706.5 (1990).

All CBR and drop cone puncture test specimens were weighed on an A & D FX-

200 electronic balance, reading to 0.01 grams.

3.3.1 CBR puncture tests:

The procedure for the CBR puncture tests followed that given in AS 3706.4 (1990).

Specimens 1 9 5 m m in diameter were taken and labelled with a water-based felt-tip pen. They were then placed between two clamping rings and the rings tightened.

The grooves in the rings caused the fabric to be partially stretched which took out some of the slack in the specimen.

The clamped fabric was placed onto a CBR mould in the testing machine and the

5 0 m m diameter plunger w a s pushed through it at a rate of 20mm/minute. The

45

force-displacement curve was displayed on a computer screen and the failure load and vertical plunger displacement at failure recorded on a hardcopy printout. Tests were done on ten specimens from each sample. For the composite fabric, ten specimens were tested with the woven face up and ten specimens with the woven face down. The coefficient of variation was calculated for all fabrics and found to be not greater than the 20 per cent limit specified in A S 3706.4 (1990).

The testing procedure followed when using the pyramid-tipped plunger was the same as the flat plunger C B R puncture tests, except for the shape of plunger tip and the number of specimens tested, which was five for the pyramid-tipped plunger.

For the composite fabric, five specimens were tested for each face. The pyramid was four-sided with an apex angle of 45 degrees, with the apex machined to a 2 m m radius and all other edges machined to a 1 m m radius as shown in Figure 3.1.

All edges to l m m radius

Tip radius 2 m m

E N D V I E W

SIDE E L E V A T I O N

Figure 3.1 Dimensions of the pyramid-tipped C B R plunger.

The testing procedure followed with the hemispherical plunger was also the same as the flat plunger C B R puncture tests, except for the shape of the plunger tip, which was rounded to a 2 5 m m radius as shown in Figure 3.2. The number of specimens tested was five for each fabric. For the composite fabric, five specimens were tested for each face.

46

" ^ — I

5 0 m m -^ -

Radius 25mm

3.3.2 Drop cone puncture tests:

The drop cone puncture tests were carried out according to AS 3706.5 (1990).

Before any tests were actually performed on the specimens, 5 pieces of paper were cut to shape and placed between the clamping rings. A circle of radius 5 m m was drawn at the centre each piece of paper and the cone was allowed to fall on them one at a time. After removal of the cone, it was found that it had initially punctured the paper within 2 m m of the centre of the circle for each piece of paper, which is within the 5 m m tolerance given by A S 3706.5 (1990).

Specimens 195mm in diameter were cut and labelled with a felt-tip marking pen.

The fabric was placed between two clamping rings and the latter were tightened.

The clamps together with the fabric were placed onto a C B R mould. With the fabric and the drop cone in position, the vertical distance between them was measured every fifty tests and found to be 500mm + lmm.

The drop cone was held in position by a pin placed through the rod to which it was attached. For each specimen, the pin was removed, allowing the cone to fall freely onto the fabric. Upon coming to rest, the cone was returned to its original position and pinned. A graduated measuring cone was then placed into the hole in the fabric and allowed to rest under its own weight. The point of contact between the fabric

47

and the cone w a s found using the thumbnail. This method follows that outlined by

Waters et al. (1983). It gave hole diameters identical to those found by marking the cone with a chinagraph pencil. The diameter of each hole was measured to the nearest 0.25mm, although AS 3706.5 (1990) only requires the measurement of hole diameters to the nearest lmm. However, it was felt that the scatter of plotted points would be reduced by measuring the holes more accurately.

The hole diameter (d

500

) and drop height were recorded for ten specimens of each fabric tested at 500mm. For the composite fabric, ten specimens were tested with the woven face up and ten with the woven face down. The coefficient of variation was calculated for all fabrics and found to be less than 20 per cent.

Tests were conducted at 500mm drop height for all but the Terram 700 SUV and both Terrafix fabrics. For the Terram fabric, the cone totally penetrated the specimen when dropped from 500mm, therefore, the drop height was reduced to

250mm. For the Terrafix fabrics, the holes produced by the cone dropped from

500mm were very small and awkward to measure. Hence, the drop height for these fabrics was increased to 750mm.

In order to determine the form of the relationship between hole diameter and drop height for each fabric, tests were also conducted at 250mm and 750mm for all fabrics except the Terram 700 SUV and both Terrafix fabrics. For the Terram fabric, the alternative drop heights were 125mm and 375mm respectively, and for the Terrafix fabrics they were 875mm and 1000mm. Both alternative drop heights for the Terrafix fabrics were greater than 750mm in order to obtain holes large enough to measure accurately.

48

The values chosen for the alternative drop heights enabled comparisons between failure hole diameters for a drop height ratio of two. A S 3706.5 (1990) requires an exponent of 0.68 to be applied to the drop height ratio in order to obtain the drop height which would give a hole diameter of 5 0 m m (see Equation 2.8). Applying this exponent to a drop height ratio of two gives a value of 1.60 for the ratio of failure hole diameters. For most fabrics, the diameter of the hole obtained with a

5 0 0 m m drop height w a s compared with that obtained using a 2 5 0 m m drop height.

For the Terram 700 S U V fabric, the values obtained with drop heights of 2 5 0 m m and 1 2 5 m m were compared. For the Terrafix range, additional drop cone tests were conducted at 1 5 0 0 m m so that the results could be compared with those at 7 5 0 m m .

For the tests at 500mm, the measured hole diameter was greater than 10mm for all but the Polyweave H R fabric. At 2 5 0 m m , seven fabrics gave hole diameters of

1 0 m m or less. A S 3706.5 (1990) states that drop heights should be chosen to

"...achieve a puncture diameter preferably greater than 10mm." In order to obtain this, drop cone tests at 1 0 0 0 m m were conducted on all fabrics except the Bidim A

12 and the Terram 700 S U V and 1000 S U V fabrics, as the cone totally pierced these fabrics w h e n tests were attempted at this drop height. The results from these tests were compared with those at 5 0 0 m m , to calculate the ratio of failure hole diameters, and the exponents, for a drop height ratio of two. This allowed a comparison between the exponents found for the d

50 o/d25o and diooo/dsoo results.

3.3.3 Wide strip tensile tests:

The wide strip tensile tests were conducted according to AS 3706.2 (1990). For the non-woven samples, ten specimens of dimensions 200 x 2 5 0 m m were cut so that five had their longer edge parallel to the machine direction, and five perpendicular

49

to the machine direction. For the w o v e n samples, ten specimens were cut with dimensions of 220 x 400mm. Five specimens had their longer edge parallel to the warp direction, and five parallel to the weft direction.

For the woven specimens, the 220mm width was reduced by alternately ravelling yarns from each side of the specimen until the width was 200mm, or until the removal of another yarn would have caused the width to fall below 200mm. The length of 400mm was required to allow the specimen to be folded around rods in order to prevent specimen slippage between the jaws during testing, as wovens are much thinner and smoother than non-wovens. The rods used were 5mm steel rods of length 220mm. The composite specimens were cut as though they were nonwovens, as ravelling of outer threads proved extremely difficult, and there was no allowance made for composite fabrics in AS 3706.2 (1990). Each jaw face was covered with a coarse sand and coated with an epoxy resin to provide more friction between the jaw face and the test specimen.

Once the test specimen was in position, the jaws were tightened. The gauge length was measured periodically throughout the testing period and found to be 100mm ± lmm. The upper jaw was then raised at a rate of 20mm/minute until the specimen failed. The following properties were measured and recorded for each specimen yield tensile strength, elongation at yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and elongation at ultimate strength.

50

3.4 Calculation methods:

3.4.1 Fabric elongation:

The definition of elongation when referring to geotextile deformation is different from that normally recognised by engineers. Elongation is normally used in engineering to describe the change in length of materials. However, for geotextiles, elongation refers to a change in length or area compared with the initial length or area. This is commonly referred to as strain in engineering, but in geotextile literature these terms are used interchangeably.

3.4.1.1 CBR puncture tests using a flat plunger:

The method of calculation of elongation values required by AS 3706.4 (1990), uses the change in the distance between the plunger edge and the inside of the clamping rings (see Figure 3.3). The West German Standard DIN 54.307 (1982) gives a formula for elongation which is reproduced as Equation 3.1 (and Equation 2.3). It also gives a graph of vertical plunger displacement versus fabric elongation, based on this formula. This graph is given in AS 3706.4 (without the formula) and is reproduced here as Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.3 Variables for C B R puncture test elongation calculations

51

(3.1)

100

90

^ s

E

E

"*'

+ri s

E u

OS

80

70

60

50 a

•o

40

30

DC

o a a.

20

10

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Fabric elongation (%)

Figure 3.4 Fabric elongation calculated from plunger displacement (after AS 3706.4)

Both the Australian and West G e r m a n Standards calculate elongation in a vertical plane through the plunger axis. The use of 'x' and 'a' values alone does not take any deformation across the base of the plunger into account. A s fabrics were observed to deform across the plunger base during testing, this method of elongation calculation does not accurately represent the geotextile's behaviour. If relative movement across the base of the plunger occurs, the elongation calculated using

Equation 3.1 will be greater than the actual percentage change in distance between the plunger edge and the clamping rings. This is because a portion of the distance

'x' is m a d e up of fabric that w a s initially in contact with the plunger base. A denominator of'a' alone does not include any reference to this portion of fabric.

A method of calculation which would overcome this problem would be to determine the change in distance between the clamping rings and the centre of the

52

plunger. Using the variables defined in Figure 3.3, the elongation is as s h o w n in

Equation 3.2. This formula better reflects the behaviour of the test specimens as it includes the radius of the plunger in the denominator. The term 'a+r' is equal to the radius of the specimen (R), but is given in this form to allow comparison of

Equations 3.1 and 3.2. The numerator in both equations is the same, but the latter has a larger denominator, giving smaller elongation values.

6= — - xlOO

Va + ry

(3-2)

Equation 3.1 assumes that all deformation occurs between points B and C in Figure

3.5 i.e. that the fabric between points A and B does not stretch and remains in full contact with the base of the plunger. Equation 3.2 assumes that the stretching occurs over the full distance between points A and C.

Figure 3.5 Visualisation of shear stresses at interface of plunger and fabric

The shear stress T must reduce the amount of deformation of fabric in contact with the plunger along A-B. Therefore, neither Equation 3.1 or 3.2 accurately represents the actual elongation behaviour of CBR puncture test specimens. However, it is

53

observed that s o m e sliding of the fabric occurs across the plunger base and, therefore, it is thought that Equation 3.2 better represents the true elongation.

Figure 3.6 shows, schematically, a three-dimensional view of a geotextile specimen undergoing a C B R puncture test, and also the variables required to determine threedimensional fabric elongation (ie. change in specimen area). This method of elongation calculation w a s first proposed by Cazzuffi et al. (1986), as they observed the deformed shape of the specimen to approximate a frustum of a cone. They also observed deformations along the base of the plunger, and recognised the inadequacy of Equation 3.1 in reflecting elongation behaviour w h e n this occurs.

Figure 3.6 Variables for C B R puncture test failure elongation calculations (after

Cazzuffi et al, 1986)

Their formula for elongation is reproduced here as Equation 3.4. This equation is arrived at by assuming the shape of the deformed specimen to be that of a frustum of a cone. T h e surface area of the frustum, given by Equation 3.3, plus the area of geotextile in contact with the plunger base (nr

2

) gives the total surface area of a geotextile specimen during a C B R puncture test. T h e elongation, or change in

54

specimen area, is found by subtracting from this the initial area of the flat specimen

(7tR

2

), and dividing by the same to obtain a percentage difference.

A c

= 7i(R + r)x e =

7t(R + r)x + 7tr

2

- 7tR

2 xlOO

7tR

2

Where:

A c

= Surface area of the frustum of a cone for a flat C B R plunger.

(3.3)

(3.4)

For x values between 50 and 100, the calculated elongations are as shown in Table

3.2.

Table 3.2 Comparison of elongation values from different equations x value

(mm)

50

60

70

80

90

100

Elongation by Eq. 3.1

(%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Elongation by Eq. 3.2

(%)

0

13.3

26.7

40

53.3

66.7

Elongation by Eq. 3.4

(%)

0

17.8

35.6

53.3

71.1

88.9

The actual elongation of the specimen will not be the same for that part of the specimen in contact with the plunger and that part which is stretching freely between the plunger and the clamping rings. However, although the amount of restriction on deformation which the base friction causes is unknown, it is thought to be relatively small, and Equation 3.4 is considered to give an adequate representation of actual behaviour.

55

The actual shape of the test specimens w a s observed to be not quite that of a frustum of a cone as assumed by Equation 3.4, particularly at larger plunger displacements. T h e specimen shape actually observed w a s a three-dimensionally curved surface, similar in cross-section to that shown in Figure 3.7, with p\ the angle between the test specimen and the vertical edge of the plunger, increasing with increasing radial distance. T h e curvature of the specimen is exaggerated for clarity.

Load

Clamping rings

1 5 0 m m

Figure 3.7 Schematic view of actual specimen shape during C B R puncture test

As Equation 3.4 is the closest approximation to actual geotextile behaviour in a

C B R puncture test, it should be the preferred method of elongation calculation.

3.4.1.2 Pyramid-tipped plunger CBR puncture tests:

The calculation of elongation for a pyramid-tipped plunger follows the same basic procedure as for the flat plunger. Figure 3.8 shows the variables required to calculate elongation using Equation 3.5 (from Puhringer, 1990). The angle between the edges of the pyramid and the horizontal plane varies from 45 to 55 degrees depending on the orientation of the section through the plunger (see A - A and B-B).

56

This does not affect elongation calculations as Equation 3.5 assumes that the fabric does not conform to the shape of the pyramid tip.

Load x p

=VR i

+6' i

P L A N V I E W OF

P L U N G E R

C55 c

45 c

S E C T I O N A - A S E C T I O N B-B

Figure 3.8 Variables for calculating fabric elongation for a pyramid-tipped plunger. e =

x

p

-R

xlOO

R J

Where: x p

= Fabric length between inside of clamping rings and tip of pyramid-tipped plunger at failure (mm).

(3.5)

57

This is a two-dimensional analysis equation. For a three-dimensional analysis the shape of the deformed specimen is an inverted cone, for which the surface area is given in Equation 3.6.

Surface area of cone = 7iRx

T

(3.6)

The three-dimensional elongation is given by Equation 3.7. e =

v?Rx

p

) -

7tR

2 xlOO

7lR

2

(3.7)

If Equation 3.7 is expanded, it simplifies to Equation 3.5 as shown below. s =

^ R x

p

) -

7tR^ xlOO

7CR'

7tR(x p

- R ) xlOO

7tR

2

R xlOO

A s the plunger cut through most of the specimens tested, Equation 3.7 is not correct after this occurs. After initial rupture, fabrics are cut by the edges of the plunger tip, and the amount of travel of the plunger tip, and of the centre of the specimen, are no longer the same. Equation 3.5 can be used for elongation calculation with this plunger but it only applies for pre-rupture conditions. A s the plunger

58

penetrates further through s o m e fabrics than others, it cannot be used to calculate elongation at failure load for the purpose of comparison between fabrics.

3.4.1.3 Hemispherical plunger CBR puncture tests:

The calculation of elongation values for the hemispherical plunger is somewhat different from the standard plunger. Figure 3.9 shows the variables needed to calculate elongation with a hemispherical plunger.

Initial fabric position b = r - r cos a ° y = 5 - b

Observed

1

fabric shape

Idealised fabric shape

Figure 3.9 Variables for calculating fabric elongation for a hemispherical plunger.

Equation 3.8 calculates the length of fabric not in contact with the plunger, while

Equation 3.9 uses the angle a (in radians), to calculate the (arc) length of geotextile in contact with the plunger. Equation 3.11 uses a two-dimensional representation of the test set-up to determine fabric elongation.

59

x, = V C R - c ^ + y

2

(3.8)

x

2

= ra c

(3.9) x

R

=

X l

+ x

2

(3.10) xlOO (3.11)

Where: e = a = Half of angle subtended by the fabric in contact with the plunger. x

R

= Distance between inside of clamping rings and centre of tip of hemispherical plunger at failure ( m m ) .

Figure 3.9 represents the idealised elastic fabric shape with no friction between the fabric and the plunger. S o m e fabrics stretched somewhat in contact with the plunger, resulting in an increased a value, and a curvature of the fabric between the plunger and the clamping rings. The staple fibre fabrics were observed to have higher values of a than other types of fabric. The w o v e n fabrics, particularly the

Poly weave H R fabric, and the heat bonded Terram 3000 S U V fabric, were observed to have m u c h smaller a values, closer to the idealised material. The length of geotextile in contact with the plunger depends on a and, in turn, the length x

R

will change as a changes.

Three-dimensional elongations for the hemispherical plunger are also affected by the value of a, with higher values leading to a larger area of geotextile in direct contact with the plunger. In order to determine three-dimensional elongations, the areas of two parts of the test specimen must be determined - a segment of a sphere, which is in direct contact with the plunger, and a frustum of a cone, between the segment of the sphere and the clamping rings. Figure 3.10 shows this schematically.

60

Load

R — H «

Figure 3.10 Schematic three-dimensional view of hemispherical plunger test.

The surface area of the sphere segment is given by Equation 3.12 and the area of the frustum is given by Equation 3.13. The fabric elongation is given by Equation

3.14.

A s

= 2 7 t r b (3.12)

A

F

= 7 t ( R + c )

X l

(3.13) e =

A s

+ A

F

- 7iR

7tR

2 xlOO (3-14)

Where:

A s

= Surface area of segment of sphere.

A

F

= Surface area of frustum of cone (for hemispherical plunger).

The value of a depends not only on the plunger displacement but also on the nonlinear behaviour of the specimen. A s the amount of fabric in contact with the plunger varies between different fabric types (because of a plastic component of deformation), the prediction of a is not possible. However, for the idealised

61

specimen shape, the relationship between 8 and a is given by Equation 3.15, for which the derivation is given in Appendix A.

8 =

75sincecosa + 25 (l — c o s a - sin a)

(3.15)

A value of a is required for the calculation of b, c, Xj and x

2

(see Figure 3.9) and, for a given 8, Equation 3.15 can be solved for a on a programmable calculator or simple spreadsheet. Alternatively, Figure 3.11 can be used to determine a directly from 8 values between zero and 1 0 0 m m . Measured 8 values at failure load for this plunger ranged from 3 3 m m to 8 1 m m .

.^•s u

S *n

u

ed

CL

fa

V

611

S

9

0 -

10 20 30 40

50

Angle alpha (degrees)

Figure 3.11 Vertical plunger displacement (8) as a function of a.

/ '

60

A s with the flat plunger, Equation 3.14 ignores the effect of friction between fabric and plunger, and assumes an idealised shape for the stretched fabric. However, it is considered to give a good approximation to actual elongation and is recommended for general use.

62

CHAPTER 4

4.0 RESULTS OF TESTING PROGRAM

4.1 Introduction:

This chapter discusses the results of CBR puncture tests using a flat plunger, comparing them with wide strip tensile test results. The use of modified plungers in CBR puncture tests is also discussed, including the change in specimen behaviour under these plungers compared with the flat plunger.

Drop cone puncture test results at a range of drop heights are discussed and the relationship between drop height and hole diameter in AS 3706.5 (1990) is also reviewed.

The mass per unit area of the CBR and drop cone test specimens is given, together with relationships between mass per unit area and failure load for the CBR test specimens, and between mass per unit area and d

500

(hole diameter for 500mm drop height) for drop cone test specimens.

4.2 CBR puncture tests:

4.2.1 Tests using a flat CBR plunger:

CBR puncture tests using a flat CBR plunger were performed for two reasons, the first being to determine the CBR puncture resistance of all the geotextiles in the testing program, without the need to rely on values quoted by manufacturers and the second to obtain data for calculation of G-Rating values.

63

The measured C B R failure load w a s greater than the value quoted by the manufacturer for 16 of the 2 4 fabrics tested, and both sets of values are given in

Table 4.1. It is obvious from the table that the composite fabric has changed as, compared with the value quoted by the manufacturer, the measured failure load showed an increase of over 100 per cent.

The mode of failure observed for all specimens was symmetrical straining between the plunger and the clamping rings, to just before m a x i m u m load. At this point, specimens began to tear around the perimeter of the plunger with m a x i m u m load occurring soon after. This w a s expected as the m a x i m u m stress in a C B R puncture test specimen occurs at the edge of the plunger (Waters et al., 1983).

64

Table 4.1 Comparison of measured and manufacturer quoted C B R failure load.

Fabric Name

Measured C B R failure load

CN)

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

T S 4 2 0

T S 5 0 0

T S 5 5 0

T S 6 0 0

T S 6 5 0

T S 7 0 0

T S 7 5 0

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven down)

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

3 1 0 R

360 R

Terram

700 S U V

1000 S U V

3000 S U V

1575

1869

2654

3125

3792

4520

1639

1843

1903

2523

2729

3451

4635

3621

1465

1520

1866

2764

4651

3506

1363

1871

934

1182

2547

Manufacturer quoted

CBR failure load

(N)

Difference

(%)

1390

1800

2390

2690

3400

4100

13.3

3.8

11.1

16.2

11.5

10.2

1350

1550

1950

2150

2500

3250

3700

3050

700

700

1967

3184

4026

3900

1429

2350

900

1200

2900

21.4

18.9

-2.4

17.4

9.2

6.2

25.3

18.7

109.3

117.1

-5.1

-13.2

15.5

-10.1

-4.6

-20.4

3.8

-1.5

-12.2

65

4.2.1.1 C o m p a r i s o n of C B R tensile strength a n d wide strip tensile strength:

The CBR puncture test is related to the wide strip tensile test because tension is mobilised in the geotextile in both tests. In a C B R puncture test, the plunger load is resisted by tension in the plane of the geotextile specimen, with a component parallel to the direction of the applied load. T h e horizontal component acts as a shear stress between the plunger base and the geotextile in contact with the plunger.

A s plunger displacement increases, the vertical component of this tension increases resulting in an increased shear stress as it is the product of normal stress on the plunger base and coefficient of friction (constant for any given plunger and geotextile combination). However, in a wide strip tensile test, specimen behaviour is different as the applied load and the resisting tension are parallel, with no shear stress present.

Murphy and Koerner (1988) stated that the CBR puncture test is not actually a puncture test, but rather an axi-symmetric strength test, and should be thus considered. T h e fabric between the plunger and the clamping rings is theoretically in a pure state of axi-symmetric tension. In a C B R puncture test, there is total restraint along the edge of the entire specimen. In a plane strain tensile test necking is restricted, so the stress state in such a test would be not too dissimilar to that in a

C B R puncture test.

As the maximum stress in a CBR test sample occurs at the perimeter of the plunger, the strength per unit width is calculated by dividing tensile force at failure in the plane of the fabric by the circumference of the plunger, as described by Waters et al. (1983), and as s h o w n in Equation 4.1. C o s |3 is taken as 1.0 by Waters et al. as they assume p to be zero at the perimeter of the plunger tip i.e. the fabric just

66

outside the plunger edge is vertical. A s P varies with increasing radial distance, and many specimens were observed during testing to come into contact with the sides of the plunger adjacent to the tip, a value of zero at the perimeter of the tip is realistic.

F

P

T= P

n

(4.1)

n d Cosp

v

'

Where:

T = Tensile force per unit width (kN/m).

F p

= C B R puncture test failure load using a flat plunger (kN). d = Diameter of C B R plunger (m).

P = Angle between the plunger and the fabric (Degrees).

With cos P equal to 1.0 and d equal to 50mm, Equation 4.1 becomes, approximately, Equation 4.2 (Cazzuffi et al., 1986).

T =

2TT

• F p

(4.2)

Equation 4.1 (with cos P = 1.0) was used to calculate the strength per unit width of all the specimens tested and these values are given in Table 4.2 together with results of wide strip tensile tests. The difference varies from -0.9 per cent to 39.7 per cent.

67

Table 4.2 Comparison of measured and calculated strength per unit width in kN.m.

Fabric

Name

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

TS420

TS500

TS550

TS600

TS650

TS700

TS750

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven down)

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

310R

360 R

Terram

700 SUV

1000 SUV

3000 SUV

Strength per unit width

(Wide strip test)

Strength per unit width

(Eq. 4.1)

9.34

10.6

11.1

13.0

15.2

19.6

24.8

7.55

9.03

12.1

15.9

19.5

21.9

25.3

13.5

13.5

13.6

25.1

32.6

22.5

7.76

10.6

N / A

8.03

19.2

10.0

11.9

16.9

19.9

24.1

28.8

10.4

11.7

12.1

16.1

17.4

22.0

29.5

23.1

9.33

9.68

11.9

17.6

29.6

22.3

8.68

11.9

5.95

7.52

16.2

Percentage

Difference

11.4

10.4

9.0

23.9

14.5

12.2

19.0

32.5

31.8

39.7

25.2

23.6

31.5

-8.7

-30.9

-28.3

-12.5

-29.9

-9.2

-0.9

11.9

12.3

N / A

-6.4

-15.6

68

For the needle punched fabrics, which showed considerable necking in wide strip tensile tests, the strength per unit width w a s less than that calculated using the C B R puncture test results. Conversely for the w o v e n , composite and heat bonded fabrics, all of which exhibited negligible necking, the strength per unit width in wide strip tests w a s higher than the calculated C B R strength per unit width. This indicates that the degree of necking in wide strip tensile tests affects tensile strength, with larger values of necking leading to smaller values of strength.

Giroud (1992) compared bi-axial and uni-axial properties of geotextiles, and found that the percentage increase in measured strength from uni-axial to bi-axial tensile tests, w a s equal in magnitude to the percentage decrease in elongation. This increase in strength w a s 15 per cent for the non-wovens and 5 per cent for the wovens.

Myles and Carswell (1986) found that, at 200mm, the wide strip tensile test overestimated the true strength of wovens (no necking) by about ten per cent, and underestimated the true strength of non-wovens (necking) by about 2 0 per cent. If the strength values given in Table 4.2 for the C B R tests were changed by ten and 20 per cent in accordance with fabric type, the wide strip test results would be more closely approximated. Cazzuffi et al. (1986) showed that the strength calculated from C B R puncture tests w a s very similar to strength determined from wide strip tests on 5 0 0 m m wide samples. A t this width, the plane strain condition is more closely approximated by the laterally unrestrained sample. Therefore, the strength per unit width in such a case would correspond m o r e closely to that calculated from a C B R puncture test, than an unrestrained 2 0 0 m m wide strip test.

69

4.2.1.2 Fabric elongation:

In the field, a geotextile is usually restricted in lateral deformation by confinement within the fill and in a CBR puncture test the specimen is clamped along its entire edge, but in a wide strip tensile test there is no restraint on lateral contraction.

Lateral contraction in a wide strip tensile test is due to Poisson's ratio effects which are not representative of those in the field, where lateral contraction is restricted.

Because lateral contraction is prevented in a CBR puncture test, Poisson's ratio effects in the field are better modelled.

Giroud (1992) gives probable values for Poisson's ratio of 0.10-0.15 for wovens and

0.35 for non-wovens based on elastic theory. This is consistent with the observations of specimens in wide strip tensile tests, where wovens were seen to contract very little laterally, compared with non-wovens. Table 4.3 shows elongation values using Equation 3.4 (p. 55) compared with the average of elongation values for wide strip tensile tests to AS 3706.2 (1990) in the machine and cross-machine directions. The difference in values was much greater for the non-woven fabrics, which is directly attributable to lateral contractions in the wide strip tests for all but the Terram fabrics, for which only a small degree of necking was observed.

70

Table 4.3 Elongation values from C B R puncture and wide strip tensile tests.

Fabric Name

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

T S 4 2 0

T S 5 0 0

T S 5 5 0

T S 6 0 0

T S 6 5 0

T S 7 0 0

T S 7 5 0

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven down)

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

3 1 0 R

360 R

Terram

700 S U V

1000 S U V

3000 S U V

Elongation by

Equation 3.4

(%)

Elongation to

A S 3706.2

(%)

25.0

26.8

27.9

31.8

31.4

32.0

46.7

47.7

46.3

50.1

52.6

55.1

Percentage increase in elongation

87

78

66

58

66

72

25.2

27.9

31.8

31.6

30.4

30.8

32.0

16.4

8.4

9.6

17.7

20.7

22.5

22.3

68.7

68.2

37.1

39.6

38.4

54.7

53.4

57.1

53.3

61.0

63.9

68.9

20.3

9.9

9.9

22.8

35.6

25.8

27.7

140.0

144.5

N/A

60.7

75.8

117

91

80

69

100

107

115

24

18

3

29

72

15

24

104

112

N/A

53

97

71

Comparison of elongation values in Table 4.3 shows behaviour consistent with the observations of Cazzuffi et al. (1986), who found that the elongation in 500mm wide strip test specimens, with lateral contraction accounted for in the calculation method, was close to that calculated for CBR puncture tests using Equation 3.5.

They also found that the elongation of 200mm wide strip specimens, for which lateral contraction was not accounted for in the calculations, was much greater than that of the 500mm wide specimens. According to Myles and Carswell (1986), a

500mm wide strip tensile test more closely represents the true behaviour of geotextiles than at 200mm width. The elongation in a CBR puncture test calculated using the three-dimensional formula is then a better approximation to elongation in the field than a 200mm laterally unrestricted wide strip tensile test.

4.2.2 Tests using modified plungers:

The distribution of stress in a geotextile specimen is different when using a flat plunger compared with a pointed or rounded penetrating element. The latter two result in a concentration of stress at the centre of the plunger rather than around the perimeter of the plunger. CBR puncture tests using plungers with pyramidal and hemispherical tips were conducted in order to determine the difference in behaviour compared with flat plunger tests.

4.2.2.1 Pyramid-tipped plunger CBR puncture test:

Critical geotextile applications usually involve angular aggregate. The larger and more angular the particles, the more damage they can cause to the geotextile. The drop cone test is a dynamic test and more related to the installation procedure than to the quasi-static penetration mode experienced by geotextiles in service. A CBR

72

puncture test, whether it is performed using a flat or modified plunger, loads a specimen gradually, thereby m o r e closely simulating the application of load in normal service.

The results of tests using a pyramid-tipped plunger showed a significant decrease in failure load compared with the flat plunger, for all but staple fibre fabrics. A s shown in Table 4.4, the decrease w a s 47-68 per cent for needle punched fabrics, 49-

60 per cent for heat bonded fabrics and 63-78 per cent for w o v e n fabrics. T h e composite fabric exhibited an average decrease in failure load of 6 0 per cent, putting it in the s a m e range as the continuous filament non-wovens. Assuming the pyramid-tipped plunger used is an adequate model of angular aggregate, C B R puncture tests using a flat plunger overestimate the puncture resistance of all but staple fibre fabrics.

The small gain in failure load of 1-3 per cent for the staple fibre fabrics is due to the localisation of the load to fibres in the immediate vicinity of the tip of the pyramid.

Under the pyramid-tipped plunger, the filaments in continuous filament fabrics are stretched until they are cut by the edges of the plunger. In staple fibre fabrics, the fibres are stretched but failure is not by cutting of fibres, rather, it w a s seen to be mainly due to large-scale slipping of fibres in the vicinity of the plunger with very little cutting. This failure mechanism is similar to that of staple fibre fabrics under a flat plunger, hence the closeness of failure load values for the two plungers (see

Table 4.4). Lhote and Rigo (1987) explained this by proposing that a bearing-type failure occurs across the base of a flat C B R plunger, which gives w a y to a m o r e local failure at the tip of the pyramid-tipped plunger. This agrees well with observations of test specimens under a pyramid-tipped plunger, but for the flat plunger, failure w a s observed to be at the perimeter and not across the base.

73

Table 4.4 Comparison of flat and pyramid-tipped plunger C B R failure loads.

Fabric Name

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven down)

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

310R

360 R

Terram

700 SUV

1000 SUV

3000 SUV

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

T S 4 2 0

T S 5 0 0

T S 5 5 0

T S 6 0 0

T S 6 5 0

T S 7 0 0

T S 7 5 0

Flat C B R plunger load

(N)

Pyramid-tipped C B R plunger load

(N)

Percentage change in strength

1575

1869

2654

3125

3792

4520

834

774

1113

1193

1570

1815

-47.1

-58.6

-58.1

-61.8

-58.6

-59.9

1639

1843

1903

2523

2729

3451

4635

3621

1465

1520

1866

2764

4651

3506

1363

1871

934

1182

2547

635

727

618

845

865

1166

1568

807

542

647

635

1023

1188

935

1403

1894

403

601

1022

-61.3

-60.6

-67.5

-66.5

-68.3

-66.2

-66.2

-77.7

-63.0

-57.4

-66.0

-63.0

-74.5

-73.3

2.9

1.2

-56.9

-49.2

-59.9

74

The results for the needle punched fabrics compare favourably with those of

Werner (1986) who reported a reduction in failure load of 50-66 per cent for these fabrics. However, for heat bonded (70-75 %) and woven (85 %) fabrics, his values are higher than those given in Table 4.4, especially for the heat bonded fabrics.

4.2.2.2 Hemispherical plunger CBR puncture test:

Not all geotextile applications involve angular aggregate. The effect of rounded puncturing elements is not discussed in literature available at the time of writing.

Spherical aggregate affects a geotextile less severely than angular aggregate.

The results of tests using a hemispherical plunger showed a moderate decrease in failure load compared with the flat plunger, for all but staple fibre fabrics. As shown in Table 4.5, the decrease was 2-22 per cent for the needle punched fabrics,

2-12 per cent for the heat bonded fabrics and 23-35 per cent for the woven fabrics.

The average decrease in failure load for the composite fabric was 32 per cent, putting it in the range of the woven fabrics. Under the pyramid-tipped plunger, this fabric showed a decrease in failure load in the range of the needle punched fabrics.

The staple fibre fabrics showed an increase in failure load, compared with the flat plunger, of 13 and 21 per cent for the 310 R and 360 R fabrics respectively. This increase in failure load is due to the localisation of stress at the centre of the hemispherical tip, as was the case with the pyramid-tipped plunger. However, unlike the pyramid-tipped plunger, there was no cutting of fibres by the plunger and the failure load is therefore greater. For the other fabrics the absence of cutting of fibres led to much smaller decreases in failure load under the hemispherical plunger, than under the pyramid-tipped plunger.

75

Table 4.5 Comparison of flat and hemispherical plunger C B R failure loads.

Fabric Name

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

TS420

TS500

TS550

TS600

TS650

TS700

TS750

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven down)

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

310R

360 R

Terram

700 S U V

1000 S U V

3000 S U V

Flat C B R plunger load

CN)

Hemispherical C B R plunger load

CN)

1639

1843

1903

2523

2729

2451

4635

1575

1869

2654

3125

3792

4520

3621

1465

1520

1866

2764

4651

3506

1363

1871

934

1182

2547

1441

1442

1530

2152

2417

2969

4085

1499

1729

2317

2890

3687

4443

2361

1032

1008

1371

2094

3486

2693

1540

2267

820

1094

2495

Percentage change in strength

-4.9

-7.5

-12.7

-7.5

-2.8

-1.7

-12.1

-21.8

-19.6

-14.7

-11.4

-14.0

-11.9

-34.8

-29.6

-33.7

-26.5

-24.2

-25.1

-23.2

13.0

21.2

-12.2

-7.5

-2.0

76

4.2.2.3 Relationship between failure load under flat and modified plungers:

In order to relate the failure load in a modified plunger test to that in the flat plunger

CBR puncture test, a shape factor S may be defined as shown in Equation 4.3 (and

Equation 2.2).

F

P

*mod

S = j

1

- (4.3)

Where:

F p

= CBR puncture test failure load using a flat plunger (N).

Fmod

=

CBR puncture test failure load using a modified plunger (N).

Shape factor values for the pyramid-tipped plunger are given in Table 4.6. For the

Bidim fabrics, the average shape factor is 2.4 if the lightest weight fabric is excluded. For the Polyfelt fabrics, excluding the two lightest fabrics, the average value is 3.0. For the non-woven heat bonded Terram fabrics, the average is 2.3 and for the composite fabric (Polytrac C), the average is 2.6.

Shape factor values for the woven geotextiles differ greatly from each other, with the Poly weave fabrics having an average shape factor of 3.2, the Propex fabric 3.8 and the Polytrac fabric 4.5, with the weighted average shape factor for all wovens being 3.6. For the staple fibre fabrics, the shape factor is 1.0 as failure load under both plungers was about the same.

77

Table 4.6 Failure load and shape factor values for a pyramid-tipped plunger.

Fabric Name

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

TS420

TS500

TS550

TS600

TS650

TS700

TS750

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven down)

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

310R

360 R

Terram

700 SUV

1000 SUV

3000 SUV

Flat C B R plunger load

CN)

Pyramid-tipped plunger load

CN)

Shape

Factor

Average

Shape Factor

1575

1869

2654

3125

3792

4520

1639

1843

1903

2523

2729

3451

4635

3621

1465

1520

1866

2764

4651

3506

1363

1871

934

1182

2547

834

774

1113

1193

1570

1815

635

727

618

845

865

1166

1568

807

542

647

635

1023

1188

935

1403

1894

403

601

1022

2.6

2.5

3.1

3.0

3.2

3.0

3.0

1.9

2.4

2.2

2.6

2.4

2.5

4.5

2.7

2.4

2.9

2.7

3.9

3.8

1.0

1.0

2.3

2.0

2.5

2.3

2.9

4.5

2.6

3.2

3.8

1.0

2.3

78

Using a hemispherical plunger, the shape factor for all but staple fibre fabrics is greater than one. T h e test results summarised in Table 4.7 indicate a shape factor of

1.1-1.2 for continuous filament non-wovens, and 1.3-1.5 for wovens. T h e average value for the composite fabric is 1.5. The variation between fabric types, and between weights for a given fabric, is m u c h smaller than for the pyramid-tipped plunger. The shape factor for staple fibre fabrics is 0.9, as failure load increased by an average of 17 per cent under the hemispherical plunger compared with the flat plunger.

79

Table 4.7 Failure load and shape factor values for a hemispherical plunger.

Fabric Name

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

TS420

TS500

TS550

TS600

TS650

TS700

TS750

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven down)

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

310R

360 R

Terram

700 S U V

1000 S U V

3000 S U V

Flat C B R plunger load

(N)

Hemispherical

C B R plunger load

CN)

Shape

Factor

Average

Shape Factor

1575

1869

2654

3125

3792

4520

1639

1843

1903

2523

2729

3451

4635

3621

1465

1520

1866

2764

4651

3506

1363

1871

934

1182

2547

1499

1729

2317

2890

3687

4443

1441

1442

1530

2152

2417

2969

4085

2361

1032

1008

1371

2094

3486

2693

1540

2267

820

1094

2495

1.1

1.1

1.2

1.1

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.3

1.2

1.3

1.1

1.2

1.1

1.5

1.4

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

0.9

0.8

1.1

1.1

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.5

1.5

1.3

1.3

0.9

1.1

80

4.2.2.4 S h a p e factors for practical use:

In the process of selecting geotextiles for use in the field, results of flat plunger

C B R puncture tests are c o m m o n l y available. Values of probable puncture load on fabrics are calculated assuming a particle diameter but not a shape. W h e n angular or rounded aggregate is to be used, the flat plunger test value for a fabric must be multiplied by the appropriate shape factor in order to choose the appropriate fabric for the given loadings and aggregate shape.

Warwick (1991) quotes a shape factor of 3.0 for angular aggregate. This corresponds well with the results of the Polyfelt fabrics, but by using this value the strength of Bidim would be underestimated by 25 per cent, Polytrac C by 15 per cent and Terram by 30 per cent, under a pyramid-tipped plunger or an angular aggregate. A shape factor of 3.0 would overestimate the strength of Polyweave fabrics by 6.3 per cent, Propex by 21 per cent and Polytrac 155 by 33 per cent. A shape factor of 3.0 would underestimate the strength of staple fibre fabrics by about

300 per cent.

The shape factor quoted in the literature for rounded aggregate is 0.8 (Warwick,

1991; Lhote and Rigo, 1987). This value does not correspond well with the results of any of the fabrics tested. T h e values found for all fabrics are greater than one, except for the staple fibre fabrics which gave 0.9. T h e localisation of stress at the centre of the hemisphere leads to lower failure load values compared with a flat plunger, for all but staple fibre fabrics. Hence, the shape factor values given in

Table 4.7 are m o r e realistic than a value of 0.8.

81

4.3 D r o p cone puncture test:

In the drop cone puncture tests conducted, most fabrics failed with very little instantaneous vertical displacement, except for the lightest continuous filament non-wovens, and both staple fibre non-wovens, which were displaced noticeably downwards by the impact of the cone on the specimen surface. These displacements were smaller for the continuous filament fabrics, but more significant for the staple fibre fabrics.

Table 4.8 shows the results of the drop cone tests for all fabrics. It includes values of d

500

unless otherwise indicated. It also gives the ratio of hole diameters for a drop height ratio of two, for tests at 5 0 0 m m and 2 5 0 m m , and tests at 1 0 0 0 m m and

5 0 0 m m , unless otherwise indicated. The corresponding exponent for Equation 2.10

(p. 38) is also given, which is to be compared with the value of 0.68 given in A S

3706.5 (1990). Note 1 in A S 3706.5 states that 0.68 was taken as the best approximation for a range of exponent values from 0.55-0.7.

For the d

500

/d

250

case, the Bidim fabrics produced average exponents close to that given in the Standard, as did the Propex fabric. The average exponent for the

Polyfelt fabrics w a s slightly lower, but still inside the range of 0.55-0.7. Exponents outside this range were found for the Terram (average 0.71), Polytrac C (average

0.71), Polytrac 155 (0.47) and Polyweave (average 0.42) fabrics. B y far the largest deviation from the Standard value w a s for the Terrafix fabrics, for which the average exponent w a s 1.47. It can be seen, then, that some of the geotextiles currently available have properties different from those upon which the relationships in A S 3706.5 (1990) are based, w h e n comparing results from 5 0 0 m m and 2 5 0 m m tests.

82

Table 4.8 Exponents for drop cone tests at different heights.

Fabric Name

^500

(mm)

^50(/ d

250

Exponent diooV^soo

Exponent

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

TS420

TS500

TS550

TS600

TS650

TS700

TS750

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven down)

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

310R

360 R

Terram

700 S U V

1000 S U V

3000 S U V

26.8

26.9

20.9

19.9

17.2

15.3

28.3

24.8

24.8

23.6

20.4

17.7

14.9

13.6

20.3

17.6

13.1

15.9

9.0

11.5

36.4*

29.2*

30.9**

30.5

18.5

1.45

1.31

1.56

1.63

1.41

1.51

1.58

1.52

1.54

1.48

1.79

1.52

1.63

1.38

1.61

1.64

1.37

1.31

1.33

1.57

2.49*

2.96*

1.63**

1.55

1.74

0.54

0.39

0.64

0.71

0.49

0.59

0.66

0.61

0.62

0.57

0.84

0.61

0.70

0.47

0.69

0.72

0.46

0.39

0.41

0.65

1.36*

1.58*

0.70**

0.63

0.80

1.50

1.51

1.52

1.54

1.55

1.48

1.44

N/A

1.61

1.53

1.62

1.59

1.48

1.50

1.60

1.60

1.54

1.53

1.69

1.70

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1.27

N O T E : * Actual values are for d

1500

and d

1500

/d

750

respectively.

** Actual values are for d

2 5 0

and d

2

5o/d

12

5 respectively.

N/A

0.71

0.62

0.71

0.68

0.57

0.59

0.62

0.61

0.62

0.64

0.57

0.54

0.59

0.68

0.69

0.63

0.61

0.76

0.77

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

0.35

83

For a drop height ratio of two with heights of 1 0 0 0 m m and 5 0 0 m m , the results were found to be different from those obtained using the 5 0 0 m m and 2 5 0 m m tests.

Except for the w o v e n Propex fabric, the d

1000

/d

500

exponents were closer to 0.68 than the d

500

/d

250

values. The average exponent for the Bidim, Polytrac C and

Polyweave fabrics w a s 0.66, 0.69 and 0.67 respectively. The Polyfelt range gave an average exponent of 0.60 and the Polytrac 155 fabric an average of 0.59. A S

3706.5 (1990) states that failure hole diameters should preferably be greater than

1 0 m m . The Polyweave H R fabric had a d

500

value of less than 1 0 m m , but it gave an exponent closer to 0.68 than the Polyweave F fabric, for which d

500

was

13.1mm.

The d

10 o(/d5o

0

exponent for the Terram 3000 SUV fabric is considered to be not reliable. Tests at 1 0 0 0 m m did not produce any results for the two lighter grades

(700 S U V and 1000 S U V ) as the cone totally pierced 700 S U V specimens at both

500 and 1 0 0 0 m m , and 1000 S U V specimens at 1 0 0 0 m m . The value of 0.35 for the

3000 S U V fabric is not consistent with the results of other drop cone tests on this fabric. It is also well under the expected value and is not in line with other continuous filament non-wovens. Taking the average exponent from the d

500

/d

250

, d

500

/d

750

and d

250

/d

750

calculations (divide drop heights by two for 700 S U V ) for all three Terram fabrics, an exponent of 0.69 is acceptable. The reason for such a low exponent for the d

1000

/d

500

case is not known, but is attributed to random sampling of sections of fabric with m u c h higher strength characteristics.

The AS 3706.5 (1990) exponent value of 0.68 was more closely approximated by the results of tests at higher drop heights. It then follows that exponents calculated from tests at drop heights of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 metres m a y more closely approximate the A S 3706.5 (1990) value. These greater drop heights would produce larger hole

84

diameters, but in the field, the aim is to have no hole, or to keep hole diameters as small as possible. It appears that, in order to obtain results that correspond well with the exponent in A S 3706.5, drop heights m a y be taken so high as to be removed from being relevant to separation applications.

The test results show that, for a drop height of 1000mm (1500mm for Terrafix fabrics), there were no failure hole diameters less than 1 5 m m . For failure hole diameters above 1 5 m m , the value of 0.68 is more closely approximated by a greater number of calculated exponent values (see Figure 4.1), than for tests at 5 0 0 m m .

1.6

1.4

**

1.2

a o

0.8 a

-a 0.6

0.4 u

U

0.2

A

.A

• dl000/d500

Staple fibre at 1500mm

A d5O0/d250

0.68 line

A

1

A

A I

A

4^

> % • ^ A

AA

A

-_ &

A

A" A

• »

%

1

\

Terram 3000 SUV

— I 1 1

1

1

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

45

Failure hole diameter for 5 0 0 m m & 1000mm drop heights (mm)

Figure 4.1 Failure hole diameter versus calculated exponent value.

85

4.4 Geotextile R u p t u r e Index:

4.4.1 Introduction:

For a geotextile to resist bursting pressures and puncture or tensile forces, it must either have sufficient strength, or have the capacity to elongate in order to absorb the energy associated with these stresses.

The Swiss Association of Geotextile Experts defined rupture resistance as the product of tensile force per unit width and fabric elongation at failure in a wide strip tensile test (Foch, 1990), reproduced here as Equation 4.4.

A = Txe (4.4)

Where:

A = Rupture resistance (%.kN/m).

T = Tensile force per unit width (kN/m).

E = Fabric elongation (%).

The units of rupture resistance from this equation are not intuitively meaningful.

The concept may be more readily understood if it were expressed in a form that had units more familiar to engineers.

For separation geotextiles, resistance to rupture caused by puncture and bursting is as important as resistance to tensile rupture. Giroud (1981) stated that a geotextile failing at less than 100 per cent elongation in a plane strain tensile test must have sufficient tensile strength in order to adequately resist puncturing. In the CBR puncture test, resistance to puncturing is due to both tensile strength and deformation capacity, and not to one or the other acting independently.

86

4.4.2 Definition and application of the Rupture Index:

As plunger load is increased geotextiles elongate until maximum load is reached, after which further elongation is detrimental to the fabric structure resulting in a decreased resistance to the applied load. T h e proposed Rupture Index is the product of C B R load at failure and the corresponding vertical plunger displacement, as shown in Equation 4.5.

RI = F p x8 (4.5)

Where:

RI = Rupture Index ( k N . m m ) .

F = C B R puncture test failure load using a flat plunger (kN).

8 = Vertical plunger displacement at failure load ( m m ) .

With CBR load and vertical plunger displacement used together, the Rupture Index is a measure of the rupture energy, or the resistance to it in the fabric, at failure.

The plunger load travelling through the plunger displacement is doing work, that is, force by distance. It is this w o r k that is being resisted by the product of deformation and tensile stress in the fabric.

The Rupture Index is a measure of rupture energy for geotextiles in isolation. The addition of soil under the fabric in a C B R puncture test would reduce total plunger displacement at failure, but it would give higher measured strength values, according to Lhote and Rigo (1987). A s testing with soil w a s not done, it is not k n o w n whether Rupture Index values would increase or decrease. However, the effect of underlying soil could be determined by comparing Rupture Index values for geotextiles tested in isolation with those for geotextiles tested with soil.

87

Comparing the two Rupture Index values would give an indication of the likely change in geotextile behaviour between the laboratory and the field. This would be more meaningful than only measuring the increase in CBR load at failure with soil, as both failure load and deformation will change, thereby better reflecting the field behaviour of the geotextile.

4.4.3 The use of vertical plunger displacement instead of elongation:

Stress in the fabric in the vicinity of the plunger, is related to plunger load through the angle P between the stretched fabric and the sides of the plunger. This is shown schematically in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Schematic view of C B R puncture test showing exaggerated angle p

(after Waters, 1984)

In the CBR puncture tests conducted, the fabric between the plunger and the clamping rings did not take the shape of a frustum of a cone with a constant p value, but took the form of a curved surface for which the angle p changed constantly from plunger tip to clamping rings (see Figure 4.2). In many fabrics,

88

particularly non-wovens m a d e of staple fibres, p approached zero at the plunger tip at failure, as the fabric made contact with the sides of the plunger near the tip.

These types of geotextiles exhibited much higher elongation values than other types, hence, the more elongation capacity in a given geotextile, the lower the value of P at the perimeter of the plunger tip.

As the usual elongation calculations assume the geotextile to be planar between the plunger perimeter and the clamping rings, they cannot be considered to be exact.

Vertical plunger displacement, on the other hand, is easily measured, and is not related to details of fabric behaviour such as the shape of the specimen at failure or the angle p. Rather, it is directly measured as the plunger movement from initial load uptake to the point of failure. Vertical plunger displacement is directly related to the plunger load as it represents the plunger travel in reaching the failure load.

As it is easily measured, and requires no secondary calculations, manipulations or interpretations, vertical plunger displacement is considered to be the best way of expressing physical changes in the geotextile specimen being tested.

4.4.4 The use of modified plungers to calculate Rupture Index values:

For flat plunger CBR puncture tests, vertical plunger displacement is also the vertical distance from the initial fabric position to the point of failure - the perimeter of the plunger base.

For general geotextile applications the Rupture Index determined using a flat plunger is adequate, as it accounts for both tensile strength and fabric deformation.

In situations where large angular aggregate is used, or tree branches or stumps project from the ground surface, the use of a Rupture Index obtained from tests

89

using pyramid-tipped or hemispherical plungers m a y be thought to give a better representation of the effects of these m o r e severe puncturing elements. However, in the case of the pyramid tip, the point has usually pierced and cut the fabric before the m a x i m u m load is reached. Therefore, the plunger displacement is not the distance from the initial fabric position to the point of failure, as it is w h e n using the flat plunger. In the case of the hemispherical tip, rupture m a y occur at s o m e point above the plunger tip, and the plunger displacement is, again, not the distance to the point of failure.

For tests using the pyramid-tipped plunger, the specimens were cut by the plunger after its tip protruded through the fabric. Displacements for this plunger are, therefore, not related to the energy required to rupture the geotextile. For tests using the hemispherical plunger, the location of the point of failure varied from the centre of the plunger tip to s o m e point in contact with the side of the plunger, or in the vicinity of the plunger. For these tests, plunger displacements are not reliable, as plunger displacement is not necessarily equal to the vertical distance from the initial fabric position to the location of the point of failure for all specimens.

The determination of Rupture Index values using modified plungers, as well as being possibly unreliable, is also unnecessary. Rupture Index values based o n a flat plunger used in conjunction with failure load values from pyramid-tipped plunger tests, will give a good indication of the suitability of a fabric for m o r e demanding applications, especially w h e n the aggregate to be used is very angular. Figure 4.3 shows C B R failure load values for the standard, pyramid-tipped and hemispherical plungers and Rupture Index values against fabric type. T h e Rupture Index values are multiplied by a factor often in order to m a k e visual comparisons possible.

90

<u

•a a

£

3 a

•a d

ea

o

i

a

• PM ea

- n r T T r i i i i i i [ 1 [ 1 1 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ) ) 1"

> >

•j; <r <r. <r <r <r <r >» _- _- tr <s- & u n ^i

H

^- vc

2^ gs$Sgg

w u u ^

OH

t_ H J-~ © o o

o

Qo

Figure 4.3 Comparison of Rupture Index values with C B R test failure loads.

Figure 4.3 clearly shows the closeness of the lines representing Rupture Index values (xlO) and pyramid-tipped plunger failure load. The exceptions to this are the Polyweave HR fabric and the Terrafix fabrics.

Rupture Index values for the composite fabric (Polytrac C) were about half that of other fabrics with a similar CBR failure load. This is attributed to the loss of elongation capacity in the woven base caused by damage during the process of needling the non-woven web. However, Rupture Index values for this fabric correlated well with pyramid-tipped plunger failure load.

Figure 4.4 is a scatter plot of Rupture Index and pyramid-tipped plunger failure load values from Figure 4.3. Except for the two staple fibre fabrics, the data points occupy a reasonably narrow band. The line of best fit shown has a correlation coefficient of 0.853, indicating a very good correlation between it and the data points. The data points fall into reasonably well defined ranges labelled low,

91

moderate, high and very high, with few exceptions. Each range label indicates the puncture resistance of the fabrics within that particular range.

250

Line of best fit y = 0.133x-15.8

200

Oi

•a

150 -

Very high

High

a a

50

M o d e r a t e

Low

Staple fibre

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Pyramid-tipped plunger failure load (N)

Figure 4.4 Rupture Index values versus pyramid-tipped plunger failure load.

The six G-Rating ranges currently used can be reduced to four equivalent Rupture

Index ranges. Table 4.9 can be used to find an equivalent Rupture Index value for a given G-Rating value. The corresponding Rupture Index values given in this table fall into the ranges shown in Figure 4.4 reasonably well.

Table 4.9 G-Rating ranges and values with corresponding Rupture Index values.

G-Rating range

W e a k

Slightly Robust

Robust

Moderately Robust

Very Robust

Extremely Robust

G-Rating values Equivalent Rupture

Index values

<600

600-900

900-1350

1350-2000

2000-3000

>3000

<40

40-50

50-70

70-90

90-125

>125

Rupture

Index range

L o w

L o w

Moderate

Moderate

High

High/Very high

92

Figure 4.5 shows Rupture Index values plotted against G-Rating values. The line of best fit shown has a correlation coefficient of 0.59 indicating a trend but no clear relationship between the two sets of data. s

s

X

V

c

* 50

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

G-Rating (N.mm

A

0.5)

Figure 4.5 Rupture Index values against G-Rating values.

4.5 M a s s per unit area of geotextiles:

All test specimens from the standard and modified CBR and drop cone tests were weighed in order to determine the average mass per unit area of the fabrics. In most cases, this was an average of at least 50 values.

In general, the values compared closely with those given in product specifications from manufacturers. However, there were some exceptions, but the particular manufacturers considered these discrepancies to be due to the variability of the manufacturing process. Table 4.10 shows the mass per unit area of each fabric tested compared with the values quoted by the manufacturers.

93

There were no non-woven fabrics that were underweight by m o r e than one per cent, except for the Polyfelt TS 550 fabric, which was about 3.9 per cent under specification. This was also the only Polyfelt fabric with a different colouring from the other six. However, it was stated by the supplier that this discolouration would not cause any significant difference in physical characteristics or mechanical properties. However, it is interesting to note from Table 4.1 (p. 65), that this was the only continuous filament needle punched fabric with a measured CBR failure load less than that quoted by the manufacturer.

The results for the woven fabrics showed some variation. The woven and composite Polytrac fabrics were the same as or greater than the values specified by the manufacturer, and the Propex fabric was about three per cent under. The values quoted by the manufacturer for the two heavier materials in the Polyweave range of fabrics do not appear to match the physical composition of these fabrics. A visual examination of these two fabrics indicates that the values quoted by the manufacturer for mass per unit area should be interchanged. If this was done, both fabrics would then be above specification by 8.5 and 12.5 per cent respectively, instead of 9.4 per cent under and 26.1 per cent over. The manufacturer insists that their values are correct.

94

Table 4.10 Measured mass per unit area compared to manufacturer's stated value.

Fabric Name

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

TS420

TS500

TS550

TS600

TS650

TS700

TS750

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven d o w n )

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

310R

360 R

T e r r a m

700 SUV

1000 SUV

3000 SUV

Tested mass

per unit area (g/m2)

Manufacturer quoted per unit area (g/m2)

Percentage difference

132

139

173

208

234

282

359

121

140

183

216

261

313

155

348

346

95

163

203

150

309

382

113

150

285

130

140

180

200

235

280

350

120

140

180

215

260

310

155

345

345

102

180

150

155

310

375

110

140

280

1.5

-0.71

-3.9

4.0

-0.43

0.71

2.6

0.83

0.0

1.7

0.47

0.39

0.97

0.0

0.87

0.29

-6.9

-9.4

26.1

-3.2

-0.32

1.9

2.7

7.1

1.8

95

4.5.1 Correlation between m a s s per unit area and mechanical properties:

The results of the CBR and drop cone tests were analysed in order to determine whether a correlation exists between mass per unit area and the specific mechanical properties of static (CBR puncture test) and dynamic (drop cone test) puncture resistance.

The form of analysis was a linear regression of the raw data using Microsoft Excel version 4.0, which used a least squares method to fit a line of best fit through the set of observations. The correlation coefficient for the particular lines of best fit and the raw data was generally above 90 per cent for all non-wovens and not less than

80 per cent. The wovens showed correlation coefficients generally above 80 per cent and not less than 70 per cent. These values show a very good correlation for the non-wovens and a good correlation for the wovens. The composite fabric showed no correlation between mass per unit area and either flat or modified plunger failure load. These correlations hold for the fabrics tested, but may not apply to other fabrics produced in different batches.

A possible use for the relationships found in this section would be on-site quality control. It takes much less time to weigh ten specimens than it does to perform, say, ten CBR puncture tests. Therefore, to within 10 per cent, specimens could be weighed to determine whether a delivery is to be accepted or rejected.

96

4.5.1.1 Flat plunger C B R puncture test:

It was found that the geotextiles tested showed a relationship between mass per unit area and CBR failure load under a flat plunger. The relationship approximated a straight line of the form given in Equation 4.6.

F cal

=A^i + B (4.6)

Where:

F ca i

=

Predicted CBR puncture test failure load (N).

\i = Mass per unit area (g/m

2

).

A = Gradient of line of best fit.

B = Intercept of line of best fit with F cal

axis.

For the geotextiles tested, only the composite fabric showed no clear relationship between mass per unit area and strength. Table 4.11 shows values of A and B for the other fabrics, which should only be used with the average mass per unit area of at least ten specimens. The only geotextile which does not fit in with other similar fabrics is the woven Polyweave F fabric, for which different values of A and B are given. It must be noted that all values of A and B quoted in this thesis are applicable to the materials tested, and may not be strictly related to other similar products.

Figure 4.6 shows a typical plot of an equation represented by the values given in

Tables 4.11 through 4.13. The gradient of the line is represented by the value 'A' given in the tables, and the Y-intercept is the value 'B'. Many of the 'B' values are negative due to the form of linear regression which was carried out. Although this is theoretically correct, it was found that the correlations obtained using the values

97

of 'A' and 'B' given, were better than those obtained with zero Y-intercepts. The valid region of each line is that portion representing the mass per unit area af fabrics actually available. Hence, a mass per unit area of zero can have a Y-intercept value of something other than zero (or indeed less than zero) for statistical analysis, as a fabric will never realistically have a mass per unit area of or less than zero.

Positive

CBR

Realistic mass per unit area range

failure load

(N)

M a s s per unit area (g/m

A

2 )

B

Negative

Figure 4.6 Idealised plot of mass per unit area against CBR failure load showing A and B values for Equation 4.6.

From Figure 4.6 and Table 4.11, it can be seen that the CBR failure load of wovens is most affected by mass per unit area values. The level of error was found to be less than ten per cent for all but the Polyfelt TS 500 (10.8%) and TS 550 (10.4%) fabrics. This was determined from comparisons of calculated values with measured values of failure load.

98

Table 4.11 A and B values to be used in Equation 4.6 for a flat C B R plunger.

Fabric N a m e

Bidim

Polyfelt

W o v e n *

Polyweave F

Terrafix

Terram

A

15.51

12.95

25.04

19.46

7.06

9.56

B

-274

-152

-475

-408

-810

-192

* N O T E : Does not include Polyweave F fabric, see separate entry.

4.5.1.2 Pyramid-tipped plunger CBR puncture test:

The relationship between mass per unit area and failure load for the pyramid-tipped plunger is also of the form given in Equation 4.6.

All fabrics conformed reasonably well with the line of best fit determined for them, except for the composite fabric. This fabric showed no particular slope or trend in the scatter of raw data points. Table 4.12 gives values for A and B for all other fabrics. Once again, these values should only be used with the average mass per unit area of at least ten specimens.

Table 4.12 A and B values to be used in Equation 4.6 for a pyramid-tipped plunger.

Fabric N a m e

Bidim

Polyfelt

W o v e n

Terrafix

Terram

A

5.52

4.00

5.05

6.90

3.50

B

80.8

43.5

138

-725

31.3 !

99

The correlation coefficients were similar to those determined for the flat C B R plunger. That is, at least 80 per cent, but generally above 90 per cent for nonwovens, and at least 70 per cent, but generally above 80 per cent, for wovens. The level of error was found to be less than ten per cent for most fabrics, except the

Bidim A 12 (10.2%) and A 14 (10.3%), the Polyfelt TS 500 (17.4%), TS 550

(19.8%) and TS 650 (13.4%) and the Polytrac 155 (17.9%) fabrics.

4.5.1.3 Hemispherical plunger CBR puncture test:

The relationship between mass per unit area and failure load for the hemispherical plunger is also of the form given in Equation 4.6.

Except for the composite fabric and the woven Polyweave F fabric, all the calculated values of CBR failure load conformed well with the measured values.

For the relationships described by the values in Table 4.13, the correlation coefficients were better than those determined for the flat CBR plunger. That is, well above 90 per cent for non-wovens and above 80 per cent for wovens. The level of error was less than ten per cent in most instances.

In Table 4.13, values of A and B are given for all other fabrics. It must be noted again that accuracy is greatly enhanced when using these values with the average mass per unit area of at least ten specimens.

Of the fabrics which conformed to the values in Table 4.13, only the lighter Terram fabrics produced slightly larger discrepancies (less than 13%). The relationship for the Terram fabrics is more accurate in the higher mass per unit area range for the hemispherical plunger.

100

Table 4.13 A and B values to be used in Equation 4.6 for a hemispherical plunger.

Fabric N a m e

Bidim

Polyfelt

W o v e n *

Terrafix

Terram

A

15.71

11.84

18.15

10.10

9.95

B

-464

-295

-411

-1571

-349

* N O T E : Does not include Polyweave F (no value calculated due to high error).

4.5.1.4 Standard and modified drop cone puncture tests:

The geotextiles tested showed a relationship between mass per unit area and d

500

, which approximated a straight line of the form given in Equation 4.7. The value of both A and B varied for different fabrics, as was the case with the relationship between mass per unit area and CBR failure load.

D

50 o = Ap. + B (4.7)

Where:

D

500

= Predicted d

500

value (mm).

|i = Mass per unit area (g/m

2

).

A = Gradient of line of best fit.

B = Intercept of line of best fit with D

500

axis.

Table 4.14 shows values for A and B for all fabrics, which should only be used with the average mass per unit area of at least ten specimens. The woven fabrics differ slightly in their value of B, but their value of A is the same.

101

Table 4.14 A and B values to be used in Equation 4.7 for D

5 0 0

values.

Fabric N a m e

Bidim

Polyfelt

Polytrac 155 (woven)

Polyweave F (woven)

Other wovens

Composite

Terrafix

Terram

A

-0.064

-0.055

-0.029

-0.029

-0.029

1.33

-0.100

-0.077

B

34.34

34.10

18.10

20.50

15.40

-442.5

67.20

40.72

The level of error w a s found to be less than ten per cent for all fabrics. T h e analysis of d

250

and d

750

values gave a range of expressions for each fabric at the two drop heights. However, it is sufficient to k n o w the relationship between mass per unit area and d

500

, as the relationship between d

500

, d

250

and d

750

is simple to determine.

Table 4.15 shows the ratio of failure hole diameters for a range of drop height ratios, using both A S 3706.5 (1990) and values found by linear regression of the drop cone test results at 250, 500 and 7 5 0 m m .

Table 4.15 Hole diameter ratio from A S 3706.5 and linear regression.

Drop height

^500^250

(

*75(/^500

^75(/"250

Drop height ratio

2.0

1.5

3.0

Failure hole diameter ratio

A S 3706.5 Linear regression

1.60

1.32

2.11

1.52

1.30

1.98

A s can be seen from Table 4.15, the hole diameter ratios found are close to those given in A S 3706.5. Therefore, by using Equation 4.7, in conjunction with the appropriate factor from Table 4.15 (or A S 3706.5), failure hole diameters for a

102

range of drop heights can be predicted reasonably accurately without conducting drop cone tests. Although the values determined in this thesis show good agreement with the AS 3706.5 value, they should not be taken as design values.

103

CHAPTER 5

5.0 GEOTEXTILE USER SURVEY

5.1 Reason for survey:

As part of the original research program for this thesis, it was proposed to conduct substantial field trials of geotextiles in order to assess their in-situ performance.

This program w a s to include the laying of two metre by two metre geotextile samples along a short section of access road for heavy vehicles. After a predetermined number of axle passes, the geotextiles were to be e x h u m e d and an inner square of side one metre w a s to be examined for holes, tears, rips and any other visible signs of damage. Testing of the e x h u m e d samples w a s not envisaged, other than a small number of wide strip tensile tests to determine the amount of residual tensile strength in the geotextiles. However, logistically and financially, this proposal w a s beyond the resources of this project, and other forms of geotextile field performance evaluation were sought.

5.2 Geotextile user survey:

5.2.1 General:

A questionnaire was sent to every municipality, all VicRoads divisions, and the major earthworks and road contractors in Victoria. T h e respondents were asked to describe their experiences with geotextiles and their observations of field behaviour, for geotextiles used in 1992.

104

The questionnaire w a s developed to fulfil two basic aims. T h e first w a s to determine whether geotextiles were used by the respondents in 1992, and if so, which type was used and for what application. This information was required to determine whether specific geotextile types were used for particular applications.

The second was to find out how the geotextiles were chosen, how they were laid, and if any of the geotextiles used showed any signs of failure. To fulfil this aim 12 questions were asked for each project on which geotextiles were used. The questionnaire is reproduced as Appendix B. The purpose of each question was as follows:

Question 1 - To have a general description of the soil conditions for the particular project being described, in order to determine if the subgrade could have been a source of damage to the geotextile, or if the geotextile used was the correct type and grade for the subgrade conditions encountered.

Question 2 - To see if the method of laying the geotextile, whether by hand or machine, could have caused any damage to the geotextile, or if it may have led to circumstances where damage was more likely to occur.

Question 3 - To determine whether any damage was caused by the type of aggregate used, hence indicating an incorrect choice of either geotextile type or grade.

Question 4 - To allow a comparison of the stated initial lift thicknesses quoted with minimum initial lift thicknesses recommended in overseas geotextile specifications.

This could indicate possible reasons for any geotextile damage, such as insufficient cover over the geotextile.

105

Question 5 - T o determine whether the loads imposed o n the geotextile by construction equipment caused any failures, or whether the wrong grade of geotextile was used for the loads encountered.

Question 6 - To determine if undesirable geotextile behaviour during placement, such as excessive deformation or apparent overstressing, was observed during installation. Damage observed during installation was not to be considered in this question but in Question 7.

Question 7 - To give a description of any installation damage and the reasons for it.

This would indicate whether or not the construction techniques used were incorrect and/or if the work was carried out to a sub-standard level. It would also show whether a suitable geotextile had been used.

Questions 8 and 9 - These two questions are inter-related. The first required a descriptive assessment of any failures that showed up subsequent to construction and were not thought to be specifically caused by the installation process. The second question required a physical description of any failed geotextile that had been exhumed, to determine what type of failure had occurred.

Question 10 - This question is similar in nature to Question 1, but it is specifically related to uneven or extremely inconsistent subgrades to ascertain whether any damage occurred over such subgrades and, if so, what form it took and whether it was directly related to the quality of subgrade preparation.

Question 11 - To determine the basis of geotextile selection. The geotextile selection criteria may vary - typical criteria include past experience, advertising by

106

c o m p a n y sales representatives, cost, availability and strength characteristics

(generally in the form of G-Rating values).

5.2.2 Results of the questionnaire:

5.2.2.1 Users surveyed:

Geotextile questionnaires were sent to 210 Victorian municipalities, 16 were sent to

VicRoads regions and four were sent to major earthworks and road contractors. O f the 230 questionnaires sent out, 104 were returned, which is a return rate of just over 45 per cent. Ninety-five replies were received from municipalities (also just over 45 per cent of the 210 surveys sent out) with 51 of these reporting no geotextile usage in 1992. In fact, a large proportion of these municipalities had never used geotextiles. This lack of geotextile use w a s attributed by the respondents to the relatively high C B R of the subgrade within these municipalities.

Eight replies were received from VicRoads divisions, which is a return rate of 50 per cent. O n e of these replies reported no geotextile use in 1992. O n e reply w a s also received from a civil engineering contractor where geotextile use w a s indicated. T h e other three contractors declined to return the questionnaires and did not respond to follow-up requests for information.

There were some isolated instances where geotextiles were used to overcome soft spots, but the quantity used w a s m u c h less than 1 0 0 m

2

. Examples of this are the municipalities of Nunawading, K e w , Hawthorn and Werribee where geotextiles were used to treat several very small and isolated soft spots. T h e City of South

Melbourne also used a very small amount of fabric under a footpath.

107

Three other municipalities used geotextiles but their use w a s less than 3 0 0 m

2

and was therefore not included in the calculations of geotextile use. These were the municipalities of Waverley, Mordialloc and Berwick, where the respective uses quoted were to treat soft spots, as an asphalt overlay and for abutment stabilisation.

5.2.2.2 Geotextile functions quoted:

Approximately 344,000m

2

of geotextiles were used by the survey respondents of which approximately 71,500m

2

w a s paving fabric used for road resealing. The use of w o v e n geotextiles predominated with the use of over 145,000m

2

being reported.

Virtually all the w o v e n fabric w a s used by various VicRoads divisions. T h e reply from the civil engineering contractor reported the use of over 18,000m

2

of w o v e n geotextile.

The main function for the geotextiles was separation (22 replies) although reinforcement w a s indicated three times - once as a primary function and twice as a combined function with separation. Stabilisation as the main function w a s mentioned on ten occasions and on five occasions as a combined function with separation.

Non-woven geotextiles represented 29.7 per cent of the geotextiles used. The total area of non-woven geotextiles laid w a s approximately 102,100m

2

. N o t included in the results for the non-wovens is the use of 71,480m

2

of geotextiles for resealing of roads, where the fabric w a s used as a pavement overlay. This is generally the domain of paving fabrics which are not considered in this thesis. W h e n subdivided according to method of manufacture, the breakdown is:

108

Needle punched:

- continuous filament 86,100 m

2

(84.3 per cent of non-woven)

-staple fibre 6,000 m

2

(5.9 per cent of non-woven)

Heat bonded:

10,000 m

2

(9.8 per cent of non-woven)

The needle punched non-wovens were used for separation 14 times, as filters two times and to provide extra stabilisation four times. They were also used for combined functions on five occasions. The combined functions were predominantly separation/stabilisation and separation/filtration.

The use of composite geotextiles was reported on two surveys. In both cases, the user w a s a VicRoads division. T h e reported functions for these geotextiles were separation/filtration and stabilisation. In total 25,000 m

2

of composite geotextiles were used. This represents 7.3 per cent of the reported total geotextile usage. The breakdown of geotextile use by fabric type is given in Figure 5.1 which shows that the use of w o v e n geotextiles exceeded that of all other types of geotextile combined. However, it must be remembered that the figures shown are based on the questionnaires which were returned, and m a y not accurately represent the current state of the geotextile market in Victoria or the rest of Australia. Following discussions with various representatives of Australian geotextile manufacturers and suppliers, the current state of the market appears to be approximately 90 per cent non-wovens to 10 per cent wovens and composites. T h e breakdown for the nonwovens would be approximately 90-95 per cent continuous filament, with 5-10 per cent of these being heat bonded and the rest needle punched. T h e remaining 5-10 per cent of non-wovens are those composed of staple fibres.

109

Figure 5.1 Geotextile use by type

Figure 5.2 shows a bar diagram of the number of applications for which geotextiles were used. It also shows a breakdown of functions for each geotextile type indicating the primary function for the geotextiles reported on.

Figure 5.2 Geotextile type and corresponding application

110

Figure 5.3 shows the use of geotextiles by function, in which the separation function dominates. As separation is included in some combined functions, it represents over 50 per cent of geotextile usage by function.

Figure 5.3 Geotextile use by function

5.2.2.3 D a m a g e :

There were some cases of geotextile damage reported in the survey. This damage was attributed to human error or poor construction supervision in all but one instance. In this instance the cause of damage was severe erosion, which was not a design consideration.

The only report of any visible damage to a geotextile during installation was by the

City of Knox. Isolated areas of fabric failed with the fabric rising through the crushed rock. There was no cause stated for this failure. There were also some reports of fabrics used as asphalt overlays sticking to the wheels of asphalt trucks,

111

caused by insufficient tacking coat adhesion to the fabric. S o m e of the most descriptive survey responses are paraphrased below.

Shire of Kerang - (1,800 m

2

)

-Fabric noted to be easily pushed down with feet, even truck wheels when a 150mm layer of 4 0 m m diameter aggregate was placed on top.

-Trucks bogging caused fabrics to rip in places where wheels spun.

City of Castlemaine - (405 m

2

)

-Needle punched non-woven fabric punctured by front end loader due to operator error. The bucket was angled downwards and scooped up aggregate and geotextile.

Shire of Walpeup - (2,000 m

2

)

-Large lumps of limestone landed on a geotextile placed on a sand layer with no damage.

Shire of Kilmore-(?)

-Some geotextile movement observed but no damage evident.

112

Shire of Bulla- (600 m

2

)

-Some stretching of the geotextile was noted due to deflection from wheel loads, but no damage was noted.

Shire of Myrtleford - (1,200 m

2

)

-No movement or damage to the geotextile noted. Previous experience on the same job was of the geotextile tearing (reason not given). For the job described, the surface was smooth in order to avoid tears.

Shire of Maffra - (1,500 m

2

)

-Some deformation of the under layer was noted but no damage to the geotextile.

City of Knox - (6,000 m

2

)

-Isolated areas failed with the fabric rising through the layer of crushed rock.

John Holland Group - (18,000 m

2

)

-The geotextile is being used to separate sediment and overburden. The geotextile is in considerable tension and has been found to perform well with no damage noted so far.

113

VicRoads Western Ring R o a d Maribyrnong - (1,500 m

2

)

-The use of a slit film woven made compaction difficult as the soil moved over the

"slick" geotextile in an apparent lack of bonding between geotextile and soil.

-A staple fibre fabric was used with excessive movement on quartz placement but with no damage to the geotextile. A slit film woven was used as well, as an additional reinforcement layer.

City of Collingwood - (2,500 m

2

)

-The fabric moved and folded when being covered with aggregate.

5.2.2.4 Method of choice:

Some comments regarding geotextile choice by the respondents are paraphrased below.

Shire of Kerang

-The geotextile was chosen by design.

City of Castlemaine

-The geotextile was chosen by previous experience.

114

Shire of W a l p e u p

-The geotextile w a s chosen due to availability and the emergency nature of the work. The road repair was three days before Christmas and there was no other geotextile available.

Shire of Kilmore

-The geotextile was chosen due to cost and other [not specified] "construction" considerations.

Shire of Myrtleford

-The geotextile was chosen through past experience.

Shire of Maffra

-The geotextile was chosen as the price was competitive.

John Holland Group

-The geotextile was chosen for its relative cheapness and tensile strength.

VicRoads Western Ring Road Maribyrnong

-The geotextile was recommended by the Materials Technology Division.

115

-At another time a composite geotextile w a s used for filtration and separation on advice from the Materials Technology Division.

-At another time a staple fibre fabric was chosen because high elongation was required.

-At another time, a needle punched non-woven was used as the consensus was that

"...it looked about right for the job."

5.3 Conclusions:

This chapter has shown that the use of geotextiles in the 45 per cent of Victorian municipalities w h o responded to the survey is either non existent, or extremely small. Several of the municipalities which did not respond to the survey were contacted and indicated no geotextile use in 1992. Resources did not allow an effective follow-up of all municipalities, but it appears that the information obtained from them would not have altered the conclusions of this survey significantly, as they were either extremely small rural municipalities or metropolitan councils in areas where high C B R values abound. O f the respondents to this survey, by far the most extensive user of geotextiles in Victoria w a s

VicRoads.

Most of the respondents chose the geotextiles used on the technical advice of the suppliers. A t one stage a w o v e n fabric w a s used by the City of Footscray on the advice of VicRoads. S o m e respondents expressed the need to have technical notes from VicRoads regarding geotextile use and methods of specification and selection.

116

Information o n total quantities of geotextiles sold in 1992 w a s sought from the geotextile suppliers. H o w e v e r , most suppliers were reluctant to reveal this information for commercial reasons. Hence, it is not possible to put any perspective o n the figures quoted in this chapter.

The returned questionnaires gave very little information about observed damage to geotextiles. Therefore, field trials of geotextiles are essential in order to obtain information o n the actual behaviour of geotextiles.

The criterion for geotextile selection was predominantly cost, but previous experience with certain geotextiles, and the experience of others, also figured significantly. T h e G-Rating w a s quoted as a consideration o n less than five per cent of the surveys returned. Advice from the Materials Technology Division of

VicRoads w a s also quoted as a source of geotextile selection information.

117

CHAPTER 6

6.0 EVALUATION OF THE G-RATING CLASSIFICATION

SYSTEM

6.1 Definition of the G-Rating:

The G-Rating is the geometric mean of the results of the CBR puncture test (AS

3706.4, 1990) and the drop cone puncture test (AS 3706.5, 1990). The work by

Waters et al. (1983) led to the adoption of the G-Rating by the Q M R D , and later to the formulation of the G-Rating classification system. This initial work was carried further in the Austroads report 'Guide to Geotextiles' (1990), which included an extra criterion as part of the G-Rating classification system, as it set a m a x i m u m elongation of 80 per cent in the C B R puncture test. The G-Rating is defined as:

G = V F p x h

5 0

(6.1)

Where:

G = Geotextile strength rating (N.mm)

1

/

2

.

F p

= C B R puncture test failure load using a flat plunger (N). h

5 0

= Drop height required to produce a 5 0 m m diameter hole ( m m ) .

The value of h

50

is calculated using the following relationship (Equation 6(4) in AS

3706.5, 1990). h

5 0

= 500x

(

5 0

V-47 dsooJ

(6.2)

Where:

500 = Drop height of 5 0 0 m m .

50 = Failure hole diameter corresponding to a drop height of h

5 0

( m m ) . dsoo = Diameter of hole for a drop height of 5 0 0 m m ( m m ) .

118

6,2 T h e effect of elongation at failure in a C B R puncture test:

The G-Rating classification system requires that, when elongation at failure in the

CBR puncture test exceeds 80 per cent, the load at 80 per cent elongation shall be used to calculate the G-Rating, and this is generally much lower than the failure load. According to the Austroads (1990) report (p. 7 of report), the restriction of elongation to 80 per cent was incorporated because "...in such cases, if actual failure load was used, unacceptable deformations may occur in service as the required strength of the geotextile is mobilised."

The 80 per cent rule was the result of a choice made within the QMRD after the staple fibre products which were tested in the early 1980s only reached full strength at elongations of about 150 per cent. As most of the non-woven materials reached their maximum strength, or failed, at 30-40 per cent, it was decided to double the greater value (40%) as a reasonable value with which to require staple fibre products to comply. This was done because working strain values are considered to be typically 10-20 per cent and most products, if used nominally as a separation layer beneath a road pavement or fill over very soft ground, do in fact fulfil a reinforcing function as well (Litwinowicz, 1992).

At present, the QMRD does not regard the inclusion of a geotextile as adding strength to a pavement. If reinforcing is needed this is achieved by the use of geogrids (Litwinowicz, 1993). Therefore, it seems unnecessary to restrict geotextile elongation if pavement designs assume them to have no tensile strength.

If there is no fabric under the pavement, then intermixing of the subgrade and aggregate can occur, perhaps resulting in displacements or rutting. If a fabric is used under the pavement, and it has been correctly chosen, there should be no

119

intermixing. If no tensile capacity is attributed to the geotextile, and no other reinforcement is provided, then the possibility of deformations due to causes other than intermixing, such as subgrade consolidation, still exists. As geotextiles do have some strength and stiffness, they can in fact provide some reinforcing in this situation.

All the geotextiles tested in this study failed at less than 80 per cent elongation in

CBR puncture tests, with most fabrics failing at between 20 and 40 per cent. The maximum elongation for the staple fibre fabrics was 73 per cent, using the method of calculating elongation from AS 3706.4 (1990). The staple fibre products tested weighed approximately 310 and 380 grams per square metre respectively. Similar fabrics above this range are available with weights up to 2000 grams per square metre, and these may fail at elongations greater than 80 per cent. However, these fabrics are generally not used as separators in road applications and, therefore, are beyond the scope of this study.

6.3 The effect of drop cone test results on G-Rating values:

Another problem with the G-Rating concerns the exponent in Equation 6(4) of AS

3706.5 (1990), (Equation 6.2 in this thesis) used in the calculation of the drop height to cause a 50mm diameter hole (h

50

).

It was shown in section 4.3 that the value of the exponent varies for different fabrics, and also for the drop heights used. Equation 6(1) of AS 3706.5 (1990) gives a ratio for d

500

/d

250

of 1.60, this value of 1.60 is the number 2 (drop height ratio) raised to a power of 0.68. Therefore, a value other than 1.60 means an

120

exponent other than 0.68. A s w a s s h o w n in Table 4.8 (p. 83), the ratio of d

500

/d

250 varied between 1.31 and 1.79 (excluding values of 2.49 and 2.96 for the staple fibre fabrics). Equation 6(3) of AS 3706.5 gives a ratio of d

500

/d

1000

of 0.62, which becomes 1.61 for d

1000

/d

500

. Table 4.8 shows the ratio of d

1000

/d

500

to be between

1.44 and 1.70 (excluding a value of 1.27 for the Terram 3000 SUV fabric). The range for the d

1000

/d

500

case is narrower than for the d

500

/d

250

case.

It is possible to calculate h

50

from a range of drop heights, choosing the best value to calculate a G-Rating. Calculated G-Rating values varied for the same fabrics tested at different drop heights. Table 6.1 gives G-Rating values found using h

50 calculated by Equation 6(4) of AS 3706.5 (1990). It also shows G-Rating values calculated from tests at 500 and 250mm, and from tests at 1000 and 500mm, together with the percentage difference between these values and those found using

AS 3706.5.

For the d

500

/d

2

5o test results, G-Ratings were within ten per cent of the AS 3706.5 value for 44 per cent of fabrics and within five per cent for 36 per cent of them. For the d

1000

/d

500

results, G-Ratings were within ten per cent of the AS 3706.5 value for

59 per cent of fabrics and within five per cent for 27 per cent of them. The greatest difference occurs for the Polyweave HR fabric, which goes from being 130 per cent over to 12.5 per cent under the AS 3706.5 value. All wovens showed considerably reduced G-Ratings in the d

1000

/d

500

calculations compared with the d

500

/d

250

results.

For the Bidim A 12, Terram 700 SUV and 1000 SUV fabrics, no d

1000

was obtained, hence no G-Ratings can be given for comparative purposes. However, it is predicted that the Bidim fabric would have remained virtually unchanged as this was the trend observed for that range of fabrics. The two lighter Terram fabrics also showed unchanged G-Rating values for calculations at other drop heights.

121

Table 6.1 G-Rating values using exponents calculated three different ways.

Fabric

Name

G-Rating

(AS 3706.5)

G-Rating

Difference to A S 3706.5

(%)

G-Rating Difference

(dioo</d50u) to A S 3706.5

(%)

Bidim

A 12

A 14

A 24

A 29

A 34

A 44

Polyfelt

TS420

TS500

TS550

TS600

TS650

TS700

TS750

Polytrac

155

C (woven up)

C (woven d o w n )

Polyweave

R

F

HR

Propex

2002

Terrafix

310R

360 R

Terram

700 SUV

1000 SUV

3000 SUV

1375

1607

1633

1950

2258

2818

3706

1403

1525

2187

2460

3017

3590

3503

1663

1878

2585

2729

5378

3900

1806

2488

688

1106

2344

1535

2366

1686

1911

2902

3149

3829

1486

1594

2480

2167

3326

3486

5406

1648

1807

4155

5155

12376

4094

N/A

N/A

679**

1138

2100

N O T E : * Actual values are for d

1500

/d.

* Actual values are for d

250

/d

5.9

4.5

13.4

-11.9

10.2

-2.9

11.6

47.2

3.2

-2.0

28.5

11.7

3.3

54.3

-0.9

-3.8

60.7

88.9

130

49.7

N/A

N/A

-1.3

2.9

-10.4

N/A

1498

2324

2399

3016

4223

1466

1698

1740

2051

2359

3250

4646

4043

1654

1858

2817

2988

4704

3448

1588*

1978*

N/A

N/A

3260

N/A

-1.8

6.3

-2.5

0.03

17.6

6.6

5.7

6.5

5.2

4.5

15.3

25.4

15.4

-0.5

-1.1

9.0

9.5

-12.5

-11.6

-12.1

-20.5

N/A

N/A

39.1

122

A s w a s shown in Figure 4.1 (p. 85), the scatter of calculated exponent values for the aW^so

case is

greater than for the d

1000

/d

500

case. It also appears from the figure that a m i n i m u m failure hole diameter of 1 0 m m , as suggested by A S 3706.5 (1990), will not necessarily result in a calculated exponent value close to 0.68. For the d ioo</ d

50o results, a m i n i m u m hole diameter of 1 5 m m was measured, and for these results, the value of 0.68 w a s more closely approximated.

The relevance to currently available geotextiles of an exponent of 0.68, which is not not varied for different fabric types, is questioned. In A S 3706.5 (1990) the value of 0.68 is said to be applicable to any drop height indicated therein, although

5 0 0 m m is termed the "standard test drop height" and Equation 6(1) relates d

500

and d

250

. The test results at 500 and 2 5 0 m m show clearly that a single exponent for all fabrics is not correct, as the calculated exponents varied from 0.41-0.84 for the range of fabrics tested (see Table 4.8). For the tests at 1000 and 5 0 0 m m , the exponents varied from 0.54-0.77, which is m u c h closer to the range of 0.55-0.7 given in Note 1 of A S 3706.5. For the staple fibre fabrics, the exponents were 1.36 and 1.58 for the 310 R and 360 R fabrics respectively, for tests at 750 and 1 5 0 0 m m .

The exponent for these fabrics at other drop heights ranged between 0.48 and 2.2.

Some fabrics gave exponent values close to 0.68 for the d

500

/d

250

case, and others for the d

1000

/d

500

case. However, this is impractical if a standardised testing method is to be achieved. The exponent to be used must be appropriate for the fabric tested at a particular drop height. Therefore, for a given drop height, different exponents for different fabrics should be given, according to their behaviour at these drop heights. Alternatively, tests should be conducted at various drop heights and the actual exponent for any given fabric calculated. This exponent would then be used to determine more reliable G-Rating values for each fabric.

123

6.4 Suggested modifications to the G-Rating:

As no geotextiles failed at elongations greater than 80 per cent in the CBR puncture tests, this criterion may be deleted or ignored for separation geotextiles. The latter course seems more appropriate as this criterion could be applicable for geotextile applications not relevant to this study and, hence, not investigated.

The exponent in AS 3706.5 (1990) should be varied for the different geotextile types to reflect their behaviour in drop cone tests. Alternatively, specific drop heights should be established which are relevant to different applications, such as

500-1000mm for separation under roads and 1500-2000mm for use under rip-rap.

In order to determine the exact exponents required, further testing is recommended at a range of drop heights in order to produce more consistent results.

The behaviour of staple fibre fabrics is different from all other types in both the modified plunger CBR tests and drop cone tests. This different behaviour in the drop cone tests should be reflected in AS 3706.5. The average exponent for staple fibre fabrics is 1.46, the reciprocal of which is 0.68 which is used for calculating h

50 values. An exponent of 0.68, compared with a value of 1.47 from AS 3706.5, leads to reduced h

50

values for these fabrics when the failure hole diameter is less than

50mm, resulting in a lower G-Rating. Staple fibre fabrics at 750mm drop height gave smaller hole diameters than all but the Polyweave HR fabric. They did not exhibit a reduction in failure load under modified plungers as did all other fabrics.

Using an exponent of 0.68 to calculate lower h

50

values than those calculated using

AS 3706.5 does not appear to reflect their likely field behaviour. For a separation application where no reinforcing is required, their performance in the laboratory indicates that their likely field behaviour would be satisfactory.

124

CHAPTER 7

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Conclusions:

This study has been concerned with the puncture resistance of geotextiles, related to the separation function. F r o m the results of the testing program, and the geotextile user survey, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. It is considered that Equation 3.4 (three-dimensional elongation) provides a better measure of elongation in a C B R puncture test than Equation 3.1 (twodimensional elongation), as actual elongation behaviour is three-dimensional.

2. As friction between the plunger base and the geotextile specimen, and the fact that the actual deflected shape is different from that assumed, the precise value of elongation is not k n o w n . Therefore, it is considered that the use of vertical plunger displacement at failure is a simpler and clearer m e a n s of defining deformation at failure. In a C B R puncture test the strain rate, specimen diameter and plunger diameter are all standardised. T h e use of vertical displacement is measured directly during a test and is not based on assumptions of deformed specimen shape.

3. The behaviour of geotextiles under plungers with pyramidal and hemispherical tips is different from that under a flat C B R plunger. T h e use of these plungers led to stress localisation for all fabrics. This, in turn, led to reduced failure load values for all but staple fibre fabrics, which showed increased failure load values. T h e failure mechanism for staple fibre fabrics w a s slippage of fibres near the plunger

125

tip, whereas for all other fabrics failure occurred primarily through fibres being cut or broken.

4. Comparing results for the flat and pyramid-tipped plunger CBR puncture tests shows that the current use of a shape factor of 3.0 for angular aggregate is acceptable for very few fabrics. Therefore, shape factor values are not only shape dependent, but are fabric dependent as well, as all fabrics from a given manufacturer s h o w essentially the same shape factor regardless of weight. This is especially true for the non-woven fabrics but less so for w o v e n fabrics. T h e range of shape factor values for this plunger is 3.2-4.5 for w o v e n fabrics, 1.0 for staple fibre fabrics, 2.6 for the composite fabric and 2.3-2.9 for continuous filament nonwovens.

5. Comparing results for the flat and hemispherical plunger CBR puncture tests shows that the current use of 0.8 as a shape factor for rounded aggregate is unrealistic. Stress concentrations under the hemispherical plunger led to reduced failure load values for all but staple fibre fabrics. Hence, the shape factor for rounded aggregate is greater than 1.0 for most fabrics, and 0.9 for staple fibre fabrics. T h e range of shape factor values for this plunger is 0.9-1.5, which is m u c h narrower than the range of 1.0-4.5 for the pyramid-tipped plunger.

6. The relationship between CBR failure load F p

and tensile force per unit width T of T = 2;t.F

p

quoted by Cazzuffi et al. (1986), and Waters et al. (1983) in a different form, does not hold for 2 0 0 m m wide strip tensile tests w h e n necking is not taken into account. Cazzuffi et al. r e c o m m e n d its application to 5 0 0 m m wide strip tests but Waters et al. d o not mention such an application. If wide strip test values are reduced by ten per cent for wovens and increased by 20 per cent for non-wovens

126

according to M y l e s and Carswell (1986), good agreement is obtained. A s 5 0 0 m m wide strip tests were not conducted as part of this investigation, it is not possible to say whether agreement would have resulted, although this is likely to have been the case.

7. An exponent close to 0.68 as given in AS 3706.5 (1990) is achievable at drop heights greater than one metre, and for failure hole diameters generally greater than

1 5 m m , for all but staple fibre fabrics. T h e failure mechanism in staple fibre fabrics is m o r e plastic than the quasi-elastic failure observed for other fabrics, leading to smaller hole diameters, and greater exponent values. These greater exponent values lead to smaller h

5 0

and G-Rating values, even though the failure hole diameter for staple fibre fabrics is smaller than for most other fabrics at a given drop height.

8. The 80 per cent elongation limit in the G-Rating was found to not be applicable to the geotextiles tested, as failure elongation w a s less than 80 per cent for all fabrics. This limit should be ignored for separation geotextiles.

9. The proposed Rupture Index is a simple and effective measure of geotextile behaviour as it accounts for both tensile strength and deformation characteristics.

The calculation of Rupture Index values for fabrics tested in isolation and on a soil will give an indication of the total change in behaviour from one case to the other.

The measured increase in failure load with soil is quoted in the literature (Lhote and

Rigo, 1987), but no plunger displacements are given. Therefore, the total behaviour of geotextiles tested on a soil is not k n o w n .

127

10. F r o m the returned questionnares the use of geotextiles by Victorian municipalities appears to be small. The method of selection of geotextiles is usually by past experience or recommendations by sales engineers.

7.2 Suggestions for further work:

As a result of the testing program, and the findings of the literature review, the following suggestions for further work are made:

1. Look at the behaviour of CBR puncture test specimens, with a view to mathematically modelling the deformed specimen shape. The actual deformed shape is non-planar, and the degree of curvature varies with the stiffness of a fabric.

Vertical plunger displacement is an index measure of deformation, but modelling the specimen shape will enable the effects of shear stress at the plunger base and membrane behaviour to be accounted for, resulting in more precise elongation values.

2. Conduct CBR puncture tests using other modified plungers, such as three or four-sided pyramids with different apex angles, or cones, to validate shape factor values proposed in this study. In particular, to observe the behaviour of staple fibre fabrics under these plungers and to determine whether stress localisation is the only factor contributing to a higher failure load compared with a flat plunger. The concentration of stress under a pyramid-tipped plunger is greater than that for a hemispherical plunger. However, under a hemispherical plunger, failure load values are greater. Tests using a plunger equipped with a conical tip will lead to higher stress concentrations than with a hemispherical plunger, without cutting fibres.

128

3. Conduct flat plunger C B R puncture tests o n geotextiles in isolation and o n soils of different bearing capacities, in order to model field behaviour and to determine a relationship between Rupture Index values for a given geotextile type and soil bearing capacity. Published test results of this type do not include deformation data, therefore, Rupture Index values cannot be calculated.

4. Conduct drop cone tests on a wide range of geotextiles at drop heights ranging from 2 5 0 m m to 2 0 0 0 m m , in order to calculate exponents for the d

500

/d

250

,

^IOOO^SOO'

d i50(/^750

a n d

d

2000

/d

1000

cases. These exponents would be fabric specific, to a certain extent, and also drop height specific. A n exponent of 0.68 w a s more closely approximated for d

1000

/d

500

than for d

500

/d

250

. This trend m a y continue for drop heights u p to 2 0 0 0 m m but, as no tests were conducted above 1 0 0 0 m m for most fabrics, this is not k n o w n . In particular, the effect on failure hole diameters of plastic deformation at the point of impact of the cone should be observed, especially for staple fibre fabrics. T h e protrusion of the cone through the fabric is easily found using the geometry of the cone and the failure hole diameter. If the measured distance from the cone tip at rest to the initial fabric position is greater than this protrusion, the excess is a result of plastic deformation of the specimen.

Conducting drop cone tests with and without underlying soil will indicate whether a relationship exists between this plastic deformation and subgrade reaction.

5. Look at other properties related to separation such as EOS, and the change in

E O S with strain. Initially, it w a s intended to examine the change in E O S for geotextiles subjected to different amount of pre-straining, but this could not be accomodated in this investigation.

129

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfheim, S. L. and Sorlie, A., "Testing and Classification of Fabrics for

Application in Road Constructions," C R. Coll. Int. Soils Tex., Paris, 1977.

Anjiang, W., Bin, Z. and Lihua, L., "Research of Influence of Test Conditions on the Tensile Strength of Geotextile," Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles,

Geomembranes and Related Products, The Hague, Netherlands, 1990.

AS 3706.1, "General Requirements, Sampling, Conditioning, Basic Physical

Properties and Statistical Analysis," Standards Australia, 1990.

AS 3706.2, "Determination of Tensile Properties - Wide Strip Method," Standards

Australia, 1990.

AS 3706.4, "Determination of Burst Strength - California Bearing Ratio (CBR)

Plunger Method," Standards Australia, 1990.

AS 3706.5, "Determination of Puncture Resistance - Drop Cone Method,"

Standards Australia, 1990.

ASTM D 1682, "Standard Test Methods for Breaking Load and Elongation of

Textile Fabrics," ASTM, Philadelphia, U. S. A., 1964.

ASTM D 3786, "Standard Test Method for Hydraulic Bursting Strength of Knitted

Goods and Nonwoven Fabrics - Diaphragm Bursting Strength Tester Method,"

ASTM, Philadelphia, U. S. A., 1987.

130

A S T M D 3787, "Standard Test Method for Bursting Strength of Knitted Goods -

Constant-Rate-of-Traverse (CRT) Ball Burst Test," ASTM, Philadelphia, U. S. A.,

1980.

ASTM D 4439, "Standard Terminology for Geotextiles," ASTM, Philadelphia, U.

S. A., 1987.

Austroads, "Guide to Geotextiles," Technical Report, Australia, January, 1990.

Bonaparte, R., Ah-Line, C, Charron, R. and Tisinger, L., "Survivability and

Durability of a Nonwoven Geotextile," Proc. of Symp. on Geosynthetics for Soil

Improvement, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 18, Holtz (ed), ASCE, New

York, New York, U. S. A., 1988.

Brorsson, I. and Eriksson, L., "Long-term Properties of Geotextiles and Their

Function as a Separator in Road Construction," Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles,

Vienna, Austria, 1986.

Brown, R. G., Personal Communication, Senior Geotechnical Engineer,

Geotechnical Group, VicRoads, Kew, Victoria, Australia, 1991.

BS 812, "Methods for Sampling and Testing of Mineral Aggregates, Sands and

Fillers," British Standards Institution, London, England, 1951.

Cazzuffi, D., Venesia, S., Rinaldi, M. and Zocca, A., The Mechanical Properties of

Geotextiles: Italian Standard and Interlaboratory Test Comparison," Proc. 3rd Int.

Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, 1986.

131

Christopher, B. R., Personal Communication, Vice President, Technical Services,

Polyfelt Incorporated, Atlanta, Georgia, U. S. A., 1992.

Christopher, B. R., and Holtz, R. D., Geotextile Engineering Manual, Federal

Highway Administration Manual, National Highway Institute, Washington D. C ,

U. S. A., 1985.

Curiskis, J. I. Dr., Personal Communication, School of Fibre Science and

Technology, Department of Textile Technology, University of N e w South Wales,

Australia, 1994.

De Groot, M., Janse, E., Maagdenberg, T. A. C. and Van den Berg, C, "Design

Method and Guidelines for Geotextile Application in Road Construction," Proc.

3rd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, 1986.

DIN 54.307, "Testing ofTextiles; Plunger Puncture Test (CBR)," Deutsche Norm,

Germany, 1982.

Dixon, J. H. and Osborn, S., "Field Trials to Evaluate Geotextile Puncture

Resistance, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related

Products, The Hague, Netherlands, 1990.

Finn, N. B. and Sadlier, M. A., "A Study of Geotextile Use in Australia," Proc. 3rd

Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, 1986.

132

Fluet, J. E., Jr., "Geosynthetics for Soil Improvement: A General Report and

Keynote Address," Proc. of Symp. on Geosynthetics for Soil Improvement,

Geotechnical Special Publication No. 18, Holtz (ed), ASCE, New York, New York,

U. S. A., 1988.

Foch, G., "Geotextile Test Methods Under Scrutiny," Highways, October, 1990.

Giroud, J. P., "Behaviour of Geotextiles," Presented at NATO, Advanced Study

Institute - Mechanics of Flexible Fibre Assemblies, Kilini, Greece, Aug. 19-Sept. 2,

1979.

Giroud, J. P., "Designing With Geotextiles," Materiaux et Constructions, Vol. 14,

No. 82, 1981.

Giroud, J. P., "Geotextiles and Related Products," Chapter 8, Geotechnical

Modelling and Applications, Sayed (ed), Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas, U.

S. A. 1987.

Giroud, J. P., "Biaxial Tensile State of Stress in Geosynthetics," Geotextiles and

Geomembranes, Vol. 11, 1992.

Hausmann, M. R., Ring, G. J. and Pitsis, S. E., "Abrasion of Geotextiles in

Railway Track Applications," Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Geomembranes

and Related Products, The Hague, Netherlands, 1990.

133

Ingold, T. S., "Civil Engineering Requirements for Long-Term Behaviour of

Geotextiles," Durability of Geotextiles, R I L E M , Chapman and Hall, London, U. K.,

1988.

John, N. W. M, Geotextiles, Blackie and Son, Bishopbriggs, Glasgow, Scotland,

1987.

Koerner, G. R. and Koerner, R. M., "The Installation Survivability of Geotextiles and Geogrids," Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related

Products, The Hague, Netherlands, 1990.

Koerner, R. M., "Should I Specify a Woven or a Nonwoven?," Geotechnical

Fabrics Report, Vol. 2, N o . 2, 1984.

Koerner, R. M., Designing With Geosynthetics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

N e w Jersey, U. S. A., 1990.

Koerner, R. M., Monteleone, M. J., Schmidt, J. R. and Roethe, A. T., "Puncture and Impact Resistance of Geosynthetics," Proc. 3rd Int. Conf on Geotextiles,

Vienna, Austria, 1986.

Lasalle, J., Fayoux, D. and Berthier, J. P., "Specifications and Recommendations of

French Geotextiles Committee," Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, U.

S. A., 1982.

134

Lawson, C. R., "Geotextile Requirements for Erosion Control Structures," Symp.

on Recent Developments in Ground Improvement Techniques, Bangkok, Thailand,

1982.

Lhote, F. and Rigo, J. M., "Study of the Puncturing Effect on Geotextiles," The

Post Vienna Conference on Geotextiles, Singapore, 1987.

Litwinowicz, A., Personal Communication, Manager (Transport Services),

Transport Technology Division, Queensland Department of Transport, Brisbane,

Australia, 1992.

Litwinowicz, A., Personal Communication, Manager (Transport Services),

Transport Technology Division, Queensland Department of Transport, Brisbane,

Australia, 1993.

McGown, A., Andrawes, K. Z., Wilson-Fahmy, R. F. and Brady, K. C, "Strength

Testing of Geotextiles," TRRL Supplementary Report 703, Department of the

Environment, Department of Transport, Crowthorne, Berkshire, U. K., 1981.

Murphy, V. P. and Koerner, R. M., "CBR Strength (Puncture) of Geosynthetics,"

ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, September, 1988.

Myles, B. and Carswell, I. G., "Tensile Testing of Geotextiles," Proc. 3rd Int.

Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, 1986.

135

Nijhof, B., Birkenfeld, S. and Nederlof, K., "Certification, Standardisation and

Specification of Geotextiles in the Netherlands," Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on

Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, 1986.

Nowatzki, E. A. and Pageau, S. R., "The Effect of Holes on the Tensile

Performance of Geotextiles," Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. l,No. 4, 1984.

Puhringer, G., "Pyramid Puncture Test for Evaluating the Protection Function of

Geotextiles," Geosynthetic Testing for Waste Containment Applications, ASTM

STP 1081, Koerner (ed), ASTM, Philadelphia, U. S. A., 1990.

Rathmayer, H., "Experiences With 'VTT-GEO' Classified Non-Woven Geotextiles for Finnish Road Constructions," Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, U.

S. A., 1982.

Raumann, G., "Geotextiles: Construction Materials in Evolution," Proc. 2nd Int.

Conf. on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, U. S. A., 1982.

Ruddock, E. C, "Tests on Woven and Non-Woven Fabrics for Pore Size and

Damage by Aggregate," C. R. Coll. Int. Soils Tex., Paris, 1977.

Sadlier, M. A., "Geotextiles in Australian Roads - A Review," Proc. Nth ARRB

Conference, Canberra, Australia, 1988.

Shrestha, S. C. and Bell, J. R., "A Wide Strip Tensile Test of Geotextiles," Proc.

2nd Int. Conf on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, U. S. A., 1982.

136

Sprague, C. J. and Cicoff, G., "A Study of Permanent Road Stabilisation: L o w Cost

Pavement Structures and Lightweight Geotextiles," Proc. Geosynthetics '89, U. S.

A., 1989.

Warwick, D., Design With Geotextiles, Design Manual, School of Civil

Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, 1991.

Warwick, R. G. "Woven Fabrics," Low Brothers & Co. (Dundee) Ltd, Geofabrics

Australasia file, year unknown.

Waters, T. J., "Evaluation of Geotextiles for Drainage and Reinforcement

Applications," Proc. 12th ARRB Conference, Hobart, Australia, 1984.

Waters, T. J., Robertson, N. F., and Carter, M. I., Evaluation of Geotextiles,

Queensland Department of Main Roads Materials Branch, Report R1324, Brisbane,

Australia, September, 1983.

Wehr, H., Separation Function of Non-Woven Geotextiles in Railway

Construction," Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, 1986.

Werner, G., "Design Criteria for the Separation Function of Geotextiles on the

Basis of Mechanical Test Procedures," Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Geotextiles, Vienna,

Austria, 1986.

137

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A DERIVATION OF cc-5 RELATIONSHIP FOR

THE HEMISPHERICAL PLUNGER

A.1 Derivation of ct-8 relationship for 8 < r:

The relationship between a and 8 is the same regardless of the value of either a or

8. However, for 8 < r, 8 = r and 8 > r, the derivations are different, although the end result is the same. Figure A.l shows the case for 8 < r, and all the variables required to derive the relationship between 8 and a.

Figure A . 1 Schematic view of specimen under a hemispherical plunger for 8 < r.

For triangle A B C , the relationships between the sides and a are as follows:

A-l

tana = 7 — ? : •'• x = (r-8)tana

(r-8)

(r-8) (r-8) cosa = .'. y = y cosa r — y

For triangle D E F sin a = — . Substituting the expressions for x and y found above, the expression for sin a becomes: r

(r-8) sina = - ' -*aa-

R-(r-8)tana rcosa-r + 8

Rcosa-(r-8)sina sinaR cosa - (r - 8) sin a = r cosa - r + 8

8 +(r-8)sin a = sinaRcosa-rcosa + r

8 + r sin a - 8 sin a = sinaR cosa + +r + -r cosa

8 (l-sin a) = Rsinacosa-rsin a-rcosa + r

Rsinacosa-r (cosa + sin a) + r

8 =

(l-sin a )

75 sina cosa - 25 (cosa + sin a J + 25

5

- c

2

COST a

A-2

A.2 T h e a-8 relationship for 8 = r:

When 8 = r no expression is necessary as 8 is 25mm in this case. Figure A.2 shows the case for 8 = r.

Figure A.2 Schematic view of specimen under a hemispherical plunger for 8 = r. r

For triangle A B C , sina = — and a becomes:

R a = sin —

\75J

= 19.47°

A.3 Derivation of a-8 relationship for 8 > r:

Figure A.3 shows the case for 8 > r, and all the variables required to derive the relationship between 8 and a.

A-3

Figure A.3 Schematic view of specimen under a hemispherical plunger for 8 > r.

For triangle A B C , the relationships between the sides and a are as follows:

(S-r) (8-r) cosa - -

X

.. x cosa tana — . y

.'. y = (S-r)tana r + x

For triangle D E F sina = . Substituting the expressions for x and y found

R + y above, the expression for sin a becomes:

A-4

(8-r) r + sina = - -^^

R +(8-r) sina rcosa + 8-r

R cosa+ (8-r) sina sinaR cosa + (8 - r) sin

2

a = r cosa + 8 - r

R sin a cosa + 8 sin a - r sin

2

a = rcosa + 8-r

8sin a-8 = rcosa-r + rsin a-Rsinacosa (x both sides by -l)

8-8sin a = r - rcosa-r sin a + R sina cosa

8 (l - sin a ) = R sina cosa - r (cosa + sin a ) + r

R sina cosa - r (cosa + sin a ) + r

8 =

(l - sina)

75 sina cosa - 25 (cosa + sin a ) + 25

8 =

2 cos a

A-5

APPENDIX B

GEOTEXTILES QUESTIONNAIRE

Date / /

VicRoads region: ^^

Name:

Position:

Contact telephone number:

•Geotextile products used during the past year:

Job N a m e & Location Date Product

N a m e

Quantity

(m

2

)

Application

B-l

JOB NAME:

Please give as m u c h information as possible about the following: *

1. Ground conditions (e.g. soil type, consistency, ground and surface water conditions)

2. M e t h o d of laying geotextile

3. T y p e of fill placed on geotextile (particle size, angularity, etc..)

4. Initial lift thickness

5. Spreading and compacting equipment used

6. Observed behaviour of geotextile during placement (under feet, vehicle wheels, earth-moving and compacting machinery)

B-2

7. If d a m a g e w a s seen during placement, what was it, what is thought to have caused it and what might have been done to prevent it?

8. H a s geotextile failure been observed subsequent to construction and, if so, h o w did the failure show up?

9. H a s failed geotextile been uncovered and/or removed? If so, what was observed?

10. If geotextile w a s laid over very rough or uneven surfaces, (e.g. over tree stumps or coarse rock fill) what behaviour w a s observed?

B-3

11. O n what basis was the geotextile chosen for this application?

* N.B. O R I G I N A L S H E E T S : Please photocopy as many copies of questions 1 to 11 as required.

12. Further comments

B-4

APPENDIX C

Specimen

No.

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1

2

3

4

5

1514 000

1 5 1 0 0 0 0

1774 000

1296 000

1861 000

6

7 g

1842 000

1573 000

1436 000

9

10

M E A N

1467 000

1476 000

1574 900

188 345

S.D. (s)

C . V %

Mean - 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

11 959

1264 132

1885 668

C B R P U N C T U R E TEST R E S U L T S

BIDIM A 12

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

12 202

10 101

9 539

9 586

9 521

9 148

9 395

1 0 0 5 4

1 1 708

10361

10 162

1 019

10 033

8 479

1 1.844

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

50 930

51 810

50 840

47 700

51 980

50 430

50710

48 580

50 460

48 370

50 181

1 465

2 9 1 8

47 765

52 597

C B R

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Puncture

Displacement al

Strength ( m m )

M a x i m u m

(N)

803 800

1090 000

812 900

820 700

643 500

834 180

160 748

19 270

568 945

1099 415

17 290

14 253

17613

15 841

16 132

16 226

1 333

8 214

14 027

18 425

( m m )

50 520

52 090

51 660

48 5)0

47 720

50 100

1 921

3 835

46 930

53 270

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

Displacement

al

Maximum

(N)

1436 000

1352 000

1647 000

1659 000

1403 000

14 371

13 285

1 2 9 1 7

12 627

15 411

( m m )

52 320

56 270

60 240

58 310

60 730

' • . : .

. . :

1499 400

143 437

9 566

1262 728

1736 072

13 722

1 152

8 398

1 1 821

15 624

57 574

3 425

5 948

51 923

63 225

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

»

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C.V%

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2144 000

1685.000

1329 000

2193000

1901 000

1911 000

2150 000

1902 000

I703OOO

1776 000

1869 400

263 544

14 098

1434 553

2304 247

Flat Plunger

Seating

C B R P U N C T U R E TEST R E S U L T S

Displacement

BIDIM A 14

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

C B R Seating Displacement

Displacement

( m m )

6 149

8 004

9421

6 679

7.627

7.252

6 104

7.549

8.022

7.422

7.423

0983

13 239

at

Maximum

( m m )

49 280

48 790

50 280

48.660

50 160

46 870

49470

49 780

48460

48610

49 036

1 001

2 041

47.384

Puncture

Strength

(N)

927 500

772 600

601 900

665 500

903 400

774 180

142915

18 460

538 370

Displacement

(mm)

12 166

13 090

14 343

14 397

12 597

13 319

1 014

7 614

11 645

at

Maximum

(mm)

46 420

47 130

42 990

45 820

45 380

4 5 548

1 574

3 455

4 2 951 5.801

9044

50 688

1009 990 14 992 48 145

C B R

Puncture

Strength

<N>

1578 OOO

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating Displacement

Displacement

( m m )

14 028

al

Maximum

( m m )

59 850

1461 000

2107 000

1710000

1788 000

II 749

10 513

9 648

10 607

57 800

6 0 490

58 040

57 400

1728 800

245 637

14 209

1323 498

2134 102

1 1 309

1 694

14 975

8 515

14 103

58 716

1 366

2 326

56 463

6 0 969

Specimen

No.

|

2

i

4

5

6

7

«

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2566 000

2709 000

2475 000

2209,000

2591 000

2685.000

2695 000

2519,000

3389.000

2706 000

2654 400

299 740

11.292

2159.828

3148 972

Flat Plunger

Seating Displacement

Displacement

( m m ) at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

7 079

6.149

50 940

48.590

6.983

7.548

6951

6.128

49.370

48.070

50.240

47.940

C B R P U N C T U R E TEST R E S U L T S

BIDIM A 24

C B R

Puncture

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating Displacement

Displacement at

Strength

(mm) Maximum

(mm)

<N)

1144 000 13 892 51.220

1075 000

1326 000

12 969

13 041

45 870

51 480

902 300

1116000

12 045

II 417

43 060

46 560

6.175

7 258

5499

48.210

49 990

51.190

47620

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

2745.000

2534.000

9 644

9.584

57 970

60 730

2240.000

1919.000

10.476

11.227

57.640

56 030

2146 000

10 522 57 650

I ""' 1 '"".'.-' "j

1

6433

6 620

0.639

9.651

5566

7 674

49.216

1.309

2661

47.055

51.377

1112660

151 803

13.643

862.185

1363 135

12673

0.959

7 570

11.090

1 4 2 5 6

47 638

3.634

7.629

41.641

53.635

2316.800

325.518

1 4 0 5 0

1779 696

2853 904

10291

0686

6.666

9.159

11 422

58.004

1.702

2.934

55.196

60.812

,

C-l

Specimen

No.

5

6

7

8

1

2

3

4

9

10

3268 000

2757 000

M E A N 3125 400

S.D. (s)

C.VV.

Mean + 1.65s

403 196

12901

Mean - 1.65s 2460 126

3790674

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

3421 000

2558 000

3013 000

3043 000

2776 000

3758 000

3699 000

2961 000

C B R P U N C T U R E TEST R E S U L T S

BIDIM A 29

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

C B R

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Displacement at

Puncture Displacement at

( m m )

M a x i m u m

Strength (mm)

Maximum

( m m )

(N)

( m m )

4.808 52 940

1 107 000

10 597

46 030

5 282

49880

1 106 000

10 1 16

45 770

4 900 52 900

1 137.000

10 244

44 270

5 460 49 420

13 1 5 000 9 639

47 830

5 100 50 150

1301 0 0 0

10 794

47 770

4 707

53 010

4 571 50 970

5815

4 999

5 823

5 147

0 440

8 555

4 420

5.873

50 840

50 920

49 350

51 038

1 439

2 819

48 664

53 412

1 193 200

105651

8 854

1018 875

1367525

10 278

0 448

4 361

9 538

II 018

46 334

1 498

3 232

43 863

48 805

C B R

Punciure

Strength

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl at

(N)

2938 000

3106 000

8 581

7 975

Maximum l m m )

61 630

3295 000

2587 000

2526 000

Displacement

(mm)

7 783

7 692

9 143

61 290

61 760

60 660

58410

2890 400

330 639

1 1 439

2344 845

3435 955

8 235

0 615

7 463

7 221

9 249

60 750

1 376

2 264

58 480

63 020

Specimen

No.

C B R

Puncture

Strength

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

(N)

3785000

3749 000

3462 000

3973 000

3217000

3677.000

4152.000

3862000

4165.000

3878.000

3792 000

S.D. (s)

292 201

C.VV.

Mean - 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

7 706

3309 868

4274 132

5 528

5 752

5 757

5.353

5056

4 812

5 528

5 474

0332

6 074

4.925

6 022

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

BIDIM A 34

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement C B R

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Displacement

(mm)

5 508

5.519

5 922 at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

52200

52 120

50220

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1720 000

1656 000

1593 000

Displacemenl

( m m )

8216

9 862

9 398 al

Maximum

(mm)

47 090

48 060

47 980

1684.000

1195 000

8 305

9 490

46 700

42 480

50610

48440

51 210

52230

51.350

53.140

48 820

51 034

1 528

2 9 9 4

48 513

53 555

1569 600

214 502

13 666

1215 671

1923 529

9 054

0 746

8 236

7 824

10 285

46 462

2 300

4 951

42 667

50 257

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl

Displacement

(mm) at

Maximum

(N)

4030 000

4060 000

3529 000

2579 000

3235 000

3486 600

615 002

17 639

2471 847

4501 353

7 571

7513

7 670

8 039

7 859

7 730

0217

2 805

7373

8 088

( m m )

63 200

63 410

61 560

62 700

60 280

62 230

1 304

2 096

60 078

64 382

Specimen

No.

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

4711 000 1

2

3

4

4940.000

4490.000

5

6

4404 000

4816.000

7

8

9

10

M E A N

4177.000

4589 000

5028000

3597.000

4443.000

4519500

S.D. (s)

C.VV.

415 422

9 192

Mean- 1.65s 3834053

Mean + 1.65s

5204 947

^ ^ ^ ™ ~

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

BIDIM A 44

Flat Plunger

Seating Displacement at

Displacement

(mm)

M a x i m u m

( m m )

5 159

5 582

4.965

5 243

5 493

4661

4 588

52330

51.270

50.480

50.400

50820

51.860

50 810

C B R

Puncture

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacement at

Strength

(N)

Displacement

(mm)

Maximum

(mm)

1806 000

1521.000

9 567

8.474

46 030

41.950

1837.000

2309.000

1600 000

8.702

8 522

9 109

44 710

49 640

43 670

C B R

Puncture

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Displacement at

Strength

(N)

4408 000

( m m ) Maximum

( m m )

4832.000

3933 000

4421 OOO

4621 000

8 840

7.884

4 909

8.434

6859

63 720

61 440

27 280

59 850

61 410

3 727

5.342

4.175

4.894

0 602

12 293

3 901

5 886

52.640

48.100

50 980

50 969

1.264

2.479

48.884

53,054

, ' : • , • .

' ' , :

1814 600

307 108

16.924

1307.872

2321.328

8.875

0.461

5.191

8 115

9.635

45.200

2.896

6.407

40.422

49.978

4443 000

333.472

7.506

3892.771

4993.229

7.385

1.571

21 274

4.793

9.978

54 740

15.413

28 156

29 309

80 171

mi

C-2

S|>ecimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

MEAN

S.D. (s)

C.VV.

Mean - 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1604 000

1574 000

1649 000

1491 000

1723 000

1626 000

1373 000

1810000

1791 000

1 744 0 0 0

1638 500

136 952

8 358

1412 529

1864 471

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y F E L T TS 420

Displacement

(mm)

5 333

4 493

4 857

3 720

7 068

3 144

44 488

1 880

12 256

Flat Plunger

Seating

12 077

1 1 1 13

10 008

8 564

6 732

3 782

Displacement

at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

53 510

52 770

51 230

53 360

49 540

46 840

43 770

49 220

48 700

49 390

49.833

3 059

6 138

44 786

54 880

635 060

89 316

14 064

487 688

782 432

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

5 12 500

709 500

568 100

703 600

681 600

Seating

Displacemenl

(mm)

9 943

9 325

9071

9 316

9 775

9 486

0 360

3 799

8 891

10081

Displacement at

Maximum

(mm)

39 490

50 OOO

41 380

45 560

48 970

45 080

4 596

10 196

37 496

52 664

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl

( m m )

Displacement at

Maximum

(N)

14)3 000

1457 000

1375 000

1466 000

1495 000

8 594

8 208

8 215

9 144

8 121

( m m )

56 360

58 470

54 440

58 570

57 370

1441 200

47 267

3 280

1363 209

1519 191

8 456

0 425

5 032

7 754

9 158

57 042

1 712

3 000

54 218

59 866

Specimen

No.

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C.VV.

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2015000

1499.000

1979 000

1849 000

1781 000

1866 000

1873 000

1643 000

2I40OOO

1785 000

1843 000

183 575

9 961

1540 101

2145 899

_

C B R P U N C T U R E TEST R E S U L T S

P O L Y F E L T TS 500

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Displacement

( m m ) al

Maximum

( m m )

9 764

52 480

47 330 8 583

5 555

4 857

5.654

50.090

46 930

48630

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

S31 300

598 400

776 400

752 000

978 800

Seating

Displacement

(mm)

12 238

14 578

8 803

9 537

11 260

Displacement at

Maximum

(mm)

41 660

45 270

44 370

48 580

51 430

4 248

6 843

6263

5 202

6 8 50

6 382

1 707

48 880

48 110

46630

51.390

49 360

48983

1.908

727 380

174 144

11 283

2 290

46 262

3 802

26 742

3 566

9 198

3 896

45.834

52 132

23 941

440 043

1 0 1 4 7 1 7

20 292

7 505

15 061

8 2 1 9

39 989

52.535

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating Displacement

Displacement

( m m ) al

Maximum

( m m )

1138 000

1382 000

1782 000

1649 000

1260 000

10915

1 1 120

10 845

10 905

II 421

53 530

57 280

59 880

61 670

55910

1442 200

268 137

18 592

999 775

1884 625

11 042

0 236

2 141

10651

1 1 432

57 654

3 212

5 571

52 354

62 954

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

cvv.

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1993 000

1996 000

I750OOO

1705 000

1830 000

2064 000

1823.000

2111 000

1770 000

1988 000

I903OOO

143.446

7.538

1666315

2139 685

4 871

4982

4.443

4 767

4.378

4500

4 516

4 950

4 332

4261

4600

0.268

5 831

4.157

5.043

51.920

51.510

49.310

48.760

50.760

50.340

50.540

52.630

49.180

50240

50519

1.244

2.462

48.467

52571

CBR PUNCTURE TEST RESULTS

P O L Y F E L T TS 550

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

(mm)

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Seating

Displacement

Displacement at

( m m ) Strength

(N)

699 900

8 220

Maximum

( m m )

46 480

595.700

680.500

518.900

593 800

10 708

7.990

9.608

8 522

45 910

46 540

46 830

47010

617.760

73 344

11.873

496.743

738.777

9010

1 134

12.586

7.139

10.881

46 554

0.420

0 901

45.862

47.246

C B R

Puncture temispherical P unger

Seating

Displacement

Displacement at

Strength

(N)

1456 000

1698.000

1380.000

1307.000

1808 000

(mm)

6.847

6919

6980

7 340

6 706

Maximum

( m m )

55010

59 160

54.910

55 550

62 400

1529.800

214.017

13.990

1176 672

1882 928

6958

0.237

3 399

6.568

7349

57.406

3.295

5,740

51 969

6 2 8 4 3

C-3

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2353 000

2489 000

2734 000

2344 000

2687 000

2455 000

2460 000

2615 000

2295 000

2805 000

2523 700

177 03 5

7 0 1 5

2231 591

2815 809

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y F E L T TS 600

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

4 570

4 776

4 782

4 749

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

49 260

50 590

4 234

4 462

4 164

3 600

5 444

3 616

4 440

0 563

12 684

3 511

5 169

51 740

48 250

5 2 2 6 0

49 700

48 370

50 650

49 570

51 640

50 203

1 403

2 795

47 887

52 519

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

(N)

837 300 1

864 700

8036

9 631

46 170

771 600

970 700

779 600

844 780

80 487

9 528

71 1 977

977 583

10055

9 149

9 0 6 2

9 186

0 757

8 241

7 937

10 436

47 520

48 980

46 620

48 000

47 458

1115

2 350

45 618

49 298

C B R

Puncture

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl

Displacemenl al

Strength ( m m )

Maximum

(N)

2497 000

2024 000

6 846

7 210

( m m )

59 400

56 090

2561 000

1568 000

2109 000

6 452

6 798

6 629

61 460

52 210

57 870

2151 800

401 745

18 670

1488 921

2814 679

6 787

0 283

4 )66

6321

7 253

57 406

3 513

6 119

51 610

63 202

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s 3129 666 8 172 53 797

C B R P U N C T U R E TEST R E S U L T S

P O L Y F E L T TS 650

Flat Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2431 000

2761 000

2613000

2666 000

2417 000

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

7647

4 908

5 263

5 790

8 100

5 117

7 858

2583 000

2995 000

2793 000

2826 000

3200 000

2728 500

243 131

8 91 1

2327 334

5 048

5 626

5 170

6 053

1 284

21 216

3 934

Displacemenl at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

50 350

49810

47 900

50 590

48 700

50 870

52 650

51 640

51 420

54 120

50 805

1 813

3 569

4 7 8 1 3

C B R

Strength

<N)

95 643

II 054

1023 0 5 2

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating Displacement

Puncture

925 900

886 200

962 700

834 600

716 800

865 240

707 428

Displacement

( m m )

1 1 138

10 987

9 369

1 1 662

9 832

10 598

0 958

9 041

9 0 1 7

12 179 at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

50 780

46 540

42 570

42 600

49 770

46 452

3 862

8 314

4 0 080

52 824

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Displacemenl

( m m ) al

Maximum

( m m )

(N)

2419 000

2550 000

2298 000

7618

7452

2729 000

2089 000

8 085

7 624

6 668

57 390

59 040

56 790

61 410

55 070

2417 000

243 301

10 066

2015 553

2818 447

7489

0 516

6 891

6 638

8 341

57 940

2 404

4 149

53 974

61 9 0 6

Specimen

No.

1

2

3-

4

5

6

7"

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s) c.vv.

Mean- 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

3843 000

3499,000

N7A

3477 000

2972 000

3463 000

N/A

3297 000

3152000

3901 000

3450 500

316 644

9 177

2928 037

3972 963

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

12 526

6 339

N/A

5 748

4 167

6766

N/A

6 563

4 487

4 684

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

58 460

50.110

N/A

50.320

48 810

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y F E L T TS 700

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

Sealing

Displacement

( m m )

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

1143 000

1084.000

6 720

6 402

43 140

39030

1168.000

10991

9 442

42 360

1330 000

1)05 000 6 760

50 110

45210

51 200

N/A

49.770

50.960

52 470

[ "

6410

2.665

41 572

2013

10 807

51 512

3 0 0 7

5 838

46 550

56 475

1 166 000

97.306

8.345

1005 445

1 3 2 6 5 5 5

8 063

2.045

25.368

4.688

11438

43 970

4090

9302

37.221

50.719

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

3091.000

2562.000

3034000

3521.000

2636 000

8925

9 043

9 077

9 680

7600

59.000

53 720

58 830

61.360

55 340

2968 800

387.412

13.049

2329.571

3608 029

8 865

0 766

8 636

7 602

10 128

57 650

3 0 7 2

5.330

52.580

62.720

m

' N O T E : Excluded due to specimen slippage during test.

C-4

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

5071 000

4584 000

4816 000

4423 000

4426 000

4373 000

4707 000

4899 000

4779 000

4268 000

4634 600

260 988

5 631

4203 971

5065 229

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y F E L T TS 750

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement Seating

Displacement

(mm)

3 638

4 476

4 028

4 158

1 450 at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

54 330

51 210

51 140

51 300

37 550

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

I730OOO

1799 000

1513 000

1102 000

1697 000

Displacement

(mm)

9 242

7 469

8 078

8 681

8 6 6 4

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

45 140

44 100

42 960

38 760

45 250

7 622

6091

53 750

52 400

6 587

5 979

4 895

4 892

1 758

35 939

1 991

7 794

53 240

54 110

50 330

50936

4 908

9635

42 838

59034

1 568 200

281.259

17 935

1 104 122

2032.278

8 427

0 675

8 0 1 4

7 312

9541

43 242

2 671

6 177

38 835

47 649

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacement

(mm)

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

(mm)

(N)

4298 000

3862000

3632 000

4717000

3917000

7 805

6 841

7 991

7 224

7 802

59 840

57 590

57 720

61 810

78 890

4085 200

426 601

10443

3381 308

4789 092

7 533

0 482

6 403

6 737

8 328

63 170

8 957

14 179

48 391

77 949

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

N/A

3638 000

3640 000

3360.000

3643 000

3652 000

3639000

3605 000

3768.000

3647000

3621 333

107 866

2 979

3443 355

3799.312

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

(mm)

N/A

2 100

2.394

1 800

1 323 at

( m m )

N/A

33 500

34.740

32 710

33.590

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y T R A C 155

Displacement

M a x i m u m

C B R

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Puncture

Strength

(N)

847 800

677.300

872000

796300

842 400

Displacement

( m m )

4 182

3 401

3 854

3 360

3 971 at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

39 220

30 260

37 480

36 600

38 110

1 626

! 488

1 542

1 524

1 958

1 751

0 343

19620

1 184

2317

33.330

33090

32 820

33 570

33.950

33.478

0 616

1.839

3 2 4 6 2

34 4 9 4

807 160

77 587

9612

679 141

935 179

3 753

0 361

9 6 1 0

3 158

4 349

36 334

3 527

9 707

30 514

42 154

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2464 000

2462 000

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacement

(mm)

3 380

3 499

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

36 780

37 970

231 1 000

2239 000

2330 000

2 599

3 092

: 942

35 790

36 450

36 430

2361 200

98 938

4 190

2197 953

2 5 2 4 4 4 7

0 358

1 1 550

2 511

5 694

:

: . , : ' • - . . . . . .

36 684

0 803

2 190

35 358

38 010

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (j) c.vv.

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1427 000

1442.000

1404.000

1406.000

1435.000

1 4 1 9 0 0 0

1567 000

1448.000

1 5 1 2 0 0 0

1591 000

1465 100

67 469

4.605

1353.776

1576 424

Seating

Displacement

(mm)

2.924

2471

2730

2 810

2691

2628

2.311

2.268

3.004

R a t Plunger

2.793

2.663

0.246

9.251

2257

3 069

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

25.170

24.310

24.920

23.810

25.070

23.840

25.860

24.050

26.110

25820

24 896

0.864

3.470

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

628 200

510 100

518.900

463.600

589 300

vlvwiiiw&v

: • : - : • : • ! • * * » : •

5 4 2 0 2 0

65.889

12 156

23.471

26.321

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y T R A C C (Woven up)

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

433,303

650.737

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

5320

5 893

5.415

5.828

5 840

5 659

0.270

4.762

5.215

6 104

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

31.120

29 030

34.760

29.340

32 630

31 376

2.384

7.599

27.442

35.310

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

957 300

Hemispherical PI unger

Seating

Displacement

(mm)

4 996

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

(mm)

29 140

5 003

29 100 995.400

840.500

1189.000

1180 000

4 939

4 932

5 282

31.380

3 0 9 8 0

33 030

1032 440

150 120

14 540

784.742

1280.138

5 030

0 144

' : . ' • :

2 868

4 792

5 268

30 726

1.655

5 3 8 7

27.995

33.457

C-5

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1432 000

I45R 000

1 19 5 000

14 16 000

193 7 000

2 346

2 235

2 266

2 172

2 383

25 650

24 100

27 840

24 060

29 400

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y T R A C C (Woven down)

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

Displacement al

Maximum

( m m )

(N)

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strength

641 900

664 200

691 000

604 300

634 900

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

5 871

5 329

5 353

6 122

5 499

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

33 770

33 310

35 3.30

35 060

30 080

1526 000

1 596 000

1308 000

2 109

2 422

2 152

24 190

26 060

27 290

1 790 000

1 546 000

1 520 400

217 626

14 314

1161 318

1879 482

3 581

2 582

2425

0.431

17.758

1 714

3 135

29 460

24 880

26 293

2 102

7 993

22 825

29 761

647 260

32 509

5 022

593 621

700 899

5 635

0 348

6 177

5 061

6 209

33 510

2 097

6 257

30 050

3 6 9 7 0

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating Displacement

Displacement

( m m ) al

Maximum

( m m )

(N)

1014 000

1002 OOO

991 700

4 566

4 939

4 64 2

32 780

29 W

1 130 000

903 400

5 136

5 147

31 890

28 130

1008 220

80 874

8 021

874 777

1 141 663

4 886

0 272

5 562

4 438

5 334

30 660

1 979

6 456

27 394

33 926

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1906 000

1 772 000

1958 000

1 7 3 2 0 0 0

1769 000

1815 000

1946 000

1787 000

2009 000

1969 000

1866 300

101 414

5 4 3 4

1698 966

2033 634

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Displacement

( m m )

3 838 at

Maximum

( m m )

37 170

4 530

3 654

4 622

3 641

37350

38 170

36 020

36 020

C B R P U N C T U R E TEST R E S U L T S

P O L Y W E A V E R

C B R

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Displacement at

Puncture

Strength ( m m ) Maximum

( m m )

(N)

579 600 7 892 43 620

693 200

629 800

652 900

618 300

7016

8 185

7 180

7 357

42 350

38 910

42 470

40 310

4 21 1

3.743

4 504

4039

4412

4 120

0 385

9 354

3.484

4 755

36 520

37.380

3 6 4 2 0

3 7 4 8 0

39 290

37 182

1.016

2 733

35 505

38 859

634 760

42 079

6 629

565 330

704 190

7 526

0 494

6 565

6 711

8 341

41 532

I 889

4 549

3 8 4 1 5

44 649

C B R

Puncture

Hemispherical Plunger

Displacemenl

Seating

Displacemenl at

Strength

(N)

1347 000

( m m )

6 644

Maximum

( m m )

4 1 720

4 1 220 1315000

1386 000

1334 000

1471 000

5 705

6 389

5 802

6 051

42 650

41 070

42 190

1370 600

61 857

4 513

1268 536

1472 664

6 1 18

0 395

6 461

5 466

6 770

41 770

0 661

1 582

40 680

42 860

Specimen

No.

6

7

8

1

10

1

2

3

4

5

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y W E A V E F

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2777 000

2799 000

2777 000

2707 000

N/A

2694 000

2789 000

2760 000

2766 000

2808 000

2764 1 1 1

39 200

1 418

2699 432

2828 791

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

2413

2 153

2 406

2 117

N/A

1 943

2 527

2 040

Displacement at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

39 220

38 060

39 220

37320

N/A

C B R

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Puncture

Strength

Displacement

( m m ) at

Maximum

(N)

( m m )

1042 000

1 101 000

4.830

4.797

44 340

40 570

1206 000

4928

4 597

44 850

46 640

920 800

847 300

4 980

41 550

37230

38900

37 760

38 890

38 700

2 752

2 262

2 290

0.258

11.244

1 865

2.715

38 367

0 789

2.055

37 065

39 668

1023 420

142.521

13 926

788 261

1258 579

4.826

0 148

3 063

4 582

5.070

43.590

2 487

5 705

39 487

47 693

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacement

Displacement

( m m ) at

Maximum

( m m )

(N)

2083 000

2209 000

4 754

4 438

44 260

45 490

44 1 10 2034 000

1984 000

2160 000

4 334

4 680

4 805

43 050

45 310

2094 070

91 381

4 3 6 4

1943 221

2244 779

4 602

0206

4 468

4 263

4 941

44 444

0 992

2 23!

42 808

46 080

C-6

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C.VV.

Mean - 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

4385 000

5 109 000

4326 000

4897 000

4404 000

4980 000

4322 000

4891 000

4223 000

4980 000

4651 700

345 313

7 423

4081 93.3

5221 467

Displacement

(mm) at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

C B K P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y W E A V E H R

Flat Plunger

Seating Displacement C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl

Displacemenl

(mm) at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

2 265

2 295

2 173

2 537

2 393

40 890

44 520

34 690

4 1 290

42 100

1 165 000

1394 000

12 1 5 000

1006 000

1 162 000

3.860

4 244

4 414

3 840

4 510

36610

37 380

40 640

30 470

38 590

2 530

1 628

4 1 650

34 140

2 055

2.088

2 288

2 225

0 266

1! 945

1 787

2 664

43 890

34 140

4 0 600

39 791

3 971

9 981

33 238

46 344

1188 400

139 188

1 1 712

958 740

1 4 1 8 0 6 0

4 173

0 3 1 0

7 439

3 661

4 686

36 738

3 820

10 398

30 435

4.3 04 1

C B R

Puncture

Strenglh

(N)

3458 000

3682 000

Hemispherical Plunger

Sealing Displacemenl

Displacemenl

(mm)

4 223

4 698 al

Maximum

( m m )

44 200

45 160

3373 OOO

3644 OOO

3272 000

4 375

4 188

4 1 14

4 ;,™

42 200

39 770

3485 800

175 163

5 025

3 196 780

3774 820

4 320

0 232

5 369

3 937

4 702

42 526

2 176

5 1 18

38 93 5

46 1 17

Specimen

No.

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

M E A N

S.D. (s)

3506 000

C.VV.

123 323

3 517

Mean - 1.65s 3302 516

3709 484 Mean + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

3291 000

3681 000

3490 000

3458 000

3639 000

3656 000

3383 000

34S7 000

.3464 000

351 1 000

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

P R O P E X 2002

Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement al

Displacement

(mm)

Maximum

( m m )

C B R

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl

Puncture

Displacement al

Strenglh

(N)

(mm)

Maximum

(mm)

2 283

2 556

2 148

2811

2 047

2 495

2 220

2 105

2 196

2 164

2 302

0242

10 499

1 904

2.701

38 540

41 310

39 020

41 910

40 260

41 010

38220

39 760

38 630

40 030

39 869

1 268

3 181

37 776

41 9 6 2

863 400

884 600

1003 000

866 900

1055 000

934 580

88 498

9 469

788 559

1080 601

4 255

4 470

3 876

4 394

4 014

4 202

0 252

5 987

3 787

4617

38 330

40 880

4 1 450

3 7 6 1 0

39 470

39 548

1 63 1

4 123

36 857

42 239

C B R

Puncture

Strenglh

(N)

2660 000

Hemispherical Plunger

Sealing

Displacement

(mm)

Displacemenl al

Maximum

( m m )

2631 000

2440 000

2909 OOO

2823 000

3 987

4 283

3 327

4 311

3 163

4S 290

48 300

43 610

47 740

46 220

2692 600

182 001

6 759

2392 299

2992 901

3 814

0 538

14 106

2 926

4 702

46 232

1 892

4 092

43 1 1 1

49 353

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C.VV.

Mean - 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1235 000

1263 000

1497 000

1342 000

1295 000

1524 000

1459 000

1436 000

1289 000

1293 000

1363 300

105 539

7741

1189 161

1537 439

Flat Plunger

Displacement

Seating

Displacement

(mm) al

M a x i m u m

( m m )

20 481

19 929

17.030

19.246

19.439

18494

18 874

20473

21 468

22 738

19817

1.599

8070

17 178

22 4S6

93 940

93 460

86 090

91 720

90 820

92 000

93 430

95.550

97.250

95 720

92 998

3.134

3 370

87.827

98 169

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

T E R R A F I X 310 R

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Seating

Displacement

(mm)

Displacemenl at

Maximum

(mm)

(N)

1424 000

1223.000

39.013

38 702

114 700

111.300

1323 000

1627000

1421 000

1403.600

149.783

10.671

1156 459

1650741

39405

36 166

39 008

38.459

1.306

3.395

36.304

40.613

1 1 7 500

1 1 6 0 0 0

120 000

115.900

3 240

2.795

110.555

121 245

Hemispherical Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1461 000

1538 000

1349 000

1647 000

1708 000

Seating

Displacemenl

(mm)

34 679

34 205

35 593

32 661

32 827

Displacemenl al

Maximum

(mm)

1 1 4 9 0 0

1 15 100

117 600

1 II 800

117 400

1540 600

143 525

9.316

1303 784

1777416

33 993

1 246

3 665

31 937

36 049

115 360

2.352

2 039

III 479

1 19 241

C-7

Specimen i

2

3

4

5

6

C B R

Punclure

Strenglh

<N)

1 567 000

2162 000

1896 000

2090 000

1394 000

1883 000

7

8

1857 000

1684 000

9

10

M E A N

1720 000

24 54 000

S.D. (s)

C.VV.

Mean - 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

1870 700

307 537

16 440

1 363 264

2378 136

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

T E R R A F I X 360 R

H a l Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

19023

16 385

19 210

17 575

20 744

17 534

16 120

IS 638

19 049

16 092

18 037

1 553

8612

15 474

20 600

Displacement al

Maximum

( m m )

87 750

8 9 6 1 0

96 380

91 290

92 230

9 0 240

86 620

88 950

92 870

92 800

9 0 874

2 859

3 146

86 156

95 592

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strength

Seating

Displacemenl

( m m )

Displacemenl at

Maximum

( m m ) (N)

1816 000

1866 000

20I2OOO

201 2 000

33 312

31 654

31 951

31 029

109 100

105 600

109 900

1 06 700

1 766 000 3 3 944

1 10 500

1894 400

1 1 3 026

5 966

1 707 908

2080 892

32 378

1 209

3 735

30 382

34 374

108 360

2 1 14

1 951

104 872

II 1 848

C B R

Punclure

Strength

(N)

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl

( m m )

Displacement al

Maximum

( m m )

2176 000

2160 000

2450 000

2248 000

28 374

27 84 1

26 053

27 561

106 300

106 900

106 800

1 10 200

2303 000

2 7 0 1 4 109 400

2267 400

117 127

5 166

2074 140

2460 660

27 369

0 884

3 231

25 910

28 828

107 920

1 754

1 62"-

105 026

1 10814

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

990 600

968 100

898 000

709 800

868 200

798 400

907 100

1069 000

1036 000

1092 000

933 720

121 546

13 017

73 3 169

1134 271

H a t Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl

( m m )

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

3 185

3 023

2 983

2 520

2 494

2 694

2 433

2 537

2 901

2 485

2 726

0 273

10 029

2 274

3 177

55 000

53 670

53 350

43 670

43 450

50 960

54 030

55 150

54 580

55 970

51 983

4 639

8 923

44 329

59 637

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

T E R R A M 700 S U V

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

361 600

422 300

396 800

460 400

375 800

403 380

19 2.39

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger

9 728

IIS (.If.

46S 124

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

4 717

5 1 15

4 9<7

5 222

4 709

4 944

0 231

4 672

4 <63

5 525

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

4 1 580

49 620

46 480

45 810

45 700

45 838

2 866

6 253

41 108

50 568

Hemispherical Plunger

C B R

Puncture

Strenglh

Sealing

Displacement

( m m )

Displacemenl al

Maximum

( m m ) (N)

868 700

826 300

771 000

809 400

826 300

5 155

4 895

"•015

5 055

5 002

70 940

64 510

65 960

64 640

68 560

820 340

35 227

4 294

762 215

878 465

5 024

0 094

1 870

4 869

5 179

66 922

2 774

4 145

62 345

71 499

Specimen

No.

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

M E A N

S.D. (s) c.vv.

Mean- 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1206 000

1346 000

1264 000

1227 000

1141 000

1110000

1150 000

1185 000

1086 000

1107 000

1182 200

80939

6 846

1048 651

1315 749

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

T E R R A M 1000 S U V

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

2 496

2 165

2 176

2 100

2 076

2 054

2 240

2 088

2 417

2 192

2 200

0 M R

6.731

1 95(3

2 445

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

57 450

55 420

55 000

53 670

55 120

51.440

56 250

56 890

51 560

51 160

54 396

2 326

4 276

5 0 5 5 8

58 234

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

659 300

533 400

546 600

542 300

723 200

«Xi960

85 596

14 243

459 727

742 193

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

4 0.11

4 060

4 595

4 799

4 307

4 362

0 331

7 580

3 817

4 908

Displacement at

Maximum

( m m )

43 650

45 980

48 020

45 090

49 650

46 478

2 378

5 115

42.555

50 401

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

1061.000

978 800

Hemispherical Plunger

1095000

1 168000

1166 000

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

4 289

4 030

3 774

3 604

N/A

Displacemenl at

M a x i m u m

( m m )

63 310

69 900

64 810

70 870

66 640

1093 760

79 090

7.231

963.262

1224.258

3 924

0 300

7 636

3 430

4419

. - - '

67 106

3 235

4 821

61 768

72 444

C-8

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. (s)

C . V V .

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2754 000

2397 000

2699 000

2462 000

2525 000

2788 000

2573 000

2385 000

263 1 000

2259 000

2547 300

173 577

6 8 1 4

2260 897

2833 703

C B R P U N C T U R E T E S T R E S U L T S

T E R R A M 3000 S U V

Pyramid-Tipped Plunger Flat Plunger

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

Displacement at

Maximum

(mm)

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

Seating

Displacement

( m m )

Displacemenl at

Maximum

(mm)

1 150

55 630

1 252

1 264

1 017

1 248

49 840

52 000

50 650

54 980

940 400

978 800

1 180 000

1 194 000

8 1 6 7 0 0 j

2 772

3 020

2 718

2 867

2 492

36 500

38 640

41 690

53 650

33 770

1.093

1 068

1 712

1 254

1 170

57 570

55 320

49 100

52 510

47 050

52 465 1 223

0 193

15 771

0 905

1 541

3 360

6 404

46 921

58 009

1021 980

162 189

15 870

754 368

1289 592

2 774

0 195

7 024

2 452

3 095

40 850

7 72 1

18 902

28 1 10

53 590

C B R

Puncture

Strength

(N)

2652 000

2448 000

2301 000

2506 000

2570 000

Hemispherical Plunger

Seating

Displacemenl

( m m )

2 300

2 870

2 680

2 570

2 547

Displacemenl at

M a x i m u m

(mm)

64 490

70 210

66 270

67 450

70 940

.

. .

.

.

.

. ;

2495 400

132 513

5 310

2276 753

2 7 1 4 0 4 7

2 593

0 208

8 0 1 4

2 250

2 936

67 872

2 695

3 971

63 425

72 319

C-9

APPENDIX D

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

BIDIM A 12 c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

30.50

H 5 0

(mm)

1034

24.00

26.00

27.50

31.50

25.00

24.75

27.75

26.00

25.00

26.80

2.52

9.39

19.25

34.35

1471

1308

1204

986

1385

1406

1188

1308

1385

1267

162

13

782

1752

Modified Height

D 2 5 0

(mm)

17.50

17.00

19.00

17.75

17.00

17.65

0.82

4.65

15.19

20.11

H50

(mm)

1173

1224

1039

1148

1224

1 161

76

7

934

1389

Modified Height

D750

(mm)

32.50

32.50

33.75

37.25

35.00

34.20

2.00

5.83

28.21

40.19

H50

(mm)

1410

1410

1334

1154

1264

1314

108

8

989

1639

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

Mean -3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR A L L D R O P HEIGHTS

BIDIM A 14

Standard Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

27.00

30.00

30.25

29.50

25.25

25.75

30.50

22.50

25.25

23.25

26.93

2.98

11.07

17.98

35.87

H 5 0

(mm)

1237

1059

1047

1086

1365

1326

1034

1617

1365

1541

1268

211

17

635

1900

Modified Height

D 2 5 0

(mm)

22.75

19.00

14.50

17.75

15.75

17.95

3.20

17.82

8.35

27.55

H 5 0

(mm)

796

1037

1542

1146

1366

1177

290

25

309

2046

Modified Height

D750

(mm)

34.00

H50

(mm)

1322

37.50

38.50

32.50

38.00

36.10

2.68

7.42

28.06

44.14

1145

1101

1413

1123

1221

139

11

805

1636

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

45.00

H50

(mm)

1751

40.00

40.50

39.75

47.00

42.75

2082

2045

2102

1643

1888

44.25

50.00

43.75

41.75

43.48

3.27

7.52

33.66

53.29

1795

1500

1825

1955

1859

196

11

1271

2447

D-l

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR A L L D R O P HEIGHTS

BIDIM A 24

Modified Height Modified Height

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

22.50 1617

D 2 5 0

(mm)

14.75

H 5 0

(mm)

1504

D750

(mm)

29.75

H50

(mm)

1609

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

40.50

H 5 0

(mm)

2045

19.50

20.00

21.00

20.25

1996

1923

1790

1888

14.75

12.00

14.00

15.50

1504

2037

1624

1398

26.00

26.00

24.50

26.50

1961

1961

2140

1907

33.25

30.00

30.75

28.75

2732

3178

3065

3384

30.50 3102 21.00

22.50

22.00

21.25

19.00

20.90

1.21

5.81

17.26

24.54

1790

1617

1671

1759

2073

1812

156

9

1344

2281

14.20

1.34

9.43

10.18

18.22

1614

250

15

864

2363

26.55

1.94

7.31

20.73

32.37

1916

193

10

1337

2494

32.50

30.75

31.75

31.75

32.05

3.23

10.09

22.35

41.75

2826

3065

2924

2924

2925

360

12

1844

4005

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR A L L D R O P HEIGHTS

BIDIM A 29

Standard Height

Modified Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

19.25

17.75

20.00

H 5 0

(mm)

2034

2292

1923

D 2 5 0

(mm)

12.50

9.25

12.00

H 5 0

(mm)

1919

. 2987

2037

Modified Height

D750

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

27.00

27.25

25.50

1855

1830

2018

Modified Height

D 1 0 0 0

(mm)

32.00

33.75

35.50

H 5 0

(mm)

2891

2673

2482

20.00

21.00

1923

1790

11.75

10.75

2101

2395

23.00

28.25

2349

1736

N/A

32.50

N/A

2826

21.25

17.25

21.25

1759

2390

1759

32.50

32.75

32.25

2826

2794

2858

21.00

20.00

1790

1923

30.50

28.75

3102

3384

19.88

1.42

7.15

15.61

24.14

1958

222

11

1292

2624

11.25

1.29

11.44

7.39

15.11

2288

428

19

1003

3573

26.20

2.04

7.79

20.07

32.33

1958

241

12

1235

2681

32.28

1.89

5.85

26.61

37.95

2870

254

9

2107

3634

D-2

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

H50

(mm)

17.75

15.50

17.50

16.50

19.75

16.25

18.75

16.25

2292

2797

2340

2551

1959

2609

2114

2609

BIDIM A 34

Modified Height

Modified Height

D250

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D750

(mm)

H 50

(mm)

11.00

10.75

11.50

11.00

12.25

2315

2395

2169

2315

1976

22.00

21.50

22.25

21.00

21.75

2507

2593

2466

2685

2550

16.75

16.50

17.15

1.30

7.57

13.26

21.04

2495

2551

2432

254

10

1669

3194

11.30

0.60

5.28

9.51

13.09

2234

166

7

1737

2731

21.70

0.48

2.22

20.26

23.14

2560

84

3

2307

2813

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H50

(mm)

28.00

30.00

25.00

27.50

24.75

3518

3178

4155

3612

4217

29.00

24.25

30.25

26.00

28.75

27.35

2.22

8.11

20.70

34.00

3341

4346

3140

3923

3384

3681

446

12

2342

5021

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

BIDIM A 44

Standard Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

Modified Height

D250

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

Modified Height

D750

(mm)

H50

(mm)

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

16.00

15.75

14.50

15.00

15.50

15.00

15.00

15.50

17.00

13.50

15.28

0.93

6.10

12.48

18.07

2669

2732

3085

2935

2797

2935

2935

2797

2442

3427

•• s ; •.

9.75

8.00

9.25

10.25

10.00

2875

263

9

2087

3664

9.45

0.89

9.43

6.78

12.12

2764

. 3697

2987

2568

2663

2936

453

15

1577

4295

19.25

20.50

20.75

18.25

21.50

20.05

1.29

6.44

16.17

23.93

3051

2781

2732

3300

2593

2892

282

10

2045

3738

20.00

23.00

21.75

24.25

22.50

22.75

22.50

21.50

23.50

24.75

22.65

1.38

6.07

18.52

26.78

5769

4697

5099

4346

4851

4773

4851

5187

4551

4217

4834

446

9

3496

6172

D-3

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

M e a n - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

POLYFELT TS 420

Standard Height

Modified Height

Modified Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

D 2 5 0

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D750

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H50

(mm)

26.25

27.00

28.50

29.25

30.50

1289

1237

1142

1100

1034

17.25

21.25

19.75

20.00

19.50

1195

879

979

961

998

38.00

40.00

37.00

33.50

36.50

1123

1041

1168

1351

1191

43.25

40.00

41.75

39.75

41.00

1856

2082

1955

2102

2008

28.75

27.25

27.75

28.50

29.00

1128

1220

1188

1142

1114

48.00

43.00

41.75

43.75

42.75

1593

1872

1955

1825

1888

28.28

1.24

4.38

24.56

31.99

1159

75

6

935

1384

19.55

1.45

7.42

15.20

23.90

1003

117

12

653

1353

37.00

2.37

6.41

29.88

44.12

1175

114

10

833

1517

42.50

2.35

5.54

35.44

49.56

1914

146

8

1475

2353

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C . V %

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

POLYFELT TS 500

Standard Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

23.50

21.50

H 5 0

(mm)

1517

1729

Modified Height

D 2 5 0

(mm)

18.75

16.25

H50

(mm)

1057

. 1305

Modified Height

D 7 5 0

(mm)

H50

(mm)

33.00

38.00

1381

1123

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H50

(mm)

35.00

39.00

2534

2161

28.50

25.50

21.50

1142

1345

1729

17.25

21.00

23.00

1195

895

783

38.50

30.75

35.00

1101

1533

1267

39.25

44.50

37.50

2141

1780

2290

24.25

22.25

1449

1644

34.25

33.75

2616

2673

24.25

31.50

1449

986

34.25

34.75

2616

2561

25.25

1365

42.50 1905

24.80

3.16

1435

241

19.25

2.76

1047

213

35.05

3.29

1281 37.48

3.78

2328

321

12.74

15.32

34.28

17

712

2159

14.32

10.98

27.52

20

408

1685

9.39

25.18

44.92

181

14

738

1824

10.08

26.15

48.80

14

1366

3289

D-4

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

Mean -3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

24.25

23.25

26.00

24.50

25.00

27.50

23.75

H 5 0

(mm)

1449

1541

1308

1427

1385

1204

1494

POLYFELT TS 550

Modified Height

Modified Height

D250

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D750

(mm)

H50

(mm)

15.25

15.25

15.00

16.00

18.50

1432

1432

1467

1335

1078

29.00

28.00

27.25

34.00

32.00

1670

1759

1830

1322

1445

23.25

24.75

25.75

24.80

1.33

5.37

20.80

28.80

1541

1406

1326

1408

107

8

1086

1730

16.00

1.45

9.04

11.66

20.34

1349

159

12

871

1827

30.05

2.85

9.49

21.49

38.61

1605

215

13

962

2249

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H50

(mm)

39.00

41.25

2161

1990

36.00

36.00

35.75

35.25

38.00

37.50

36.75

41.00

37.65

2.15

5.72

31.19

44.11

2431

2431

2456

2508

2245

2290

2359

2008

2288

185

8

1734

2842

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

M e a n - 3s

| M e a n + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

Standard Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

25.00

25.50

24.00

24.00

23.25

21.50

H 5 0

(mm)

1385

1345

1471

1471

1541

1729

POLYFELT TS 600

Modified Height

D 2 5 0

(mm)

H50

(mm)

Modified Height

D 7 5 0

(mm)

H50

(mm)

12.50

14.50

15.50

14.00

16.25

1919

• 1542

1398

1624

1305

24.75

30.50

23.75

29.00

26.25

2109

1551

2240

1670

1934

Modified Height

D 1000

H50

(mm)

(mm)

32.25

32.50

35.00

45.75

34.00

38.00

2858

2826

2534

1709

2644

2245

21.50

23.75

23.50

23.50

1729

1494

1517

30.75

43.00

34.25

36.25

3065

1872

2616

2407

23.55

1.28

1517

1520

126

14.55

1.44

1558

237

26.85

2.84

1901

289

36.18

4.83

2478

432

5.45

19.70

27.40

8

1143

1897

9.90

10.23

18.87

15

847

2268

10.59

18.32

35.38

15

1033

2769

13.35

21.69

50.66

17

1183

3772

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Specimen

No.

M E A N

S.D. c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

20.50

21.50

19.25

21.75

19.50

20.75

H50

(mm)

1854

1729

2034

1700

1996

1822

POLYFELT TS 650

Modified Height

Modified Height

D250 H 5 0

D750

H50

(mm)

(mm)

(mm) (mm)

13.25

16.00

15.25

13.25

15.00

1761

1335

1432

1761

1467

21.75

22.75

23.25

22.00

26.25

2550

2387

2312

2507

1934

20.00

20.75

20.75

18.75

1923

1822

1822

2114

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

29.00

30.75

32.50

33.00

3341

3065

2826

2763

32.00

31.25

32.50

33.25

30.50

31.25

2891

2993

2826

2732

3102

20.35

0.97

1881

133

14.55

1.24

1551

198

23.20

1.81

2338

245

31.60

1.31

2993

2953

185

4.75

17.45

23.25

7

1481

2281

8.54

10.82

18.28

13

959

2144

7.79

17.78

28.62

10

1603

3072

4.14

27.68

35.52

6

2397

3510

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D. c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

Standard Height

POLYFELT TS 700

Modified Height

Modified Height Modified Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

17.00

H 5 0

(mm)

2442

D250

(mm)

11.00

H50

(mm)

2315

D750

(mm)

20.00

H50

(mm)

2884

D 1000

(mm)

26.00

H 5 0

(mm)

17.75

18.00

2292

2245

10.50

12.00

2479

2037

21.50

21.50

2593

2593

27.25

26.50

3923

3661

3814

17.00

18.75

2442

2114

12.75

12.75

1863

1863

22.25

20.50

2466

2781

24.25

25.25

4346

4095

16.00 2669

29.25 3299

17.25

18.75

18.25

2390

2114

2200

28.75

24.00

24.50

3384

4412

4281

18.25

2200

27.00 3711

17.70

0.88

4.97

15.06

2311

175

8

1786

11.80

1.02

8.66

8.74

2112

276

13

1283

21.15

0.89

4.23

18.47

2664

167

6

2163

26.28

1.83

6.96

20.79

3892

390

10

2721

20.34

2836

14.86

2940 23.83

3165

31.76

5064

D-6

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR A L L D R O P HEIGHTS

Standard Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

12.75

14.00

15.50

14.25

14.50

14.00

H50

(mm)

3727

3248

2797

3165

3085

POLYFELT TS 750

Modified Height

Modified Height

D 2 5 0

(mm)

9.50

H 5 0

(mm)

2872

D750

(mm)

18.00

H50

(mm)

3367

10.25

8.00

9.50

10.25

2568

3697

2872

2568

17.00

19.00

20.75

17.00

3663

3110

2732

3663

17.50

17.00

15.00

14.00

3248

2340

2442

2935

3248

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

22.50

H 50

(mm)

20.00

20.75

23.00

4851

5769

5465

4697

23.25

20.00

21.25

22.00

19.00

22.75

4623

5769

5277

5014

6220

4773

14.85

1.46

9.82

10.47

19.23

3023

413

14

1784

4263

9.50

0.92

9.67

6.74

12.26

2916

463

16

1528

4303

18.35

1.58

8.59

13.62

23.08

3307

395

12

2121

4493

21.45

1.47

6.86

17.04

25.86

5246

544

10

3613

6879

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS F O R A L L D R O P HEIGHTS

P O L Y T R A C 155

Standard Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

13.50

14.50

13.75

H 5 0

(mm)

3427

3085

3335

14.25

14.25

13.75

3165

3165

3335

Modified Height

D 2 5 0

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

11.00

8.50

2315

. 3382

10.00

2663

9.00

11.25

3109

2240

Modified Height

D750

(mm)

17.75

17.00

17.75

16.25

18.75

H50

(mm)

3437

3663

3437

3914

3171

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

21.75

19.50

20.75

20.50

22.00

20.00

H 5 0

(mm)

5099

5987

5465

5563

5014

5769

13.50

12.25

13.25

13.00

13.60

3427

3953

3522

3622

3404

2742

17.50

3524

19.50

20.00

19.75

20.75

20.45

5987

5769

5876

5465

5599

0.67

4.92

11.59

15.61

256

8

2636

4171

9.95

1.20

12.10

6.34

13.56

496

18

1253

4231

0.94

5.35

14.69

20.31

279

8

2689

4360

0.88

4.30

17.81

23.09

344

6

4568

6631

D-7

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

P O L Y T R A C C (Woven up)

Standard Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

19.50

19.75

20.75

1996

1959

1822

Modified Height

D 2 5 0

(mm)

14.25

13.00

11.25

H50

(mm)

1582

1811

2240

Modified Height

D750

(mm)

28.00

26.00

27.50

H 50

(mm)

1759

1961

1806

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

30.75

34.00

34.00

H50

(mm)

3065

2644

2644

19.25

20.25

20.00

2034

1888

1923

12.75

12.00

1863

2037

29.50

29.75

1629

1609

36.00

30.50

31.25

2431

3102

2993

19.00

20.00

23.75

20.25

20.25

2073

1923

1494

1888

1900

12.65

1907 28.15

1753

32.50

34.00

28.75

32.50

32.43

2826

2644

3384

2826

2856

1.33

6.58

16.25

24.25

161

8

1417

2383

1.13

8.90

9.27

16.03

247

13

1165

2648

1.54

5.46

23.54

32.76

144

8

1322

2183

2.15

6.63

25.97

38.88

283

10

2008

3703

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR A L L D R O P HEIGHTS

P O L Y T R A C C (Woven down)

Standard Height

D 5 0 0

(mm)

16.50

17.50

18.00

18.75

19.25

H 5 0

(mm)

2551

2340

2245

2114

2034

Modified Height

D 2 5 0

(mm)

H50

(mm)

11.50

10.75

10.50

9.75

11.25

2169

2395

2479

2764

2240

Modified Height

D750

(mm)

22.00

23.25

22.00

25.50

29.50

H50

(mm)

2507

2312

2507

2018

1629

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H50

(mm)

31.25

27.00

27.25

25.00

29.50

2993

3711

3661

4155

3258

18.00

15.75

17.00

15.25

20.00

2245

2732

2442

2865

1923

26.00

33.00

27.50

28.00

27.50

3923

2763

3612

3518

3612

17.60

1.51

8.61

13.06

22.14

2349

302

13

1444

3254

10.75

0.68

6.37

8.70

12.80

2409

233

10

1709

3109

24.45

3.16

12.94

14.96

33.94

2195

374

17

1072

3317

28.20

2.41

8.56

20.96

35.44

3521

416

12

2272

4769

D-8

Specimen

No.

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

P O L Y W E A V E R

Standard Height

Modified Height

Modified Height

Modified Height

D500 H 5 0

D250 H50

D750 H50

D 1000 H50

(mm)

(mm)

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

(mm)

16.50

15.75

16.25

2551

2732

2609

11.50

12.25

11.75

2169

1976

2101

21.25

21.25

24.00

2638

2638

2206

21.00

26.75

21.75

5369

3762

5099

15.50

16.50

2797

2551

12.00

10.50

2037

2479

24.75

25.50

2109

2018

25.25

27.00

4095

3711

17.75

16.25

14.50

2292

2609

3085

23.00

23.50

24.25

4697

4551

4346

14.50

15.50

15.90

0.98

6.17

3085

2797

2711

246

9

11.60

0.68

5.82

2152

196

9

23.35

1.99

8.52

2322

296

13

27.00

25.00

24.45

2.15

8.78

3711

4155

4350

580

13

12.96

18.84

1974

3447

9.57

13.63

1564

2741

17.38

29.32

1433

3211

18.01

30.89

2610

6089

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

P O L Y W E A V E F

Modified Height Modified Height

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D250

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D750

(mm)

H50

(mm)

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H50

(mm)

12.75

12.75

12.75

13.00

13.50

3727

3727

3727

3622

3427

10.25

10.25

9.75

9.75

10.00

2568

. 2568

2764

2764

2663

17.00

19.00

19.00

17.25

17.50

3663

3110

3110

3585

3510

20.00

20.50

19.50

20.00

19.25

5769

5563

5987

5769

6102

13.00

13.00

13.00

13.25

13.75

3622

3622

3622

3522

3335

21.00

19.50

20.00

19.50

20.75

5369

5987

5769

5987

5465

13.08

0.33

2.56

12.07

14.08

3595

132

4

3200

3991

10.00

0.25

2.50

9.25

10.75

2666

98

4

2372

2960

17.95

0.97

5.43

15.03

20.87

3395

266

8

2597

4194

20.00

0.59

2.95

18.23

21.77

5777

247

4

5036

6517

D-9

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

M e a n - 3s

M e a n + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

9.25

8.50

10.00

9.00

9.50

9.50

8.25

8.00

9.50

8.75

9.03

0.64

7.09

7.11

10.94

H 5 0

(mm)

5973

6764

5327

6219

5744

P O L Y W E A V E HR

Modified Height

Modified Height

D250

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D750

(mm)

H50

(mm)

7.00

7.00

4499

4499

5017

10.75

11.75

7184

6304

6.50

6.75

6.75

4746

4746

11.00

11.50

9.25

6945

6506

8960

5744

7068

7395

5744

6482

6246

666

6.80

0.21

4702

215

11

3.08

5

4247

6.17 4056

8245 7.43

5347

10.85

0.98

9.01

7.92

13.78

7180

1054

15

4017

10343

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

17.00

16.75

14.75

14.00

13.25

14.00

17.25

14.25

14.25

16.75

15.23

1.53

10.02

10.65

19.80

5836

837

14

3325

8346

H 50

(mm)

4883

4991

6017

6496

7044

6496

4780

6330

6330

4991

Specimen

No.

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

12.25

11.00

10.00

12.25

11.25

11.25

12.50

H 5 0

(mm)

3953

4630

5327

3953

4480

4480

3837

PROPEX 2002

Modified Height

Modified Height

D250

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D750

(mm)

H50

(mm)

6.75

7.50

4746

4065

17.50

17.00

3510

3663

8.00

7.50

7.00

3697

4065

4499

15.75

15.00

18.50

4098

4402

3234

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

20.00

21.50

17.75

20.25

20.00

17.75

21.00

H50

(mm)

5769

5187

6875

5664

5769

6875

5369

11.00

11.75

11.75

4630

4202

4202

18.75

20.50

17.50

6343

5563

7020

11.50

0.75

6.56

9.24

13.76

4369

443

10

3042

5697

7.35

0.49

6.63

5.89

8.81

4215

411

10

2981

5448

16.75

1.39

8.31

12.57

20.93

3781

467

12

2380

5183

19.50

1.45

7.45

15.14

23.86

6043

678

11

4009

8078

D-10

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

Standard Height

D750

(mm)

H50

(mm)

17.00

12.00

3655

6099

6706 11.25

14.50

17.00

4618

3655

15.25

12.50

17.25

20.75

14.25

15.18

2.91

19.15

6.46

23.89

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS |

4288

5744

3578

2727

4738

4581

1267

28

780

8381

TERRAFIX 310 R TEST#1* TEST U2 ** '

Modified Height Modified Height

Modified Height

Modified Height

D875

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

D 1000

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D 1500

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

D 1500

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

14.50

17.00

1542

1221

20.00

25.00

2884

2078

29.00

38.25

3341

2224

32.50

39.00

2826

2161

17.00

23.50

13.00

1221

759

1811

22.50

22.00

24.00

2426

2507

2206

43.00

36.75

35.00

1872

2359

2534

38.00

38.00

38.50

2245

2245

2203

26.25

36.75

3868

2359

34.75

39.75

2561

2102

36.00

34.50

44.25

40.50

2431

1795

2045

40.50

40.75

2588

2045

2026

17.00

4.02

1311

395

22.70

1.92

2420

311

36.58

5.63

2483

649

37.63

2.78

2300

267

23.62

4.95

30

125

8.47

16.93

13

1488

15.39

19.69

26

535

7.40

29.27

12

1499

29.05 2497 28.47

3352 53.46 4431 45.98 3101

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

Standard Height

D750

(mm)

11.00

10.00

10.25

8.00

10.00

11.00

9.00

10.75

10.00

9.75

9.98

0.92

9.26

7.20

12.75

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

H 5 0

(mm)

6931

7974

7689

11069

7974

6931

9309

7170

7974

8276

8130

1252

15

4373

11887

D875

TERRAFIX 360 R TEST#1* TEST #2**

Modified Height

H 5 0

Modified Height

D 1 0 0 0 H50

Modified Height

D 1500 H 5 0

Modified Height

D 1500 H 5 0

(mm)

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

13.00

11.50

18.50

15.00

1811

2169

1078

1467

17.50

18.50

19.00

13.50

3510

3234

3110

5140

24.50

25.00

36.25

29.50

4281

4155

2407

3258

31.50

33.00

27.75

35.00

2958

2763

3564

2534

14.00

1624 15.00

4402 30.75 3065 26.50 3814

27.75

35.00

30.25

30.50

3564

2534

3140

3102

32.50

27.50

25.25

30.25

2826

3612

4095

3140

23.75 4481

26.50 3814

14.40

2.63

1630

404

16.70

2.36

3879

867

29.33

4.22

3399

712

29.58

3.32

3312

534

18.27 25

14.14 22

14.38 21

11.22 16

6.51

417 9.62

1278

16.68 1262

19.62 1709

22.29 2843

23.78 6480

41.97 5536 39.53

4915

* N O T E : Test #1 refers to tests conducted in M a y 1993

** N O T E : Test #2 refers to tests conducted in October 1993

D-ll

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

T E R R A M 700 SUV

Standard Height

Modified Height

D250

H 5 0

D 125 H 5 0

(mm)

(mm)

(mm) (mm)

28.75

30.00

29.25

37.00

565

531

551

390

23.75

16.50

19.00

16.50

375

641

521

641

30.00

531 20.75 457

Modified Height

D375

(mm)

45.50

46.00

32.50

41.50

35.50

H50

(mm)

431

424

707

493

621

6

7

8

9

10

27.75

30.00

30.00

40.00

26.25

595

531

531

348

646

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

30.90

4.24

13.74

18.17

43.63

522

89

17

254

789

19.30

3.07

15.90

10.09

28.51

527

116

22

179

875

40.20

6.02

14.97

22.15

58.25

535

124

23

163

907

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

T E R R A M 1000 SUV

Standard Height

D500

(mm)

29.50

35.25

31.75

29.50

34.50

H50

(mm)

1086

836

975

1086

863

Modified Height

D250

(mm)

H50

(mm)

21.50

19.50

18.75

21.00

18.25

866

1000

1059

897

1102

Modified Height

D750

(mm)

41.25

39.25

38.75

42.75

33.75

H50

(mm)

993

1068

1089

942

1334

6

7

8

9

10

M E A N

S.D.

C.V%

Mean - 3s

Mean + 3s

27.00

25.75

30.25

29.00

32.75

30.53

3.06

10.03

21.34

39.71

1237

1326

1047

1114

931

1050

156

15

582

1518

19.80

1.41

7.11

15.58

24.02

985

102

10

680

1290

39.15

3.42

8.73

28.90

49.40

1085

151

14

633

1538

D-12

Specimen

No.

6

7

8

9

10

1

2

3

4

5

M E A N

S.D.

c.v%

Mean -3s

Mean + 3s

D R O P C O N E RESULTS FOR ALL D R O P HEIGHTS

T E R R A M 3000 SUV

Standard Height

Modified Height

Modified Height

D500

(mm)

H 5 0

(mm)

D250

(mm)

H50

(mm)

D750

(mm)

H50

(mm)

Modified Height

D 1000

(mm)

H50

(mm)

15.50

18.00

17.50

19.25

19.00

2797

2245

2340

2034

2073

10.00

11.00

10.00

11.00

11.25

2663

2315

2663

2315

2240

30.25

27.50

26.25

21.25

23.25

1570

1806

1934

2638

2312

19.50

23.50

20.50

25.25

24.25

5987

4551

5563

4095

4346

21.00

21.25

17.75

18.25

17.50

1790

1759

2292

2200

2340

26.00

23.50

22.75

24.75

24.50

3923

4551

4773

4217

4281

18.50

1.72

9.28

13.35

23.65

2187

300

14

1287

3087

10.65

0.60

5.65

8.84

12.46

2439

207

8

1819

3060

25.70

3.54

13.76

15.09

36.31

2052

424

21

781

3323

23.45

2.05

8.76

17.29

29.61

4629

659

14

2652

6605

D-13

APPENDIX E

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.472

0.368

2,858

0.336

0.311

0.869

1 114

-0.968

2.706

3.923

17.959

3.081

3.351

6.333

7.460

7.480

7.775

5.915

7.517

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

BIDIM A 12

Machine Direction

Elongation

Ultimate

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

3.352

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

8.955 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

43.190

Modulus

( M P a )

7.433

42.520

45.630

42.170

37.190

42.140

6.088

4.339

6.129

5.404

5.879

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

9.583

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

7.070 0.481

0.659

0.423

0.507

10.657

6.517

0.458

0.505 '

8.322

6.913

8.398

7.535

7.345

8.575

7.380

7.581 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

51.050

56.080

50.330

52.910

46.110

6.506

-4.402

17.069

1.085

5.727

9.307

3.079

37.059

47.221

1.131

4.012

7.745

0.091

0.355

0.656

1.750

5.510

11.287

0.580

6.623

8.539

51.296

3.653

45.268

57.324

Modulus

( M P a )

5.377

5.568

5.329

6.136

5.793

5.641

0.332

5.093

6.188

Specitnen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1,65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.486

0.428

0.483

0.456

0.501

0.471

0.029

0.423

0.518

W I D E S T R I P T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

B I D I M A 14

Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation Yield

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

3.663

3.750

4.551

2.623

3.885

3.694

0.693

2.551

4.838

Tensile

Strength

( k N / m )

8.385

8.275

8.810

8.035

9.565

8.614

0.601

7.622

9.606 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

40.600

46.750

46.820

34.770

47.690

43.326

5.559

34.154

52.498

Modulus

( M P a )

6.793

6.145

6.356

7.340

6.985

6.724

0.480

5.931

7.516

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.570

0.577

0.583

0.542

0.518

0.558

0.027

0.513

0.603 at Yield

Force

(%)

8.517

6.858

6.849

6.724

6.552

7.100

0.802

5.777

8.423

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

9.515

9.515

10.130

8.985

9.085

9.446

0.453

8.699

10.193 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

54.770

51.340

55.430

47.430

51.140

52.022

3.221

46.708

57.336

Modulus

( M P a )

6.398

6.673

6.962

6.837

6.473

6.669

0.238

6.276

7.061

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

Mean-1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.719

0.713

0.584

0.711

0.706

0.687

0.058

0.592

0.782

W I D E S T R I P T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

BIDIM A 24

Machine Direction

Elongation

Ultimate Elongation

Yield

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

3.725

2.987

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

11.900

13.180 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

43.330

43.140

Modulus

( M P a )

9.607

10.506

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.761

0.815 at Yield

Force

(%)

6.285

6.787

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

12.150

12.475 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

52.040

52.740

3.658

3.827

3.223

3.484

0.361

2.888

4.080

9.415

12.575

11.900

11.794

1.433

9.430

14.158

35.430

44.630

42.890

41.884

3.670

35.829

47.939

8.810

9.943

9.613

9.696

0.616

8.680

10.712

0.634

0.697

0.915

0.764

0.108

0.586

0.943

5.284

6.414

6.515

6.257

0.574

5.309

7.205

12.730

11.015

13.375

12.349

0.871

10.912

13.786

53.270

47.670

44J30

50.010

3.871

43.623

56.397

Modulus

( M P a )

8.887

9.083

8.657

8.673

11.431

9.346

1.178

7.402

11.291

E-l

Specimen

No.

I

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.774

0.542

0.666

0.670

1.046

0.740

0.190

0.426

1.053

Machine Direction

Elongation

Ultimate Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

2.788

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

14,515 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

43.9%

1.885

2.227

2.583

2.953

2.487

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

BIDIM A 29

18.310

17.095

16.955

17.095

16.794

49.370

45.680

49.370

44.050

46.492

Modulus

(MPa)

11.123

13.015

12.825

11.940

11.684

12.117

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.034

0.872

0.757

0.983

0.879

0.905

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

5.753

5.283

4.563

5.361

5.858

5.364

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

15.290

16.350

14.955

15.530

12.640

14.953

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

Modulus

( M P a )

(%)

50.820

59.020

54.780

52.330

49.280

53.246

10.530

10.214

9.482

10.578

8.992

9959

0.432

1.774

3.200

1.387

14.505

19.083

2.713

42.015

50.969

0.793

10.809

13.426

0.108

0.727

1.083

0.511

4.521

6.206

1.392

12.657

17.249

3.813

46.955

59.537

0.696

8.811

11.107

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.805

15.899

0.737

1.378

2.244

4.413

6.445

-6.222

15.047

30.314

2.151

3.251

5.093

8.974

W I D E S T R I P T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

B I D I M A 34

Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

4.063

11,978

-10.789

28.738

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

18.780

21.605

19.505

19,915

17.825

19.526

1.407

17.204

21.848

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

42.600

51.530

52.600

52.890

45.590

49.042

4.666

41.344

56.740

Modulus

( M P a )

13.722

14.094

13.385

13.667

13.147

13.603

0.359

13.011

14.195

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.832

0.760

14.523

1.030

1.099

3.649

6.080

-6.384

13.682

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

3.049

2.959

36.262

3.163

4.023

9.891

14.748

-14.443

34.225

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

18.130

18.340

19.395

20.770

20.465

19.420

1.199

17.442

21.398

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

57.770

53.080

S6.380

54.900

58.540

56.134

2.201

52.503

59.765

Modulus

(MPa)

11.110

11.116

10.720

13.574

13.162

11.936

1.325

9.751

14.122

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n +1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.903

1.280

1.191

1.133

1.020

1.105

0.147

0.862

1.349

W I D E S T R I P T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

B I D I M A 44

Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

3.164

Tensile

Strength

( k N / m )

19.190 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

51.220

Modulus

(MPa)

13.941

3.391

3.824

3.629

3.223

23.895

23.160

21.080

20.565

52.230

50.610

50.730

48.520

17.482

17.933

15.415

15.490

3.446

0.278

2.988

3.905

21.578

1.927

18.399

24.757

50.662

1.357

48.423

52.901

16.052

1.640

13.346

18.759

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

17.389

14.221

12.208

11.523

9.812

13.031

2.904

8.240

17.821

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

35.958

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

23.360

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

60.810

31.955

27.260

25.118

21.185

28.295

5.784

18.751

37.839

22.510

21.300

21.630

21.840

22.128

0.819

20.777

23.479

61.220

59.060

60.240

55.550

59.376

2.288

55.601

63.151

Modulus

( M P a )

12.942

11.939

12.474

12.829

12.541

12.545

0.391

11.900

13.190

E-2

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.348

0.129

1.879

1.180

0.172

0.742

0.765

-0.521

2.004

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

POLYFELT TS 420

Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Ultimate

Tensile

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

2.754

1.557

10.762

5.780

1.301

Strength

(kN/m)

7.515

8.500

9.700

9.240

8.620

Force

(%)

63.540

67.360

78.900

65.630

60.990

Modulus

( M P a )

4.249

4.898

4.868

6.001

6.462

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.745

2.008

2.044

2.230

2.568

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

4.817

5.717

6 151

7.027

6.690

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

10.035

9.840

8.765

9.830

11.390

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(*/•)

43.480

41.550

38.290

42.030

44.910

4.431

3.961

-2.105

10.967

8.715

0.828

7.349

10.081

67.284

6.916

55.873

78.695

5.296

0.908

3.798

6.793

2.119

0.305

1.616

2.622

6.080

0.866

4.651

7.510

9.972

0.937

8.427

11.517

42.052

2.481

37.959

46.145

Modulus

( M P a )

10.892

10.328

9.698

9.132

11.105

10.231

0.822

8.875

11.587

Specimen

No.

I

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.170

2.346

1.936

3.173

2.213

1.968

1.106

0.143

3.792

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

2.056

11.050

10.360

18.081

10.296

10.369

5.680

0.997

W I D E S T R I P T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y F E L T T S 500

Machine Direction

19.741

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

8.885

10.390

9.805

9.820

10.585

9.897

0.662

8.804

10.990

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

65.610

63.890

68.980

71.130

67.100

67.342

2.829

62.675

72.009

Modulus

(MPa)

4.358

5.910

5.221

4.778

6.009

5.255

0.713

4.080

6.431

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.623

1.004

3.297

2.779

2.983

2.337

0.977

0.725

3.950

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

5.622

3.584

9.754

6.917

7.587

6.693

2.293

2.909

10.476

(kN/m)

11.585

10.625

11.740

11.670

11.320

11.388

0.455

10.637

12.139

(%)

42.910

37.290

42.970

38.000

35.640

39.362

3.377

33.791

44.933

Modulus

(MPa)

8.874

8861

9.480

11.575

11.239

10.006

1.309

7.846

12.165

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.813

1.781

1.536

2.050

2.223

1.881

0.264

1.445

2.317

W I D E STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

P O L Y F E L T TS 550

Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

10.191

11.284

8.720

9.694

10.884

10.155

1.010

8.488

11.821

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

10.310

9.075

8.765

10.315

10.570

9.807

0.824

8.448

11.166 at Ultimate

Force

(•/.)

85.210

74.400

66.810

74.450

80.440

76.262

6.957

64.783

87.741

Modulus

( M P a )

4.975

4.388

4.977

5.935

5.690

5.193

0.620

4.169

6.217

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

2.864

2.668

2.966

2.894

3.200

2.919

0.192

2.601

3.236

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

4.429

4.451

4.787

4.651

4.817

4.627

0.182

4.327

4.927

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

12.295

11.340

12.240

12.570

13.330

12.355

0.715

11.176

13.534 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

37.200

35.150

34.670

43.050

39.140

37.842

3.411

32.215

43.469

Modulus

( M P a )

19.666

18.228

18.662

18.822

19.992

19.074

0.732

17.867

20.281

E-3

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

2.095

2.695

1.583

2.764

2.196

2.267

0.483

1.470

3.063

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

POLYFELT TS 600

Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

10.255

11.192

6.160

9.462

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

11.150

12.040

12.415

12.785 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

71.390

65.560

74.090

63.900

Modulus

( M P a )

5.713

6.698

7.488

8.207

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

3.487

3.387

2.832

3.447

11.089

9.632

2.063

6.227

13.036

10.870

11.852

0.819

10.501

13.203

72.240

69.436

4.444

62.103

76.769

5.512

6.724

1.148

4.829

8.618

1.817

2.994

0.710

1.823

4.165

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

5.618

5.962

5.925

5.962

3.086

5.311

1.252

3.245

7.376

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

14.555

14.940

13.395

15.065

12.410

14.073

1 139

12.193

15.953

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(*/.)

35.220

42.310

39.110

36.960

32.140

37.148

3.851

30.793

43.503

Modulus

(MPa)

18.339

16.610

13.995

16.933

19.259

17.027

2.005

13.719

20.335

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.176

2.868

0.192

2.405

0.215

1.171

1.348

-1.052

3.395

W I D E STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

P O L Y F E L T TS 650

Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation Yield

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation at Yield Tensile Tensile

Strength at Yield

Force

Tensile

Strength at Ultimate

Force

(%)

1.327

Strength

(kN/m)

12.220

10.185 14.115

13.915 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

73.710

69.970

86.760

Modulus

( M P a )

6.381

7.876

7.605

(kN/m)

1.855

3.550

3.561

(%)

3.685

6.081

6.956

(kN/m)

18.170

15.750

17.220

Force

(%)

44.940

40.620

1.320

10.216

1.317

4.873

4.863

-3.152

12.898

12.570

14.015

13.367

0.899

11.884

14.850

78.630

81.070

78.028

6.508

67.289

88.767

6.585

7.905

7.270

0.732

6.063

8.478

3.580

4.756

3.460

1.035

1.752

5.169

5.353

9.294

6.274

2.072

2.855

9.693

17.955

16.450

17.109

1.017

15.431

18.787

47.910

41.040

45.610

44.024

3.120

38.875

49.173

Modulus

( M P a )

15.837

17.056

14.756

19.847

14.401

16.379

2.198

12.753

20.006

Specimen

No.

I

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

3.548

3.325

3.450

0.231

3.086

2.728

1.407

0.407

5.049

Elongation at Yield

W I D E STRIP T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

P O L Y F E L T T S 700

Machine Direction

Ultimate

Tensile

Elongation at Ultimate

Modulus

Yield

Tensile

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Ultimate

Tensile

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

11.120

Strength

(kN/m)

17.960

Force

(%)

87.890

( M P a )

8.880

Strength

(kN/m)

5.528

Force

(%)

7.284

Strength

(kN/m)

22.545

Force

(%)

42.670

9.528

10.527

1.450

10.054

16.640

17.290

16.375

16.925

76.380

84.200

77.770

80.490

9.798

9.138

8.756

8.594

1.799

4.123

3.701

5.385

3.291

6.121

5.056

6.861

21.495

21.155

20.870

25.060

50.960

46.170

42.510

50.200

8.536

4.004

1.929

15.143

17.038

0.617

16.019

18.057

81.346

4.721

73.556

89.136

9.033

0.471

8.255

9.8 II

4.107

1.512

1.612

6.602

L

5.723

1.601

3.081

8.364

22.225

1.707

19.409

25.041

46.502

4.009

39.888

53.116

Modulus

( M P a )

21.756

17.606

19.657

21.852

22.648

20.704

2.055

17.313

24.095

E-4

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

3.511

1.297

0.346

0.377

0.302

1.167

1.375

-1.101

3.435

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

POLYFELT TS 750

Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Ultimate

Tensile

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

8.324

Strength

(kN/m)

22.705

Force

(%)

81,780

4.226 21.670

91,350

1.646

1.461

2.258

3.583

2.868

22.945

21.435

21.605

22.072

0.698

92.430

79.750

93.260

87.714

6.420

Modulus

( M P a )

11.970

9.415

12.475

11.508

10.786

11.231

1.190

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

3.376

6.298

3.102

3.384

3.413

3.915

1.338

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Ultimate

Tensile

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

4983

7.350

4.284

5.289

4.761

5.333

1.185

Strength

(kN/m)

26.575

27.665

27.785

28.255

27.800

27.616

0.624

Force

(*/•)

46.300

52.850

46.990

55.390

48.960

50.098

3.904

-1.149

8.315

20.920

23.224

77.121

98.307

9.267

13.195

1.706

6.123

3.378

7.289

26.587

28.645

43.657

56.539

Modulus

(MPa)

21.227

24.558

22.154

20.681

21.656

22.055

1.501

19.579

24.531

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

Mean + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.581

1.601

1.545

1.438

1.498

1.533

0.066

1.424

1641

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

POLYTRAC 155

Machine Direction

Elongation

Ultimate

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

1.785

1.683

2.027

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

26.780

23.025 at Ultimate Modulus

Force

(%)

23,720

17.150

(MPa)

49.043

50.027

1.780

2.029

1.861

0.158

1.600

2.121

26.280

27.035

26.080

25.840

1.619

23.168

28.512

22,480

22.710

22.600

21.732

2.608

17.428

26.036

46.889

47.252

46.324

47.907

1.562

4S.330

50.484

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

3.570

3.854

4.219

4.886

3.803

4.066

0.514

3.219

4.914

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation

»t Yield

Force

(%)

1.529

1.617

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

23.470

26.175 at Ultimate

Force

(V.)

20.610

18.750

1.658

1.884

1.620

1.662

0.133

1.442

1.881

25.450

23.920

24.310

24.665

1.119

22.819

26.511

18.790

17.430

18.420

18.800

1.151

16.901

20.699

Modulus

(MPa)

99.671

99.791

104.813

100.038

98.483

100.559

2.452

96.513

104.606

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

Mean -1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.236

3.440

3.421

1.243

1.350

2.138

1.181

0.190

4.086

W I D E STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

POLYTRAC C

Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate

Elongation at Yield Tensile at Ultimate

Force

Force

(%)

1.460

Strength

(kN/m)

14.495

(%)

11.640

Modulus

(MPa)

43.591

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

7.568

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Ultimate

Tensile

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

3.515

Strength

(kN/m)

13.085

Force

(%)

7.580

3.161

3.224

1.887

1.793

2.305

14.700

14.065

13.490

14.255

14.201

12.910

11.960

11.920

11.940

12.074

41.524

43.301

41.689

42.716

42.564

9.004

10.732

9.537

8.719

9.U2 "1

4.820

5.621

5.150

4.256

4.672

12.140

12.865

13.150

13.045

12.857

7.470

7.340

8.150

8.010

7.710

0.826

0.942

3.668

0.464

13.435

14.967

0.485

11.273

12.875

0.931

41.028

44.101

1.157

7.203

11.021

0.816

3.326

6.019

0.415

12.173

13.541

0.352

7.130

8.290

Modulus

(MPa)

68.224

56.109

56.101

55.231

62.731

59.679

5.649

50.358

69.001

E-5

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

Mean-1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

3.454

3.452

3.397

3.377

3.403

3.417

0.035

3.360

3.474

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

POLYWEAVE R

Machine Direction

Elongation

Ultimate

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

5.287

Tensile

Strength

( k N / m )

14810 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

26.300

Modulus

( M P a )

20.528

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

8.336

5.120

4.993

15.470

15.035

25.290

26.580

20.916

20.958

3.507

3.415

5.081 14.660

24.960 20.990 3.405

5.421

13.530 25.640

19.909 3.552

5.180 14.701

25.754 20.660 4.443

0.172

4.897

5.464

0.722

13.509

15.893

0.678

24.635

26.873

0.460

19.902

21.418

2.177

0.851

8.035

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

10.454

3.191

3.117

3.293

3.221

4 6 5 5

3.242

-0.694

10.005

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

12.240

12685

12.705

12.905

12.080

12.523

0.347

11.950

13.096

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

18.640

19.090

21.430

22.960

16.590

19.742

2.489

15.635

23.849

Modulus

(MPa)

22.255

35.700

35.765

33.256

35.706

32.536

5.846

22.890

42.182

Specimen

No.

I

2

1

4*

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

Mean - 1.65s

M e a n + l,6Ss

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

9. J30

9.493

10.799

10.080

N/A

9.876

0.730

8.672

11.079

W I D E STRIP T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

POLYWEAVE F

Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(V.)

5.317

5.682

6.387

5.796

N/A

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

( k N / m )

38.415

38.765

38.575

38.820

N/A

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

39.750

40.320

40.320

38.710

N/A

Modulus

( M P a )

50.939

49.201

49.129

51.063

N/A

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

2.725

2.035

2.117

2.019

2.581

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

3.495

2.418

2.460

2.320

3.215

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

11.575

11.215

11.605

11.610

11.475 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

32.580

32.300

30.730

32.500

28.650

5 . 7 %

0.444

5.063

6.528

38.644

0.185

38.338

38.949

39.775

0.759

38.522

41.028

50.083

1.062

48.331

51.835

2.295

0.332

1.747

2.844

2.782

0.535

1.899

3.665

11.496

0.166

11.222

11.770

31.352

1.689

28.565

34.139

Modulus

(MPa)

24.768

29.420

29.941

30.799

25.913

28.168

2.659

23.781

32.555

* NOTE: Only four samples tested due to slippage of one incorrectly clamped specimen

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m) i.417

1.507

1.612

1.726

1.270

1.506

0.176

1.217

1.796

Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

2.815

W I D E STRIP T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

POLYWEAVE HR

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

( k N / m )

35.235

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(•/.)

32.530

Modulus

( M P a )

43.195

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

13.074

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

4.165

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

34.375 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

19.300

2.521

2.361

2.254

1.788

2.348

30.525

26.845

33.130

31.610

31.469

30.860

26.260

25.140

32.020

29.362

42.242

44.097

44.267

38.639

42.488

6.035

7.318

10.510

12.107

9.809

2.047

2.323

3.352

4.190

3.216

34.630

34.940

28.860

35.475

33.656

25.860

23.440

19.590

22.920

22.222

0.378

1.725

2.971

3.132

26.301

36.637

3.420

23.719

35.005

2.298

38.696

46.280

3,036

4.799

14.819

1.004

1.559

4.872

2.712

29.181

38.131

2.769

17.653

26.791

Modulus

( M P a )

96.392

109.730

112.107

100.315

88.771

101.463

9.615

85.599

117.327

E-6

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.899

9.286

0.930

10.530

8.072

5.943

4.672

-1.766

13.653

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

PROPEX 2002

Machine Direction

Elongation

Ultimate Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

1.724

7.757

1.387

9.691

6.955

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

22.575

23.115

23.295

23.960

21.515 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

33.780

29.760

33.400

34.810

31.110

Modulus

( M P a )

29.454

34.151

31.141

30.560

33.447

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

5.576

9.812

6.859

5.732

6.601

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Ultimate

Tensile

Elongation at Ultimate

Force Strength

(•/.)

(kN/m)

Force

(%)

3,483

6.384

4.261

3.427

3.994

20.215

23.230

22.750

21.945

22.745

25 720

23.550

21.330

21.410

21.560

5.503

3.740

-0.668

11.674

22.892

0.915

21.382

24.402

32.572

2.074

29.151

35.993

31.751

1.981

28.481

35.020

6.916

1.709

4.096

9.736

4.310

1.211

2.311

6.308

22.177

1.190

20.214

24.140

22714

1.916

19.553

25.875

Modulus

(MPa)

50.972

44.631

49.282

53.335

51.225

49.889

3.273

44.489

55.289

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.6Ss

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.628

0.503

0.529

0.689

0.655

0.601

0.081

0.467

0.734 at Yield

Force

50.450

63.581

58.184

52.630

53.960

55.761

5.203

47.176

64.346

W I D E STRIP T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

T E R R A F I X 310 R

Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

5.195

3.768

3.675

5.765

4.943

4.669

0.916

3.159

6.180 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

171.300

179.200

165.300

169.600

160.300

169.140

7.053

157.503

180.777

Modulus

(MPa)

1.267

0.979

1.043

1.489

1.364

1.228

0.215

0.874

1.583

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.074

0.977

0.891

0.946

1.078

0.993

0.082

0.859

1.128

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate Elongation at Yield

Force

(•/.)

32.154

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m) at Ultimate

Force

(%)

115.000

29.851

29.261

12.055

10.840

9.730

111.900

106.800

30.282

30.118

30.333

1.089

28.536

32.131

9.690

11.985

10.860

1 155

8954

12.766

106.500

113.900

110.820

3.967

104.274

117.366

Modulus

(MPa)

4.231

3.983

3.659

3.680

4.237

3.958

0283

3.492

4.424

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

0.799

0.792

0.748

0.906

0.693

0.787

0.078

0.658

0.917

W I D E STRIP T E N S I L E T E S T R E S U L T S

T E R R A F I X 360 R

Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

Force

(%)

57.662

57.362

57.386

(kN/m)

6.240

6.710

5.675

<%)

168.400

172.100

157.200

62.416

60.224

59.010

2.250

55.298

62.722

7.115

5.650

6.278

0.642

5.219

7.337

176.900

182.500

171.420

9.547

155.667

187.173

Modulus

( M P a )

1.700

1.732

1.645

1.873

1.436

1.677

0.159

1.415

1.939

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

1.409

1.293

1.152

1.240

1.290

1.277

0.093

1.123

1.431

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

30.317

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

16.630

14.350

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(%)

118.700

30.325

30.463

28.163

31.955

13.955

14.435

114.100

118.600

113.300

123.400

30.245

1.353

28.013

32.476

15.080

14.890

1.053

13.152

16.628

117.620

4.080

110.888

124.352

Modulus

( M P a )

5.737

5.085

4.630

5.210

4.859

5.104

0.417

4.415

5.793

E-7

Specimen

No.

1

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D.(s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

2,758

2.505

2,757

2.731

3.174

2.785

0.242

2.386

3.184

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

TERRAM 1000 SUV

Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate

Elongation Yield

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation Ultimate

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

2.731

2.317

2.650

2.525

2.521

2.549

0.157

2.290

2.808

Tensile

Strength

( k N / m )

9.510

8.285

8.970

9.310

10.640

9.343

0.862

7.921

10.765 at Ultimate

Force

(%)

72.280

58.250

53.070

59.030

58.890

60.304

7.134

48.532

72.076

Modulus

( M P a )

34.085

38.478

35.511

37.463

43.655

37.838

3.670

31.782

43.895

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

2.404

2.255

2.427

2.334

2.482

2.380

0 0 8 8

2.235

2.525 at Yield

Force

(%)

2.360

2.350

2.459

2.355

2.360

2.377

0.046

2.301

2.453

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

7.155

5.970

6645

7.220

6.635

6.725

0504

5894

7.556 at lUtimate

Force

(V.)

67.780

59.400

55.210

65.070

58.180

61.128

5.160

52.615

69.641

Modulus

( M P a )

36.103

33.840

34.431

35.121

37.295

35.358

1.372

33.095

37.621

Specimen

No.

I

2

3

4

5

MEAN

S.D. (s)

M e a n - 1.65s

M e a n + 1.65s

Meld

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

4.932

4,199

4.042

5.431

5.664

4.853

0.722

3.663

6.044

Force

(%)

2.255

1.891

1.828

2.563

2.659

2.239

0.378

1.615

2.863

WIDE STRIP TENSILE TEST RESULTS

TERRAM 3000 SUV

Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Ultimate

Tensile

Elongation at Ultimate

Strength

(kN/m)

18.075

19.900

19.270

19.880

19.840

19.393

0.782

18.103

20.683

Force

(%)

63.890

100.200

87.800

96.270

65.760

82.784

17.008

54.720

110.848

Modulus

( M P a )

78.684

85.512

86.932

72.777

72.235

79.228

6.886

67.867

90.589

Yield

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

4.754

6.974

5.554

5.224

0.801

4.662

2.311

0.848

8.475

Cross-Machine Direction

Elongation at Yield

Force

(%)

2.327

Ultimate

Tensile

Strength

(kN/m)

17.980

Elongation at Ultimate

Force

(V.)

82.650

4.260

2.681

18.905

18980

70.910

58.580

2.354

1.085

2.541

1.137

0.665

4.418

19.220

20.065

19 030

0.746

17.799

20.261

62.790

68.650

68.716

9.176

53.575

83.857

Modulus

( M P a )

72.199

50.077

70.228

78.090

43.727

62.864

15.024

38.074

87.655

E-8

APPENDIX F

._

,

U CQ rs*

^r o

E

O a.

u

Vi * u u a. a

E

P S

<

E

W O od

=

•a-'

-

M

O

O O

\o

rs rs ob rs o< rs oo sn o< o

,

•cr TT

E

'3 'C

*• >

•cr o so

s

ro ro oo

o.

ro ro ro

CJ

C o

U

L. CQ

CJ O a. i-

Vi

rT

<

E fN

NO r-'

VI **

CS

S 3 o

Q c

E p

£

5 o

E

'u *S rs ro

S O

•—' r-^ rs ro<

_

— od

~ "" t» rs sn o

55 ro

«v-l oo so SO ro ro ro ro

00

__ o o rs o vO oo

-o

—1 ro oc o rs srs rr r* O m n i>

S O

S O

N O rs kO ro o ro rs

O o

TT

Os so r~j

— ro

NO

T

-^

OS

C M

1*1 ro

<>

•~

_ r-ro

TT

„ r~

TT oo •e?

O

O m r o m

Vi

H

OS

03

CJ CJ rT

CL U r~

—i

«.

«

(A *-

<

E TT

S 3

§

»>o r-

V O

T T rN

<o

«^ rs

— cn ro

SO

S O

O S rs rs

N O rs O O r-

•cr rod o r^ o m

E

<

OS

<

2

3 a co

Ed a.

*

<

S

E

O

V )

H a os

03

4J * *

.5: .£P

Q.

£

OO

s

i- ea r?

CL >-

< r— es rs

(A 4—

E rs

S 3

U

E

CJ tZ

E

«

'3 'C

§

O O ro s

^^ ro

55 ro o

CO

rn r-

•cr rs o

CO rO ro oo ro

CN

— rsn ro rs

_

•cr wo ro

— o

00 so

— ro so ro wo ro

>-> CL f$

00 a.

L.

«

H

CJ 4J a.

L. cd i-T

<

E r~

O ro

~— ro

OX ro rs rn rs o ro ro rs <N

S 3 rs rs

•cr so rj rs

S O

SO r* sO sb rs r> rod

— cn ro rs o o rs

SO

OS

=

•cr rn

O oo r*; rO rn ro vn

= rj

U O so ro

O S

TT ro

__ rs so rs rs

N O

„ ro ro

^

,

— m

O so rn rr ro rn oo rn

O oo r^

ON

N O sd

<vn NO

^

„ vO rn

^n

~rn o u

CL

O a

E

CJ

r; o

E _M r-

59 ro

V O o

• * a.

£

00

SO ro ro o

O O r^ ro

S O ro

0s

x>

ro sO

•cr rs

OO Os ro ro sO ro o r*. ro scr r^ ro

O r j o

^n

o

TT un

TT ro ro

^t

Vi a

H a

03

U CO a . *i-T

<

E

Os

O os ea "— rs cn ro

SO od

O r~rsi wo so wo rs rs <N

*

• o

*

•N

O sd

O oo ro o o rs

O S

O

0>

— rs oo

^r

Os

OO

Os

— —

N O o ro rn

ON rro m

O N o

NO un O m u s u w —

B -E

TO

_E _M cj cj

M ro so ro vO

TT rs

O N

TT r~ ro oo n-i ro ro ro

O S

~^

^r

S O rs sO ro ro ro ro

SO ro

^r

S O ro tyo so ro

ON

O

— o rn un ro rro

o

ro rn

So

>

00

B

«J.

^^

Vi

WO

S O

«/)

*n

^o

.1

d

< a.

00

rs ro T uo

•e

r~

00 Cs o

1 c

CJ

+ c ea

2

^

F-l

CJ o

CJ

L.

9)

CJ c_ ha

01

<r>

Cd rs

<

E

O-

« fN

-T

0

T

TT

-t a.

E so s a

E

E c

E x: e

<->

S e

Cu

O

GO

O N ro

•cr o ro

OS

— rr

—-

V\

0

cr

r-^

NO rr

1

Cr

^0

"

SO

Cr

r^

TT

1

O-

oc

1

_.

— 1

1

-0 oc od

-cr rs ro

O

1

rs

TT

-r so

_^'

T

— —" —' —'

*/~l

TT rs r*; rs

O

rs

— r-

^O

Tf

mmm

~^

ro ro

00 rr

SO rN

-cr c*

, ro

-f rr

_

O N ro ro

^> rs rJ ro ro

T

•<f

00

0

O rs

00

Oi

•^r

un

Tf

CJ c

O u ca

Q .

M on ca u ca rs rs

» • .

0 sO

<

E

'c

• &

06

O N ro •cr s

WO

• — 1 r^

5 wo rr

WO ^r ro

O0

OO

"T

•cr oc

0 0 ro

O ro rs

0

O r^

o\

ON rs

~~

*o

~*

E c

E x :

OJO

e r-

CL cn u

Cd

CJ CJ c o

Q .

U cd ca

Q.

§

B

3

. sO rs

WO

ON rs

O c* tf rs

<

E

^

1—1

OS ro

<*

WO r^ ro

0 O rs P_?

»* ro TT

Os ro rs

•cr •ars

•cr

00 rs

O ro

^0 rs

NO rn r*

00

Tf ro

CO

O ro wo

TT

TT

~

00 r^.

OO rf

—|

— r-" ro rn

1

Tf

Q

E

E e

ST) rs

E

CJ

E

J=

C L

Cfl

CJ

•cr

TT

Oi) rs

0

TT

*

0

ON

•cr ro

-cr ro rr ro

«j

•~o

rs

•cr

•cr

0

00

^r

0 ro

T

O

Tf

Tf ws

CJ

H

OS u

«Lt

C L tn ca

2 ca

<U

L . ca

B

2

.—. rs

<

E ro ro

•cr

5> rs rs rs

0 wo wo

•cr r—

0 0

TT p ro

WO NO ro ro

CO

0 0

TT

^0

0 p ro

ON

0 0

00

0 ro •cf rs

CM

OO

O

r*%

Tf

*x: ro rO

s

NO rs

NO

E

O ro

<

e

•cr"

•<r

•cr

•cr

-f

OS

CL w

TT

OS

3 ft. co

CO

<

< s

5 s s

i/>

CJ

H

OS

03

L_

<U

C L on cu

2 ca cL»

L . ca

S rT

<

<0s r~

E ro rs

55

TT

— wo ro v^

OO sb rs

Os

mm

WO rO

SO rs

OO

WO

U i c

*••

-a

sU

E

CS u

<L>

So ft. a. oo

M

55

•cr rr rs r>

•cr

ON

-cr •cr ro

5= ro r~

•4-

NO

Trs ro vO

O N

0 m

NO r~

Os

— •

0 0 r o

ON" sO O rs ro

0

^O rn

Tf

0 0 Tf rs

0 vn rn

Cn vri r~ r-4 wn rs l> ^n p rn

Tf r-' u

CL>

CL

w

<•>

CJ

H

CJ on ca

CD i— ea

.— c

3 rs

Os

<

S

O

O ro so cr rs rro

OS

T T

O wo

Cri

rO ro •ef

E

O

0 0

NO rf wo sr od

•cr ro rs ro so

•cr r** rS

NO

0

TT

O wo

NO

NO

TT

0

00

NO

O

0 m rn in

ON rs r-

V I

U

C L

O

L . c

CJ

E

M

WD b£ r~ rs wo

0 0

* ro rs wo r~

—. rs

NO

0

•cf rs

•cf rs

•cf

•cr

•cf rs •cr

•cf

•cf ro

1ro rs p wo ro

TT

O ro

0

SO p

NO rs

00 rn

0 0

Tf a

CL

CO

*-

CJ

H

OS co u u

CL

( ca

)

tana

B

3 s c ca

<L-

L.

<s rs

<

E sO

3 rs

•cr

OO

•cr

0

•cr

— od sO

O rs

•cr wo

— sO ro rr ro

WO

•cr

P wo

T T rO wo ro ro

ON ro rs

TT

•cr wo rN ro rs

T od ro wo

00

00 NO rs

_

ON 0 0 0 ro rn ro

CS wo

. co

_E x:

13

M

CL ro wo

00 rs

0 so ro r o

•cr wo

•cr ro •cf

•cr ro rs r~

TT TT rs r~

O N

P-

SO

•cr •cr p ro O rs rs ro r-

~t

^f rr •cf •cf Tf O

^6

so

•cf c

E

6

CL

0 0

Z

^* rs rO

•cr

WO sO r»

OS Cs

O z

7**

<

ITi

NO wO

SO

^^,

' — 1

£

>

— c

+

B

CO

0 ca s

F-2

C o u u

\-

cc

V, az

a r-

-D

La cc c

3 r )

< o ro

E on oo

<~r,

op-

—' o

CJ

E

CD x: o n ex

(U oi o

O

CL

0O

? o-

TT

1*0 V ,

-r

orn m rj

CO r-i o-

ON m rs rj o o

-T ro

-T rrp-

O

— o

TT p* o»

CD

OC o o

CC ro r j o

CC TT

-T

O

V ,

SO

OO o n vO

• o

NO oo on

„ c~ r~n ro rn o

O", o n o o on on o o o n r 4

P-

O

O rs

-c rs r-J SO

O -T

O rs rs

O",

— sd u

CC o c o c

U o o a. CC to a r-

CJ

E

E o

s

E

CD

CD

CL

CD

L. x:

_CLC

" C D

• cT

<

T

O

E

O i o-rs

OX OO on

OO v£3 o o r-

O orn <q r-

•o

O N

, _

TT oo on o

OO un o n l>

.

TT on

L.

CD

CO

CD

CJ o

CL

U ca u o ca

2

2 rs

< l> rs

O m

E

"SD

ON oo

SD rs OO v n o rrs o

ON

" o rs

CD r-

O o

• "

TT w o

N O

-O

•cr rs rrs o r-l

CO on on

NO rn

•CT

WO

CD NO

C O

O N

TT oo sd

O N

OO o n oo

1

' rs wo

TT

P* r^ o n

TT

CO

O N

O N on

1

OO

'

E

E o c

E x:

CD

CD

"<D m

OX oo on r n o n

WO rs

CL

OO

O^

O N

ON on

S D

O N o n

CO

SD on

TT

O r^ p*

TT od

C O

T f

SO

TT sd

Vi

CJ os

03

L_ 03

CD

CL cn ca

2

CD

L. ca rs P-

<

E o oo oo

59 o n

O

TT oo rm

<vn rs rs rrn ron

SD r-

U c

<

-J o

Cd o;

H z

TT rs

<

OS ws

CJ

CD

*-

E o x:

_0X)

"ox

NO

*CD o n

CD

CL

OO

1_

CD

C L

CC

CD rs

T

3

OS

2 r-

OS

5

cn

CtJ

CC

<

E

O N

O N

N O ft.

00 co

<

2

5

03

U

2 c

<D • f c -

E

Cd

L.

E o x:

OX

CD oo on

J O

CD ft.

00

NO o n o

CXD rs rs oo m on on on

ON

O

O N

T •o

r~~

O I

O N s O rs oo r* r*

_o

S D on rs on on rs

TT o n r-

O

ON r-

P*

—; rTf m

O rs r-

Os o

SD

O s

-o rs rs on o o

TT o

C N oo o n wo m o rn p* on rs

NO

TT

TT

— rs

TT o

NO o

O rs SD OO p* m rs

CD on

NO

TT

-o

O

Os

TT rs on wo

CJ r-

CJ c

L.

0>

C L en cn ca

CD

1—

CQ rs

<

ON l>

E

O N " pca

2

C

3

r-

rs rs oo roo

O rs

ON

O

ON rs

P*

-o

SD roo

O N rs o

O N o n rs NO

— T f

CD

O N PCO O rs

S D

r~~

m

— ro

SO oo oo TT rs ro

OO

O

r^

NO O s u

CL c

CJ

E

M x:

O

CD *cD

Q

CD

CL oo oi on

00 m oo rs

TT on on on o n

P* rs rs

P» on on on

O

CO on

TT m

ON

TT on on

_

SD

O

NO on s O rs NO o ro

Tf p* ro

— on

O sd u ca

Vi

CD rs rs

ii

H

a

03 cn ca

U

2 D c ca

"c

<

E oo r^ r-

•a

CD

C L ed

•a

CD

_E x: t bJD

CD CD

Cd co

CD

C L

00 rs lac

in

rs rs

SD rs

O oo

ON

O

O oo rs

!*>•

Po oo on

P*

ON

NO

— oo

O N

O O

-o r -

O

CO oc O

TO rs m o r-

O N oo rn

O N

CO ro

— sd rs

O s m so rsd

NO

O rs

O-s

T »

1**

O N

TT on on on rs rs

T f on o

SD

T f o

SD rs TT ron m

SD

O N

O O on o ron

o

oo m

CD ro sd o CO

™ on ro sd c

CD

6 d

"<D

Z

CD

CL

00 rs rn

TT

W) O r-

00 O

O c

2 co cn

\Ti

Vi

W0 se SO

2?

> 1

C ca

CD

+

B ea

CJ

F-3

CJ

B o

U

L.

ed

CJ CJ

C L L. r t

<J) *

CO T s2 E

<

E

"•a. C J

I N ex r* r J r* wo

— r> i c j o rro o r j

'JZ

c c j

O r j o h

Q

E

E

B o

C

CLC w "o

<D ->. ex rc j

JO c j

N O o

-~ a.

£ o>

-T

-T

CO r j

.o

-T

^

O

cr

w-. r J o

rl

sd o c j

C C o c j

— a i

\o

o

C J ro

a

•JO

NC,

-r

<v-,

r> oo o

C j on rsi

C C o rrrs

Cr

_

r^

Cl

,

0"

^c

N O ro r^ r*

O

- ™ ro

•O

0 O ro r j

N O J O sd

N O N O o

I O d c j ro

J O oc

CD

OC' r j o rs

N O so

N O

CJ

C

O

U

O

L. k. ea

CD CD

C L L. rs en ea

<

E

N O

W O

- T

c

•-^

' '

Q

E

B

1

s

T T

O *«D

s

CL £

00

W O

N O

O O

Cr

c j wo o wo

O c j

O oc o r O

C O c j

O O

O

rt

O r~

N O wo rs sd sO sd

<j~,

ro

>o

B

.§.

d

Si z

C L

00 rs

OO

C J rs

~

SD

N C -

JO

C C

C O rs c j

O

C S

O O

O N rs rs rs

O N

TT

N O

O N o

N O

C O oo o oo rs

N O N O

CJ ro

CJ o

L.

ea

<D <D

r*

a. i<

TT

TT

CA ca

«a "^

E

~0X rs rs

2 5

O N rs rs w-i

CJ.

T T

NO

O N

O rs r-

NO ro rs

CO rs rs wo ro rs

Q

C

E

1 £

T T ex O O

a 'Z

N O uo rs

CJ -».

CL -J

00

O N

SO r-

O ro r-

O N

N O d r^ r-'

Vi

CJ

OS

Q3

L.

ed

CJ CJ rs

W O rs

C L L.

VI

w cd "—

<

2 3

E r^ ro rs

5?

— rs rs oo

TT ro

Cti

O N rs

O rs r-.

W O

O rs

CJ

-o

B

<

u rE "E rs

T T

-j

OS

.- 55

"o

"CJ

55

O O

N O

O N r*.

N O N O z

s

CJ

-i.

CC

<

OS rs

<

3

OS

UJ ft.

00 oo

<

2

2

Vi

CJ

H as

E ed

C L

>

0 0

L- Cd

CJ CJ rT

C L hi

" -

CC

'ZZ

2 3

< ro

E

N O rs

5^

5

03 u c

U

CJ * ;

E OX o

CJ CJ

"ox O N

NO ft. CL SS

00

TT

TT' rs

CS

TT

OO

NO

WO

NO

Cr

rs rs

O

CO r—

O C r O

N O

WO wo

W O rs

NO r*. rs

N O

O

OO

O N

O N p* wo

O N

O

NO

W O

CO o co

C S

ON on on oo ro

CO r» on

SD

TT

O

C S on rs

_ oo o f*

T T

O

C O r-

SD ro O rs oo

N O r^ oo oo

W O

O N

C O

P«* m

CS

\0

N O

N O

O O o

ON rs od o rs rs rs oo

W O

N O

T T rs

CD

S3

SD m

O O

—1

N O oo

O N

N O

N O

ON

C J rs o rs oo ro

OO ro

O N

T T

O N

C O on

O N m

'

O O

NO

NO

P* m

C O

TT

CD

O"!

O O

O

NO oo rs

VI ii

H

CD

C

L. Cd

CJ CJ

CL L. rs

<

VI * -

2 3 o

E ox od rs rs

'

N D

WO

TT rs

T T

NO

O N

O rS

— TT

NO

W O o rs

ON

O rs o rs

S O

Cr

NO

C S ro rs

O N

WO

J ro o rs ro rs rs r^

TT

O rs

WO

C S

• o

©

U o. o

Q

B

CJ «-;

E ox ox

CJ 'Z wo

O N

•cr wo

ON ro

N O N O N O

C L

*S r^ rs

O N ro

N O N O

O N

W O

N O

00 on

T T

CS

O N on

N O

O N

— m rs fp r^ ro rs

N O

T T rs rwo

N O

N O rn

CD on

O O

NO

T T on

Cr

•^ wo r^>

L. CQ „

CJ

CJ CJ

CL L.

V,

« rs

<

E

T T

O O rH

OS

03 u

1

rs

=

N O

O

O N

C

P

S

M

. .£5

Cd

CJ - j ,

CO

00

•cr

N O

N O

_

O 0

O N

O wo

N O o

O 0

O N

O N

O O rs rs rs

mm

'. mm

rs rs

O O rs

N O ro rN ro rs r~rs

O

SO TT od

T T rs r-^ ro

O rs rs rs o ro rs rs

N O

O N

N O

—1

CS

P*m oi

T T on

W O

O N

NO

ON r^ oo

T f rs

T T

T T

N O

N O

W O

N O

C O r~ ro p wo r~ r~ ro oo sd

_

NO

O

O O

N O

_

N O o on

T f on r^

O N

Tf p.

Tf wo r*^

-

CJ ro

T T W O N O r~

CO OS o cn

VI

<

2

^^^

5?

WO so i«o

N O

1

Q

>

E

B

00 0 ed

CJ

+ ea

*D

2

2

F-4

CJ co u h

Q

L.

CD

Con

^t

SQ

CD

1_

CC c

3 r j

— r j

<

E rv-< r j

1

—•

—i on r j ro r-^ o

T

— I

' O rs oo

N O r j

C C so r

J oc

C i*n r j

OC c*

— I oc

— m

V , r-J on r j c* r j t >

O r j

T

o rn r j

V ,

V , rs

cn

m o r i

—' r>

- T

V , r n

E

E

CO

CO

C O c

CD

§

CJ ex

CJ

CD

>

CL

OO

- T

3

O C rv i

O

P» rrn ooc

C C rcr

~ oc

C* o

-C

r*»

oc

r J rp*

_

r-i

C C poc ra

c-

T rs rn o cc prs r j o

C C oc r j

T T on vO

V ,

O m

P-

o

T T

C O

CJ c o l_

CJ

CL cn

CC

CC

CD

CC c rs V .

<

E

O N rs on ox

•••" rs

V l

S D

( I M rs rs

T

O

V ,

r.

r— o-, m rs

S D rs o hi

Q

tz

E wo

E x:

CJ

OB

*sD ex p r-

CD

Q .

OO

O

"~!

T T

SD

n

• T

N O

P-

T f

O O f>

O

€—•

C O

V , o oo r^ o

C C

V , r-J

O

T

T T r j

yj

o

.

T T r-j

C D o> od

• o rs p» oo r-

O ri

O

T T on

T T on rs r-

O rs oo i_ CC

<u ro o

CD

C L cn

CJ a.

CC

2 o h

CD ca rs~

<

E i rn

m —

v .

V l

N O

_

-—

3

55 rs m p -

N O

T

O

O O

S D rs rs o o

V , on r-l

Q

E c

CD

E

CJ x:

M

CJ wo

CD a_ rs oo

S D ex N O o o rs

P*> oo rn

O O r-» O

C C oo r> m

P* r-

• o r j o r N j oo o m m rs

T T m

CD

O O r-^

T T r-) rrs o oo o rs

O o rm rn

V l l-^

T T

T T od

VI

Cj

H

OS ca

<D

C L on ca

<D i_ cc

CC

2

3 rs

<

E

T T oo

r~~

on

S D

O N v>

•*«,

*"

O O

N O o o

T T rs rs rs

O N

T f on rs

M D

O N

^_ on rs

U

T3

< rz o

J —

CD

E x:

CJ ox

DX o

OS

<D

<D o o

UJ

OS a.

it

<

T T ro

CC on

CD t_

CJ cn

CC

2

CD z

3

OS

UJ

<

£

H as

Q

03

CL on

CC rs SD

<

E

1

"ex oo rs ft.

CO co

<

2

5

CJ

- • c

E

Cd

'<J h

CD

JO

OJ

E

*ox

CL

«D r— on

S cv OO o

ON r-rs

T T on

N O rs

O N o oo

OO on

P-»

C O

T

N O r s p -

O N rp* p* p*

T T

O O oo

VO o>

CD

N O on r—

SD rs

N O

V l rs rs

CC p* o on rs

P 0

•o

S J

S D

V ,

O N on rs on

T T rs

T T

CD r^

SD rs

C O o

O

O N on rs

P-

P*

TT od rn rn o

N O rs rn

CA

O N

N O

T T rn

N O on

— on rs

— oo rs

<N oo

C C r^

S D

Tf

O rn o n

NO r>oc on oo

L-

CJ

, .

WN

CL wi

H

Cj

.mm

ca

C

2

3

C cc

<D

L_ ca rs

< oo p*

E m

~ox

N O rs rs

T T m rs on

S D rs

SD

O vd on rs r^

• o rs o cj

C

CL w

CD

E x: o

<J h

CD

Q C L oo

T T ox CD

C O

O N o

C O

, ,

C O

T T r-

C O

V i

oc

rs

O

C C on rs

O N

N O rs

T T

O

O C

SD rs

SD r-

T

SD rs

C C

ON o-i

O^ r^ rs on rs o

T T

T T

O rs

P*

O

T T

O O

O O p-

r-i

N O

N O

N O v^.

< N rs rrs

O N

O O p*

CD rs oo r^

— oc r>o oo

O N rs

O C

O N

O

O

P^ C O

<o

— o

O O oo

— oc

' oc

J— CC

CD CD on

C_ 1—

CD cn

CC

H

CC

CQ cc

2 c

2 u

L-

-a

•a ca c

• h -

CD

E x:

CJ ox

*CD

Oil

CD

C L rs

<

£

N O oo rs m rm

__

O

O N

"ox m rs

N O rs

T f rs on

T T m

SD rs m

'. on rs o

SD

T T rs

, ,

— CD r>

O O

O N on m

CD r>

C O

N O

N O r-

O on r-

CO c>0 oo rs r-~ T T m

T T

N O T T rs rs

T T o oo on

T T r-

^o rs

T o roo

V l rs o

0 0 m

SD on rs rs rs]

C O m

T T

V , rr-

O N od

T

r-

T T m

O O m

T T

V .

T T on m rs on

—; rs rrs oo o

—;

P* m oo c

CD

E d

'cj

CJ

C L

0 0

Z

rs rn

T f l O N O C N o on

N O cn

U1

NO

^—K. on

<

UJ

Q

2 c>0

+

> c u

CC

CD

-Z

c

Cm

^1

F-5

CJ

B

CC h

Cj

C L

CD

1—

CC rl

< oo

1-

wo

O

Vi

Cd

O

C a

2

E

CJ

B

E

mm

£k sc, co p« o 'JO TT

W O

I C

O N

Tf

S O

O ro ro

CS

O ro o

E

O

CD ox

CD

CS

**

ON p .

N O

TT

Cr,

O

T T ro

P" ro

T

W O

O N

Cr

O N o o

0 0

C S rs

N 0 o

'

O O sd

C J

CS ro o rO o wo oo

CJ

N O

T T

O rs v .

T T O N

o-

rs

t

N O o oo r.

SD m m ro

O

O s p .

O N rO

O N

NO

O

TT r-

T T

cr Cr

Cf od

oi

o

O N

TT' rs r-

N O rs oo

CD

CJ

B o

mm.

CD

CL

CC

CJ

L.

CC cn cn ca

2

3 rj

<

E o ro wo ro ro r~

O

OO

mm

NO

T T

NO

CS co

CS

TT

Cr

ro ro

Cr

CS a

E

E o

B

CD

S jr: ex

CJ 'CJ

CD

W O

CL

P-

0 0 rs

O N ex rs o ro

O N

O

TT

CS

O N oC

O

CS

O N

Cj c o

L.

<D

CL cn ca

CJ

C L 2

3

O h

CC

CD

L_ ea rs ro

<

E

^

T T

N O o ro

O N

TT ro

NO

NO

CS rs ro

— ro oo

CS

— • wo

W O

— ro o ro

Q

E

E o

B

<D

E

CJ ox

'ij

TT

**

OS

CD wo rs

CL

OO

N O

O O

O N ro wo

cr

_

O

N O

O N ro

oi o

N O

N O rs o

S3 m r*

O rn on

ON rs o on

•*f m rp-

Os o on

O r-

SD

O N

O on

ON od on

CD

O N

W O rs r-

N O

P* m m o rs o m rn oo

T T rs

rn

ro

W O

O N ro r-J rm

O

N O rs

O N

O

O N

O N

^

CJ

L.

CD

C L cn ca

CD

U ca rs~ —

<

E p*

O

H ec os

03

CJ

• a

^

B c

3

M

"

O 0 p p.

O N r-' ro o ro

mm

N O ro ro

O ro ro ro

< ro

OS

CJ

CD

C L x: pr ex 3

"tD ro

O N

N O ro

O N p .

W O

O N wo

N O wo

T T

Cr

ON'

OS

0 0

<

T T z

3

OS

-r

<

2

VI ii

H

OS

Cd

Ch

00

5

03

03 CJ

• a co

<

2 u

•JJ

CL on cn ca ca

CD l—

CC c

2

3 rs"

TT

<

E rs r^ o od oo ro o ro

s

N O

W O

E

4J

E

Cd

L.

E x:

O 'cD

O

O N

_ ox p . ro

oi

r-

CD

Q . ft.

0 0

CS p -

N O

S O od od rs ro o ro ro i

T T ro

W O

ON

— wo o co

O ro

C N

C O

T

O ro rn m o m

~

on

O m rs r^ on rn

N O o o rn o o m

O N rs

N O

ON

O

CO

— on

C O

ON

V i

O N roo

N O rs

O m

<N m

—. wo

O N

— o

O N p*

— rn rs o

O N r^

ON"

m*

(J)

H

CJ c

L.

CD

C L on m ca

CD u ea rs wo

•JO

<

E r— p*

N O

C S

CS ro ro ca

2 c

3 rs wo ro wo

J rs ro

O

CS

— o ro ro

CS r-

CS

oi

ro

C

C L

O h

CD

_E

'cD x:

_DX

CD

"5

0X a

C L

CO ii

ON

O N ro wo coco as

O N

Os rp-

T T

T T

ON

O N

OO wo

N O ro

P-

W O r»

O ro co r*

O N

C S

T T

CS

OO ro

W O ro on ro

C O

SD rs

T T oo

x>

rs

ON' o m rs m ro p .

OO

NO

N O

T T

Oi

O N

O N p .

O

O r^ rs

S O

O N on rs SD o

Tf on

O rs o

CD rs

ON"

m. ii

H

OS

L.

CD

C L m cn ea

CD

1— rs

<

E wo wo

Os

J=5 co

03

2

3 u

L_

•a

C ts

|

CJ c co cD

C L

0 0 x:

'CJ

-T

"ox pr

Cr

W O rp»" rs

•cr pr-

O s rs ro

Os

CS r» o o ro ro

SO

CS o ro r—

O

CS o ro o

CS ro

t\

CS

ON

O N

OO ro

O N

TT

Cr

rs

O N

T t

T T

O N

•JO r^

O wo ro

OO r~

O

O N

CS sf

O ro rs CO on

O N

O ro o oo on

,

CO o

O N rs m r^ rs m wo

O

OO

OO

CS

O N rs

TT m

O N o

CO on co

CO

ON m 00 ON'

B

CD

_E d

'CD

«J Z

C L oo

rs ro

TT

00

S O r-

00 C N

O cn cn

%n

NO

NO z o?

— —

<

6

UJ

CO

>

CJ t c ea

•J

+ c ea

-t

m^.

2

F-6

CJ

C

CL u ea _ w

CD

rr

OO a.

u 0^ ro

S - E

5

'E c j

"Sb o

L. a

2 3 —

E o p

s

U i

'0 -s 55

CJ - ^

C O

CO p

C O

T T ro p.

-T oi ro o

C O

o

rr ro o o

. co

CO

OS

O N

-T

C j

C j

TT

O ro

T T

W O

C S

TT

O O

O ro

__

O

t

ON

C O

c j

O

c j

p" p. w-, w-,

T

TT

•JO ro ro o

JO

O C

O

V ,

T

O

W O

C J

P r—

TT r^

SCi

wo

C O

T -T

JO

JO

T T

T co

T T

N O

T T

c j

o oc

O on

O C ro

— wo

CO

CJ

B o

O O

C S

N O to B

C O C J

CS

ON

Oi

p.

— c j

~ r~ p pi O ro

""

TT

CL u

2 3 —

Q

E

E

P

S

E

WO e

•S -s 55

cj •>.

T

CL

?

~

ON

OO

__ p» rO co

O r^

CS rs

TT TT

00

CJ

S o u ea ^ cj

CJ

rr rs

C O a

L

«

•9 fi

Cd T

VI * t

'.

'. rs wo

C O

C O

IIS

" o

N O

oi

T

NO

TT r-i ro a

E

E

P •=

E

C ex .—.

•cf o

_

WO rs oo

„ p. ro

P* o

TT

N O

W O

TT'

ON

TT

W N

CJ

H

m. ed —

CJ CJ

r

. W O oo

O.

L.

fs

£

ca

T

E

CS o

"Sb

— ro rs

ON

oi

CS

ON co

'.

CS

O S

C O

OS

03

2 3 —

U

• o

c

E

<

Cd

3

P"

O N

0> ro o

T T

NO p ro o r~ ro

TT

CS

TT e

OS

<

H

Z

3

OS

Cd

CO

H

U)

CJ

UJ

H

OS u.

03

m. Cd . _

<u

CJ

rr

ON

Q.

h rs

O on ** i! 'S "Sb

O

t

2 3 ft.

>

co

O

CJ

•a

E

Cd

2 h

JO

B

dj

W

ON

O

O

T T

O rs co ro o wo wo ro r»

— wo co

ON p r» cs co

TT

N O

O ro

•f

•cf

CS

Tf oc rs ro

O O roc

C O ro

Os

Oi

W O

V ,

O N

N O

T T

— wo

O

TT

C S

•cf O oo oo

N O

SO on ro

T T

•cr

•cf roo ro

O O

C J

— oo p* oo rs

N O

O O

— o

C O

C C wo

— ro rs

TT p.

C O o

C O proa rs

SO ro

TT

C C

-r r-

ON

O ro rs wo

N O

O O

O N

Tf

C J

O rs cs p*

T T

;

ON p ro o rs o

OO

0^

T T

N O

N O ro

C J ro

T T

P*

ON o

T T

TT

C O ro rs on rs rO oi

C S m o

T T

_

O

TT'

O rs on rs

T T p ro

O 0

CJ

•cr' u cd

CJ CJ

rr ro

O N

Vi

CJ r-

8 " E od

CS

| E "Sb

CJ

B

O

2 3 — u

CL o

B

E ox -—-

•r; -r

ii " j .

ro p

M

CL

?

T T

T T

O O

O O wo

W O

O

Tf ro ro

•<f o

CS

TT CS

TT

O

CS

__

ON so p ro •cf

O

TT

CS rp-

NO

•cf ro ro wo OO o rs rs wo o co o p wo

C S

ON

W O

Oi

r~ rs

N O

W O

CS r~ r~ r^

ON o

NO

(-J p-

OO

ON ro ro

— oo c-i wo p ro

ON

OO ro

TT p.

•cf r~ ro o

T T

TT ON rs o o

N O

O

W O ro

C C

<-J

T T cn

(D

00 h ed _

C L

• > ro

CO

CS

ON

H

cc

9

« *s

•cf

CO

U

IO

•* B

5

E

"Si

• a

u ca

O

W O c ca

CL

-S

K

00

ON

CS

s

TT

TT

N O

C S

00

— wo

SO

W O rs

CO p wo

CS

Pro ro

T T

N O p ro

N O

O O

mm

SO ro

C O c-i ro

C O ro wo ro ro

C O

CS SO

_i cd

C O CS

CS

OO p» p. oo rs rro O

SD C O C C

~~

SD

•cf

m—

O

TT

T T

C O p. ro c-

O co

TT'

TT o o

TT rs p ro o p ro

TT

C S

O

NO

- • "

SD

O

W O ro

ON

C j

TT

E

C r ro

TT WO

N O

P00 CN e

V

V

Z

<

2

sm*.

V,

ss

6

>

CJ

W0

N O

1 c cd

«j

wo

SO

+ c

Cd

CJ

2

mt.

F-7

CJ

O

CJ

V)

ed

Q .

O

L.

O

«?: u

C J

I P

Cd

C J

L .

Cd

'c

3 cT

< o r^

ON' E

"Si

T ^

-T

T ro o ro pi

C C ro

W O

W O

T T T T ro rr,

O rr

T T

T

C j

O

C O

'. wo p*

I/-I

\

C J

•*

oc oc

JO

C O

•cf

- T r O

C C o

C J

- T

E

E o

C J

E

J = ox c

'CJ

JD wo

s

NVJ o e

C C

O N r O

-f

TT' ro r> ro

T T

T T

__

C J C S

J O

-f ro p r O

C J O O

T T O

Tf

TT on rn on

J O r* ro

N O

O rs 0> c-i ro o

-J-,

ro

O ro o

-r

N O

P* ro

N O

O o

JO

TT'

T T

La

CJ C D

C L ro o n c n

CC u ca

< D CS

N O

C C

<

E

« wo

— ro

W O

C S

CO ro

O wo wo ro

O N

W O o

W O

O wo

W O ro

C L o

L.

a

C

C D

E

"cj

CD

„ e

OX

'S "ox

T T o

CL

CJO

WO

O N ro

ON

W O ro

T T ro

TT p .

CJ

E

O

CJ

C L

O

L .

U cn cn ca ca

C D

U ca

tmrn

2

E

3

<

E o

CS

TT

55

O

NO

O N

T T r~

N O

—. pi ro ro

O N ro

Q

E

C D

E

E o

B

C O

.25

'cj ox co

T T t D wo

T T

W O

C S

C L

0 0

O N

Tf

TT'

T T

C J

Tf

C O

N O

N O ro rs TT

C O p wo

O O rs ro

C J

C O o o

W i p>

T on

•CT rs p o sci

N O r^

I/O ro

T T

C O

N O

o

T T co on on c~

P ro r^

TT

O N

C O

— ro

O N

T T

O N rs

T

P* r~

O

O p ro

T T r^ wo

TT'

VI

«J h os

03

L .

C D

C L cn on

CC ca

C D

>~ ca

m ^

rT

<

OO

E e

O N

-cf

© ro ro

S

<

o

Cd

CJ

• o c

3

O

OS c

m

C J

< D

C L

OO

OjD

55

O N

O

T T

O p

CS

C O a

C S

C S ro

—'

O N p rs

T T

N O o

•cf

T T ro

C J

T T ro

O

C O

z

ro

O O

NO

O

O N

__

O wo o p.

— o

I C ,

O

O

TT'

N O rn

NO

O o O N o

T

O N

W O ro

TT'

CO

H

C C

H

VI

(D

C D i-s" O

Z

Oi

H

Cd

H

OS

.CL U

3

OS

Cd u.

03 cn on ca

C C

*E

W O

W O ro

5^ ft.

>>

CJ

i.

<

J

•a a. E ed

2

L.

C D

>.

00 a.

mm

VI ii

H

C J

E

2

E

C D

E

C D w x :

Oil

'ox

'CD ro

Tf

L -

C J

CL on en ca

£ ea

< D

L. ca rs

<

O N

O

._

E c

3 55

O

TT

T T

W O

CS ro

OO

O N p . od p od ro TT

-

•CT

O

Tf ro

CS wo

T T o so

•cf

TT' ro

SO

TT pi ro

O N ro r^

O

N O

T T

CS

TT

T T pi

C O

O N

CS od

T T

O

N O co

T T

oi

T

O N ro

O

O O

P"

CS

Tf

CS ro

O

CJ

E

CD

C L

O

L . s

C D

C D x:

M

Q

* >

C L

00 p.

CS

O N

Tf Tf

T T ro

O ro

TT' TT

ON CS

W O

•cf

•cr'

N O

W O

•CT wo rs

T T p.

O N

O

•cf ro

TT

C O

C O N rs

•cf ro o rrs

N O so c~

W O

O N

O

TT

— rn p .

N O

CD Pi r^

W O

N O r O r~

C S rs on o

T T

O

C O rwo

N O

C C

N O

C J

W O

CJ

TT

TT' r^

N O

V^i rn rs

O

T T o

P. C J

O O N O wo ro

T T

_

CJ

H coos

U

<J ca

C D a. cn

L. ca r7

CS

CO wo cn ca fl

3

<

E

C O

2

•a

TJ

E a

CO

E

C D

E x:

Oil

T T

"ox

C J

Tf

C J

C L

CO p. ro ro

T T o

•cr

T T p.

C O o

3

W O ro rr ro oo

O O rod

CS

O N

C O •cT r~co

N O ro

mm

T T

PT ro ro

— ro

T T

•CT rs O O

*cr

O 0

C O wo

W 0 ro rs O

O N

CS pi

W O r^ ro

mm

ro

Tf

T T o

TT'

PT ro O ro

CS

•cf •cf wo wo

Tf

O N

O S

O ro p.

C O

•cf

•cr

•cf

N O ro

T T

SD CO TT rs

CO o p w-i ro

O N r-

T T

C

C J

E d

'CJ

C J

C L

CO

Z

rs ro

TT WO so r-

0 0 O S

O

_m^m.

VI

J!

W O

W 0 so

SO z o n o?

6

>

<

CO

CJ

Cd

2

2

E

Cd

CJ

+ c

C d

C J

2

F-8

CJ

C

L

C D

C L o

CJ c n m

CC

CL

O

L.

*t

CC

(D

C j

-r m ro

L>

CC

"c

<

E o o

0 oi

Oi

"Si r^ p. p.

O p.

'•

Vl

C C

J O

C C O

S3 • — • c o

E

E

E

C D

E

CJ

C D

Q . x: ex

"CD

C O

1 e2

'

w-, o

-r in

£

N O

T T sr,

0 0 rs ro w-, wo r» f ^

J;

-o

mm

P-

T

C C s O

O

C C

0" rs m r n r-

m>

rd

D C oc

N O

O N m ro w-,

tmm

oc r~

T c

N O

O N

T w-,

O

O iv-,

_

T

C C p

-c wo ro

~C

wo W O

3 oc r j

-o

v ,

V ,

V i

CD' m rn o ro wo c: O

*/n sd r-

J O rr, CJ C D C D c o

CJ

C L o

L . a gr, u ca en ea

2

*E

C J

<

E rs o-.

— ro p ~

O N

P"

§

Q

L . ca

O O

W O

E

CD

O N N C

T

E

C O wo

E

E

T T rs

T T

O O ro

O O o

W O

'CJ

CD

C L

00

JZ

cs

_ cx

'cD

CS

s

C J

W O

W O T T T T

CJ c o

CJ

C L

O

L .

Q i_ cD

C L m

CC

C D

L . ea

E

2

-J

O N rs

O N

<

E

ON r-

C O ro co O N

§

o

N O

ON

E

E o

W O

mm

CS

W O

T T p.

N O

P-

E

C D

X .

E ojg

C J

C D

C L

'•D

_

C O ox r-~ wo p

W O

TT

C O

W O

, ,

C O r O wo ro

W O c-o rs p* rs

•^J s C

""~

o

->

SD

C

N

T T

- T o

T

V . pi r-

P-

_ _ rs CS o on

O

TT' rs rs

P* T T w-i

• n -

*

C O

T T

O O

• » o

T T

O O oo

T T oo

O o

S O

O

Poi

O s r n

S J rrs| on o

T T

C C

T T oc oo o on

S O

< o

C d

VI

U

fos

03

CJ

•a

c o

OS u

CD

C L cn cn

C J u

C d rs

< p. ro p

E

3 p . ca

s

3

E

C D

_

E

J = ox

u

"CJ

"Sb

mm

OX o

C U

'E

W O

T T

CJ wo

C L

C d

0 0

O N

C S r-

oi

S O

N O w o

W O o

T T

C O

S O

W O

S O p .

N O

T T W O

Z

3

O S

C d ft.

CO

2 co r-

H

Cd u.

OS

03

>

3

O

Vi ii

CJ

• o

E

C d

L .

>. h a

C D

C L en ca

s

E

CD ca

(D

CC

3

^

E x: u

CD

C L

' t D rT

<

E

W O

mm

Fm

W O

§

Os r^

3 ft. 00

O p ro

•cr

P od

N O oo ro

•cf

N O

W O

W O wo

O N p.

O

O

mm

T T

S O

O N

C S

mm

O N

TT' TT'

•JD

s O

S D r-i p .

O o

N O t*l Os rs o sd o n C O

S J

V i

_ m

P. o

-r p »

S O wo o

N O m rn nr o n

O N oo o p.

T T ra» p

C O pi to r^

O

N O m

O o p.

_ o co w-i

T f ea

L.

(D

C D

C L

CJ

H

C J ca

2 c

3

E

8 ea rs"

O N

<

E r-

O N '

P-

0 0 oo

N O

N O

C S so

O O p.

O

CJ

C L o

E

(D

E

M x:

OB sD C J

T T

s

C L

C O

O N

S O wo rs rs wo

Pt o

0 0 r-

C S ro

•cf oo r^

N O

O N rs

P.

C O

oi

T T

N O r^

O O r-

<* oc

N O r-

I ro wo SO

W O wo o

— w o

NC'

W O ro ro m

N O wo

V .

•fi on ron oc

SO

C C

PC O

<fi o n rs C O

N O od

S D

S O oo r-~ rn

T T

— rs

S O

O O on o n O r O ro

S O r^ on w-i

L. ea cn

•D

CO

(D

C L cn

H tf c n ea

2

C D

L . ca

.—

E

3 rs

<

E

55 p.

T T

O O

TT

O wo oo u

E u ea

C D

E

X .

Oil

C O

SO

T T

E ea

C J

M S O

C J

"«D

W O W O

C S

O N

C O ro

N O T T —'

oi

pS

N O p. sd r-

O o

C J r-

,

T T w-i

W O rro wo o

N O

C S r^

O N

W O

O N

C O

O O

C N

M

P*oo

C O rn r-

CD

Pco r~ wo

N O T T

C O

•cf r~ sci rs on o m on

C S

T T

N O

, on

T on

C J m vi o

T T

N O

00

C L

CO

C O C O

P* S O o on r^

Os r-

C O

•^r rs o sd

E

C J

E d

< D

C L

0 0

Z

~ rs rO

T T U 0

N O roo o

O cn m

N O

VI

U 0

S O ^^, o n

<

Q

>

CO cj

E

CC

C D

+

E

C d

C J

2 2

F-9

Cj

C o u

CL

L. Od

H -> rs

CO ic, cj c j

CL

h y"

8 - 6

C j

J rr,

-f

CS

SO o

25-2 rr

T

O

O pj

CO

-~ ~ —

~

• — •

•J0

a o

Cr

CJ cj

O c j

Cr-

rO

CJ i rr.

c r-

CO

mm

CO

JO ro cj c j o

*T

CO p.

CJ

|

CJ

OC

CO

CJ

nn

p.

V .

ON

~

ro o

-T

-r r-

O

N C p» o

Tf rs

Q

E

E

CS o o

E

£ j= ro

E

'7~,

M o

— 0J

CJ cj >»LC

JO

CJ ^ o ow-i

CL

3-

00

CJ p m m

OI

CO so in

JO

O

SO m

p

pi c j

P; cj

CC wo

JO ic, p.

JO

JO ro o iO o

CO rro oi oc rn

V. rT m r-

,

CJ c o h e» _ .

CJ CJ

£Tj

ON

CL h

JT

CS

CO

5 "2 "Sb

O N

«e _j "-"

NO

CO

WO

O N o-.

O N pi

CJ

* • •

mm

CJ CJ sc,

CS ro o

o-

Oi

0)|

v\

CO

:

CJ cj

CC

W-,

C?N

<c oc

sp on rs rs

Q

E

E e

WO

P-

B

E ox

J-N o

W S

m^

w-i

ii

•>.

5 r^ p

CS

NO

NO wo

O N

TT

NO

O wo

SO

CJ c o

CJ

CL

L.

ed

C L L . C S

<

*> cd

P*

CS wl — E

•5 E "Sb rs

O N

CS

<e 3 —

NO

O

CS

WO w-i

CJ

P*

CS

W ,

P*

CS o rs

a

E

E

P

S

E o

U 0

O N u '5 55

P"

N O

CL

00

r$ rs

ON

T T

NO

NO

CO

NO ro

•JO

N O

CO

NO h •

M

CJ ru c SJ

S " E

o

5

E c j

CJ

QS

ca

2 3 —

CS ro

TT ro

—'

CS

CJ

CO p

NO od

mm

w-i oi

CO oo

CJ

E

<

Id

OS

<

3

OS

Cd

CO

2 o

CO

NO

E

3

C -E

WO

— .Sr

^

M

CJ CJ

Clo

N O

Cj • >

00

"J co

„ u cd

h

H

3

Id

U.

3

<J>

CJ r-

OS

03

CJ

CL h cs

CO

W O

& " P

,2 E "Sb

CJ

2 3 —

T3

B

E

CC w

TT p.

NO

N O oi

CJ

B *

E oX *—. wo oo

NO

NO

CJ -j,

? r-

NO

NO

3

WO

CO r^

WO

P.

WO

N O o r~ o

© rs

OO p .

CJ wo

CO ro

NO wo

CJ

NO

|

.

.

;'i

oo

C S p. ro

NO O

CS

CO

W O

N O

V , oo

N O o

C j

NO

mm

CS p * oo od o

TT

'•a

on

Tt oo

O rs

|

m rs

O N wo p .

CJ

NO

a

CJ

TT

T

'NO

Tt

O

P*" ro

<^i od

O

CJ p. oi wo

TT

O

«fi

oi r-

-r o

;

-T r--l

NO rO

NO o

^o

o

Vi

T

ON

N O m

m

V. m r~

NO

WO

N O o

CJ

CO

CJ

NO wo o p* v.

V i on

O

P* r j nr rj o co

NO

NO

N O o"

NO wo o o rs

V

< >

m

P^

mm

CJ

H

CJ c o o

O h ed ^

5

c w rr p. r^

O

E

"Sb

TT

PT

WO

CO c-i

NO

CO

CS

O N

P-

CJ

3

Os

NO

NO

CO o

CJ

2 3 —

E

CJ •-

_

WO

m-

CJ w-i

NO

O

O

NO ro

CO

NO ro wo

SO

00 p. p .

3

O rs

O N

P

OO

O

CS

CO

O

CO o

CS r^

CS

CJ

O

NO o

O N

O N

;

O p. p.

oi-

O N

CC

TT

CO rm

CO wo

mm

NO

Pco

NO

O N

NO p.

•CT

NO

TT

CO

O N

O w-i

NO o ro

O

O N

CO

TT r-j

O

•fi

rs

O

SD on oo

V,

•d h ed

LO

CJ

-

OS

30

J

•o h

Cd

•o c

*m

a rs

S " E ro r-i o

2 3 —

rs

CO

JO

/5

CO rs

NO

CO o

NO o rs ro ro od

O

CS wo r^

NO n

CS

O N oi

O rs

, — i oi rs r~ o

CS

CO NO

CS CS

CO

ON rs

TT

TT

CS

CS r~

CS

—m

TT'

CS

NO

CS wo ro

O

WO

N O sd o

TT

N O

CO

SO

NO wo

NO

O N

WO

N O NO o p.

NO rs

© o

cr

CJ O rs on

^r fN

OJ

TT

CO d ro wo

ON

N O o

O

O-

CJ rs rs

\0

TT

OC

Sj"

B tl

§ d u

z

CJ * •

CL

n

—"

rs ro

• *

LO sO r~

30 OS

S z

<

3

JO

2

cn m

•fi

on on

N £

+

>

E ea

B

J

CC

s

CD

2

F-10

Cj

B

O

CJ

L.

ea

«D CD i ^

TT NO a

L

^ eo <

NO WO

_

p . ro wo NO wo ro T

CJ

I/I

-T

CJ

CJ

OC cj

CC

CJ

CJ wro

-T

CJ

o <c 3 —

Q

E w

x : o

o o

E oa >—L

* * • — •

a 'Z -25

CD "^ r-' r-i

WO pi

CL £

0 0 ic, p .

so

Oi

IV",

TT so id pi

P" sO

T

ro

CJ r*l

9

-rr cj

P c

TT c

P-

NO

T T

CJ

NO —

Tj or o

ON

mm.

&

T

ro

CJ prr— r^

_

__

N O w-. p. ro

pi p-i wr^

CJ

I^I pi

CO rr

P-

CO

TT

Oi

TT

d

w-

—-

sC

•C

N O t> r-

CJ c o

CJ

a

i- ea

H e

O CO

~S TT rs rs w-,

-T

NO oi

WO

CJ

O ro

CJ

Q

E

E

E

P-

E " & _ -

•o ro p .

u -c 55 '

ON

<D -^ > NO

C L

£

fifi

_ p

Pi co

O r^

L .

ea

«J c

*. ro CS

0

rs o

CJ

CL o u

S - E e

w-i ro

0 0 -= sj ro CO

NJ

CS

2 3 - '

CS

E o

CJ

NO

CJ

CO

O-

CJ

E

CO rs

E

SJ-J u -s 55

J

ro

c

h — I

P"

O N

WO

NO

C L

?

OO o p .

NC

<

ml

H

OS

*N OO ON

O —

8 " E c

0 ro

p

T T

5 'E "Sb f

S CS

CJ

it 3 —

03 i- ed

U

C o

OS

OS w-,

B

CJ mm

E "5,^ r

NO TT

rs

T T

~ r^ pi

OO

CJ

CO

WO

CJ

SO

CJ

CS p . pi wo

TT

<i

ro rO ro

(—

rrro

C J

N O

WO

OC rr rj

O N

Ln rs

.

ro

CJ TT pi O r~ p .

NO

C J

CJ

NO

T

OC

_

o

NO

N C

CJ

d

NO

NO

WO

SD

V,

O N

SD P*

ro

p .

CO r-i ro r^ m r-

CD rs ro

ON

P;

I T T

TT m wo r^

NO ro

WO

WO

CJ

ON

NO

P«*

TT

TT oo

CD r^j

^o rs o

CS r^

TT pi O

O N wo

SO rs

1

^-

CO

o

•mO

r-

J—

on

3 r f-

•> wo o

t cr

ro

—i co

_.

E

oi) r

J rs CS

CJ

fc

3

2 3 ~

oS Co

2

-a

B

E

ea

a.

CD *""

E M ~ "

wo

- O

•3 -5 55 £

5 P-

«J -> st

p

pi

00

"J o

p

•cf ro

CS

TT

O

CJ

CS

NO

r~

NO

WO

°!

Oi

NO

CJ

CJ

d

ro

O N rs t*

NC'

CJ rs oo m rs

WO

O N

o

CJ

d

o

CO

O N

CS

SD

,

00 rs

SD"

r*

h ed

S. i. rT r-

1 CS ro

O on

4J

H

i w-i pi

|

1 ro

1 rs

CJ

CJ

ID

E

O

CJ pi

CO

CS ro

p

CJ

CJ

WO

ON o

CJ

CS so co

CJ

-T

TT

CJ

CJ

CJ

SO o

T T

CS wo

TT

CS

CO r -

CO p. p i

CS

CJ

CO ro p .

TT

ON o rs p*

Vl

Vl

TT rs

u

C L

a

E M ^ o

p -

O

W w w ,

CS

O N

NO" ro

CS

CJ

O N pi

SO

CO

TT

SO

SO

O

P-

vr

p-

O

WO

TT

00

T T

NO pi

TT

O N

NO ro ro

O ro p.

•f

O

TT

•jfi

O N

TT rh Cd mm

-

on cD

OS

a

°-

M

< r-

CO rs

S " E o

rsi ro rs

S 3 —

J

L.

CS rs rs

P . ro

SO rs

d

CJ rj

•cr i^

-s

o o

NO

CS

oi

rs

TT' wo

CS

N C o wo

CS

CS

SO

CJ

TT wo

TT' wo

CJ pi

WO

CJ

WO

•CT cc ro

CJ

O

NO

TT

To

C

Cd

7

>

oo

o

pS p.

• —

d

rs

NO rm

T T rs m

VI rs o rs

CO

O N

d

^s p ; p i

JO

O N

d

wo

P; pi lO oo id

WO

P|

WO oo r~ pi r-~

CJ

•T-

TT pi rs

d d

m

V ,

N O o

q

B y

a

z c

C L

O

•o

»

JO O r~ K

O N cn un sO

(n in

•o

2.

JS

a

<

S

n

ss

1

>

J

E

E eq ea

CD

CD

s

2

F-ll

h ed

-

CJ r-

O

CJ

C J

cj r ^ ro

C L

h r s

wT « mm

v) mm E

O

©

C O

«2

E

"Sb

C L

O u

O

<£ 3 — rr,

C O

C O

C J

P*

C j

O i

C J ro

P. rs oi

C C

C J r O rr,

JO

C C

C J

E

E

o

E

E O X mm

•5 •»: 55

CJ - j , w-i

C O

O. rs

C J

C O

C C

00

C J

C O

C O o

C C

CO

C C c ; r^

C J N O wo r~ w-. o

C O

C C o c j

O p .

—!

C C c j

T rc j

CO o

c

d

JO r J o oi o c j p . m

C C p » ro cd ro

C O p .

43

T T

C O

C j ctr

C C

cr

1 0

C O p J

~ r j

" r j nr

Ifl c v . f N

— o m p s

- T r j

T d

V ,

O

O

V )

T T

L. Cd

Cj c o

C L u

O

L.

Cj CJ m.

©

°- *- c

5

E

Vi mm

Ob

O O caf of ed >

N O

"> E

JO

C J rn

E

2 3 -

Q

B

E

E

©

P

s

CJ - j . w-, p

C O p . w o p i

O

C J r^ rp o

O N ' wo

00

-S r-

O O

C C p

C C

O i

CJ oi

C O

C J

__ oi

C C oo

Cj

E

O

CJ

C L

O u

L. Cd

CJ CJ

re

W O

D.

h rs

S " E ed

3

N O

5 'E "Sb

«i 3 —

W O o

N O p ro

P*

C J

•o w o o>

N O o p .

C J

Q

E

E

©

E

P

£

. .2? ox wo

0 0 rs

CL

?

N O

P

W O ro oo o

Cr

W O

C J

C O p .

C S

T T r~

C J

N O ro od

<

3

OS

<

o o p co

Z

3

OS

H

3

3

3

3 ft.

>

00

<

2

3 h e« _

m* a

r S

VI

Cj a "

E

W O r os

5 'E "Sb

C C rs

03

2 3 c o

OS

T T

W O p i w-i

C J wo

T T N O p r~ rs

C S

Pi

O N

C J o r-

N O

C J

E

CJ * *

E - E

E r.r.

.—. p od

W O W O

O O pi ro od

N O o oi

T T

C O tn

CJ

* « j * w cy rr

CL wo

•- £*

H

OS

03

,2

B

2

3 ~ E

CJ

B

• a

CJ *m

E

Cd

L. oo

N O

Cf

J O ft.

00

C O

T T

O ro

C S

O N o

O N

N O rcs

O N

C J r~

T T

T T od

C J

C O

C J

P od

T T

T T

•cf

O O

C J

P -

S O

C O

:i c j c j

C O

C J

V ,

O C m r j fi

V , r j

N O rs rn

O

N O

C C

V ,

V ,

O t*l

O

V l fi

•~0 r~~

O N r O

S D w-, p. rs r j

C O

V l t r j

T t r*i rr

O

wn

V ,

O N rs

O N r O

O O

C O r n

O

O C

V ,

T f

V , rs

P» r-

O

O

ro

O C

V , d r^

C J v i

O

3

S D o sn V ,

r-i

O rs

O r n

C J

- T

O C r -

T T

- T

N O d •Ci

"T

S D r--

_ rs

O N r~ r j c w o s O

O c j

N O

T T

C O

^ T

O C wo

N C rs

P*

N O

_ rs m

O o>

O 0

O

O

N O

T T

W O

C O o

C O oc

O N '

.w

VI ii

H

CD

E

O

N O

N O w-i

O O

C S

O N

C J

O 0

N O

N O

C S oo ro od

O i p . r o

C O

oc-

C S C J

O

O

P T

C J

C O

— 1

3 o

C O w o C C

C O oi r~

C J

©

S O

C O

C J

T T rs

N O r~ rs

O

CJ ro

C C

C J rs r-

O N r O

T T r O

N C

— r-

S D rs

T t rs

C ^

O N rs

CJ

B

C L

O

L. a

CJ <g

E ex -—•

&

•r. -r

N O

M

li

-N,

CL

JS

00

O N

C O

C O

C S

C S

C O

O N p»

N O od

W O od ro

C J

C O

C C ro

— wo

oi

C O

C S p .

C O

C J

T T

C O ro

J 0

C C o m d ro

T T c-i

T T

COrs

O N '

VI ii

H

OS

03

U h « _ .

O

C L

L.

W O p .

C O

» " P

w-i

C O

CC, Trcs

™ 'E ob r^ r~

C J

T T r~ rs r~

C S r o o pi oo o

C J pi

O O

C S

T T

C S

P"

C J so

T T

O N

C S

• a

L.

Cd

2 s —

• a c

Cd co

P

S

1 ~ a

o

T T

C J tjj ^ ^ od

CL

It

o

N O wo od ro od

W O p od

•CT

W O ro pi

T T

O O

O N

W O

TT' w o rs ro

T T

C S

N O

W O

C S

© p. r^ p.

T T

C O r^ rs

O N oo

o-

T T C O

C J

—! r~ T T r j oo

N O

O N od rpC

_

C C

C O r~ ro p. ro o>' rs cr, ro m

^D d

•cr

P-

C J

Pi rm r-' m

O N '

B

CD

£ d

CL

00

— rs ro

T T uo

N O

Poo

Be

© cn on

N O

•fi

Z

<

3

2

>

i

6

Ln

u c o

+

E ea

Cf

1>

2

F-12

T

CJ r-

O

m. Cd cj

CJ

r j

u cr p.

C L

C

L.

a

a - E

.ei

ro

3 —

CS

C O pi

CC ro p . d so ro

CC OO o o

JO

O c j

3

W O rr, in rO oi

-r rr, r^

C C

O

O o

-T

Oi pi

c

ro ro

CC

O rro pi in ro ic,

N O r ^ m

-T

C C o c -

«o m oo rn

O N

TT rn

C O rn

B

CO

o o co rO ro

C J

C O

•o

© p.

-

o

CJ

CO o o

JO o o

C C r*

C J o C J o

C O

C C

O

T T

-T o

C O

0> ro o

-T o roo

L. Cd

CJ c

CJ

cj cjso

C L L.

re c j o

CL u

L.

.- ec

<

£

E

"Sb a -

E pi ro

S 3 —

T T

T

P«i

T T cr, a

E

E

E

CO

CJ

CO e

W O

O wo

TT rs

N O

P*

CO

CO

JO ro oi

T T ro

SO

CJ o o

T T

N O

N O

O

O

CS

CS

Q

E

E

C O

W O

C J r-

CJ c o

CJ

On o u

L-

ea _

4i *> iTT co

CJ

•O

a. i- 5* a -

,2 "E

E

"Sb

©'

SO ro

<t-

3 —

P* w-i ro

CO

CO

3 oc ro

CO p

O N

%f

ro o ro

E

C O

E u —,

O N

•— •-• OX o

Cj ^ w

CL

\t

CO o

3 CJ

CC

OS

c-i

©'

Os o

< u.

o

CJ

H

QS

03

CJ

TD

E

3

O h Cd

CJ CJ C T

-

O N

0> fa < p»

N O

« " P on ro

Z .-J —

E

CD * *

E " =

E OX) ^ oo

<-> <D < J 7

— o

W-,

N O

N O TT rsj c*

CO

TT" w-.

C O co ro oo ro

C S

C O

N O o

T T

CO

CS

O

T T oo

O

T T

CJ os

C/3 z co

H

H

3

CJ

H

3 os

3 ft.

U.

>•

03

U u ea

*•* cV r s

VI

a. i-

y

a -

E

O N ea >

5 '5 "Sb

N O ro

2 5 *-'

CO

2

3

3 o

•a

E

Cd

L.

O O

E

Cj * -

C O

E

•*•

E OX mm

C C

CO

CJ - j . ft.

CL

> cn

TT

C O rr

C O

C O ro

P *

O N oo

O

N O ro

O ro

T T oi

CO c-i

T T

TT

C O ro

O o wo so

CD

CO

T T

CD

O--

•a

C C

©'

-•a

T T ro c j o

V ,

SD

Oi

N O

G-

m rn ro

T T r»

O o

N O r^

CD o

O N

NO

TT

P*

V V rs rs

CJ cr.

CJ

NO rO

C O o

CC

O N

O p

C j '

V l

T T rn

V l r-

CD

C O rn

JO

O

— rO ro o

O O

O N v.

N O

C-J

O

CT r-

T T o r* r O pi o m in

T T

V ,

O J rn

N O o

N O

T T

O rO

=

-T

C C o

CO r j

-T pi

O N

O N

C O

SD rs

C O

Cr-

NC, r O

O N p . in r-j o

T T m or rn

TT rs

V l

C O rn m

Cr

O

C O

T

O

CO

TT

TT'

V", T T

P» o

=

VI

CJ h

CJ

B o

CJ

CL o u

m H mm

CJ CJ C-N O

°-

U W O

<

Cd *"* ~--

SO

3 c oc, a "

E

2 3 —

W O

C O

W O ro

E

CJ •_.

E * rs)

C O

O

« « 55 o

Q

CO w o p o p rs p. wo

W O w-i ro ro

T T wo

C O

CD wo ro

O

T T ro

C O

TT

T T ro in p. o wo

CD

NO

C O p.

CO p. wo

O oi wo ro

T T wo ro

C S o

O-;

V ) c-i m rr

;

OO rs rs

P*m

T T

C S

O

O o

O N

N D

O oo

C O wo

O

O

C O O O

C J

, |

•O

O N o ©'

TT ro

O ro

TT rs

O v» m

L.

ed .

Vi

Cj f-

a.

a

L

"

CJ

CO ^

W O a —•

E C O

03

U

2 3 —

• a

CJ CJ

J O C O

1-

E

Cj mm cd wo

E -=

TO

C

Cd

B OX -—o

— .— ox io

cn

ro p. r^

Os

T T

O O

O wo r^

C O wo ro

CS

TT ro

O

TT

ON"

TT

C O o ro

W O

00 o wo rsj ro

CO

T T ro ro ro wo

C O r^

O N

O N C O

W O

W O ro

C O

— ro wo

T T

CO wo

N O ro o CD

CC o oi

TT ro r^ od oo

W O

C O

T T

C O o p ro r~ wo

C O rs o" © '

TT

N O

O ro

N O

O

T T

O

O m

o

rs rn

O

Vl

ON

ON' rn

— r~m m

E

CJ

1 d

CJ *m

CL

J0 rs

• o

•» w0 sO r~

00 ON

O cn cn

NO

<

Z

<

3

m^

V

6

>

c/i

CJ i

+

E ea

CD

E eq

CD

*

tt

F-13

L. Cd

CJ c c

u

C L

<-

<

S 3

E

— rn

ro

•JO

C I

N O

Cu

O i_

VI mm

,2 'E

• — •

V l

"Si

'JO

SC,

J O

W O

Q

E

E

E

P * o o

CJ ^

CO

s

o

O

o-

V ,

T T

V , p.

N O

P"

TT'

T T - T

c-

oc

T t

V ,

r-i

S ^

a-

mO

«d

-G

V ,

rn

-o p*

V ,

fi

V l

V , V , V , rs p* p* p*

CO'

T t

V , s O

V ,

•fi

P* oc rn hfi r -

Tt T T

T t r O

— ] c j p.

— o

o

C J

_

O

- T oo w-, V I ro

CO o

CJ co

O

P-

T T rs oo

T t

P>

mm eq

Cj

E

O

CJ

C L

L.

o

T-« J?

S 3

*•*

E

E

©

UO

Cj CJ rs

C L L.

CJd • -

<

E

OO vi

« j - ,

C J

C O

—'

W-, w-i

N O

W O

B

P

s

_B OX

CJ - j ,

DX rn

r-

T

-r r^

T T

C C r~

T T

CO

T T

C O

V l vi

V i

V I V l

V , p*

-T r-~

T T T T

CJ c o

CJ

C L

O

L. Od

C L L.

< a -

E o rs

Tf'

V l

W-,

W O ro

CS

CS wo

1 =

T T

O O

V l

V l

Q

O O

V ,

V l

E

uo

CS p

s O

O N

3

V I

OX

P*

TT

P*

TT

T f r»

T t

CJ - > rn r-

• t f

rs r-

P*.

ro

N O

V l

mTi

CD

o

ro r-

I — , oo

TT wo

N O

V l

V i p*

CJ

O

o

_

T T

O

CS oo r^ r-

T T T t T t rs

0s W O

O N r^ roo ON

^

V i oo

1

m m

—|

W O r-

V I rs r-

TT

N O o o

O N ro

N O

,

oo

~

TT T t

VI

CJ

H

CC

CO

U

<

3

wo

OS

uo

• o

E

=1

O

a:

L. Cd

&

CJ CJ rs

Cd ca *""

<

E r*

oo C O rn

V I ro wo

• — •

c

•8

.*.

3

T t

V l m

V I

B

Cj * T

O N

"ox N O

T t

ON

NO

TT'

C O

S D

T t

O O oo rn rs

rs

V l rs

V l

SD

SD

T t

N O

T t T t

<

H

3 z

3 ft.

3

CO cj

< c2

> o

<

2 ft.

cn

CD

a:

CO

L_ Cd

CJ CJ rs"

CL L.

<

E

O N

V I

o

3 E

V l

[Sb

U

2 3

E

2

u

CJ ^

_E ox

ox

CJ 'Z

> O j

a.

a >

ON

V i

T t

P-

N D

W O

T t

OO

r-

V .

V l

NO

P"

V I

T T

N O

V ,

N O

P-

T T

V l

C O

T t

V i rs r-

T t

C O rs rn

V l

N O

T T

o'

C D

O

V l

C J

T t

T t

W O c*n r-

N O

T T

CS

o

o

CO

N O

-T

N O

_

TT

T T rs p*

T T

V i p.

p

rs

C O wo oo

O

T t

NO od wo V l rs p. o ro wo

T T o

o

mO

T t

O O

T T T t

L. Od tM

<n

CD f~

( J * cd CO

CD

Cj rs

C L L.

V, «

<

2 3

3

rs

V I

E

T T

V l

E

CS wo

T T wo o rs

TT

V I

O O

— i o rs

V l wn

T t

V l

O

U c a.

CJ ^

o

.§ .25

cj

" C J ox

T t

CJ - j ,

C L

•$•

C O

._

O

r~

Tf r-

T t m O

P*

r-

T T T t

V )

V I

V l

T t r-

T t

C O

V l

C O

V l

V i

T t

V l

V l

V i

V l rs oo

SD

V l

V i

V l

V l

C S

C C

o

ro wo

CD

O N

P"

ro

V I

NO wo vn m r-

TT

V l r-

T t r-

TT'

TT

00 r-

T t m r-

TT ro

O

O ro

W 0

o

O N

N O

T T r-r^

TT

L. Od en cD

H os

03

C L L.

<

OO

V l v?

E

2*

CJ

2 3

V l

-o

Cd u

• a

e

CJ ^ m

t>

E

Cd

E ox

cj

' C J oc

CJ - j ,

T t

CS oo

NO

W O

C O p"

•cf

CO

C L

•?

V )

O O rs

V l

V l C O

Tt' vn

T t

V l

T t

V l rs r-

„ rs r^ r-

Tt

Tt" T t

C O

V l

V l

V l

V l

V l

V I

C O

NO

T t

C O

T T

Tt'

V l

00

V l r-

V i m r-

TT r--

TT

T t rs m r-

T t

CO

TT

o

C O

T T rrvi

V I

TT ro

N O

C O

— o

V l r-

T t

NO

W O

OO

ON ro

r*^

wo wn

T T

O

CD

NO

OO

o

O O

N O

rs

O O

•cf

TT"

00

B

CJ

.1

6

8

cn

C L

rs

rn

T t

IT)

NO

r-

OO

ON

© cn

VI

W 0

<

.

6

->

CO

>

SO

B ed

CJ

2 un

NO

+

B

«

CD

2

F-14

— c> cj CJ r r r— vi

•°, a * e od

N O

O

•o

V

CO r J ic

U n « B o

"

E

"Sb

«t m m

3 — rn rn rn r r a

E E pcc r*

1/"

JO

a

~r

1/" ro r*

1 rr

V w-

r-m

'

J

rr

V, rr m

E E -E rn r*

OO TT rn

-o E OX -—-

= u -z 55 iri v i

'• o rn c V , o

=> u -r

CJ

o-

V,

o d rO

P-

CO

-

C L

£ o

-r oo o

m^

p. o

O

V o>

R

CJ CJ CJ

c

IT

°- « ?

( o . " -

_J t/1 * E rs

S D

-n vn

ON

rS

— vO

Tt

' N v-i SD

T t r r

J m

*n m

C L

O

g = 5 5

2

3

U

^3 E -E

I

V ,

»

N O rr rs r-i

-D

— -D CD o rr p«

OC

TT

•o m r-~

NO r* m

P.

oe

o

OC

T T

Vl o* s-r

O p* o-

SD

-

C L

> u ed u

St i.

i £ E "Sb ct oo

t

™ •

•n —

°j

a "

E

• n r^

N NO o

•n m «• m c

-

3 -

E

! E OX — .

S s

p* o-

L. s

C L

>

CO

Os

V , ro

r i

TT

V ,

OO

SD

O N r j

CON m in

O wo

CJ. o> o

V , oo p*.

O

TT

O crrs

L. Cd

m-m

St £ rs «

-. rs o o

<

" H B T

m VI mm C *

0

"

'P t h •

r

wo rs

Tt m

< S

c

*-.

E OX r

Q.

3 S -

J S -c 55 -

3

m.

1

Q C VS

Hit cn

-

- o -

- Tt -

- O

p. Tt

• d c o fa r, .

J i t ?

•j -n

5

c

p*

•> so

3 VI c o ro r ro s

Cl w tj «

a "

E

*

O N

NO rn rs ro

NO oc

V i

V ,

Vl rn rn w~,

O o

«n m o

CS

NO

OO ro o rs

Tt

O

TT m' oo rs rn

P* oo rn a ^ C

! E

«

T

< C E

2 2 £

E •£,

oo

3 m

-

>

.

—. o

.=

.SP

•a «

-

2*

CJ CJ Clo c i

CJ

-». _.

Q.

?

U Cd

CO

St t & °

CS

OO cr h a _ E r-

- O

5 E "Sb ?

TJ

v

i m f

TT

TT ro

^ 3 — c

(OS NO

< > oo ro

— i

TT ro ro ro

O N

O oo

TT ro o

u

B

• E o

L.

-S <o

.5

M r-J (N

CJ CJ 5 5 c

O N OC

TT

•cT

——

O

— o

Q

CO

CO

O

— m

NO o

C O

W O

C O

N O o

NO

©

O N rr, r~

NO

TT

O N

Ppn o o

CS

TT ro rn o o

V, o rn rs rn r-i

N O o oi wo

TT rs

O N rrv o

O rn

TT

NO

V l

ON

~ h Cd - ^

CO

H

w

p 2

P- Tt

Tt rr

•cf

S O

V I rr

WO

OS

CQ ea ""• **n.

vi

Tt V^ WO

C

| = ^ r o v l •

J ro

CJ ro wo

J

SO

-o rs

NO ro ro

W O ro rs uo ro

CS

N

O

TT ro

CJ

O N p.

CO co

ON

LO

TT o

TT

P>

ON

-o ro

TT ro

CC

•o

E o

ON o

TT rs ON

VI rs

-s m m

NO m

•o

CO

B

- E

r-

E OX r-o Pm r^un r^

TT

OO

U CJ C S o o

CJ j .

_

JO JO

-0

—. ra.

£

CO

TT r»

^

•o

-o ro

D o

ON

N ro

TT

^>

O o

-s o

O rs rs

TT

-s o

<o

o

B

CJ

•Si = -

<3J * a. rs rn

•f

o

"•

JO

i^

n o

2 cn

SS

2

<

1

>

J

(

E ca u i

+

E ea u c>

1

F-15

C J

E

CL

O h

Q

L- 03

CJ CJ

ro

rn SD

o a t "

•"

v °» _

«Cf o

vi mm

E

3 E ex

— •

t>

r j rn

V J

C C m

•£ 3 —'

E

E

o

CO

c

O

E OC — »

'T.

T

c>

CJ - j ,

pn o o o

£ p»

o

P-

T

V ,

T T

pn

C* pn

oa

T

:

-o

Q" m m m r

J

T

V , r j

pn

C C

c-

O

T m

pn

V ,

O

o

V ,

m

o

o

n

O iO p*

pn

-t

V ,

T m r-

T

O

—, r-1 r-~

pn

T m m m oc

rs

m

—:

TT

" T

rt>

O

m

T t

V I

m pn

V ,

m

2 d p*

PN ci

o

r J

-rr

O m

T m

oo

O" o

CJ

c o

u OS

u

** rs

p *

O rn

CL L- V*

rn

o

e d ^

"> E

3i E OC

V , rn

S 3 —

(N

T T r j

CC

_ M oc

O C

T

pn

*T

*C m

-C m a

E

E e

2

E

CO

uo r-

•o

T T

E ox -—o

T". *— OX

CL ?• oo

SD

O r-i

tN

<*r,

N O

o

— r .

V ,

T T

V , rn r - j

o

O C

C C

C O

• o

N O

rn

r-J r p rn r* rn

,

oo m o

O

C O

rs

O N

rs

O

rs m

CJ

E

L.

ea

a > ^ p*

O

CJ

C L

ea ^

rn

M

£ " E

TT rn

S 3 ~

o

Q

E

E

1 fl

SD

T T

E a

UO

rs

E OC • —

.—

CL •%

o

— OC

C0

C O

O N

r^ m r-' m rs m

m

— p*

V i

ON"

V , m

V l

O N

V . rn m

Vl

V . co-

O

O N

o

T T

rs

O

O N

O O

V l rn rn

O N

rs p *

V")

V l

SD rn

—.

T t

o

rn

T t

N O

rn

rr rs

o

rn

Vl

o

V I

V , rn

ON'

ii

H oi oa t- ed ^ _

C J C J - .

SD

a

L

"

OS

T p *

•" ™ E

— E

T T rn

2 3 —

O O

O N

V I p» m rn

rs

SD

pn

0

m m

V l

T T rn

SD

TT

pn m

N O p *

oo

C O

N O

TT m

V l

O O

T T

rs

rn o

CD

o n m

NO"

r^ m c

* u

c

B

1

s

2 o

<

o

£

CO

<

2

>

3

O

1

•%

SD

3

Oi

-o

• a

<

H

'vi

E

Cj

2

3

>

o

3

co

B w )

Cj

-a

•—.

> cn

i— ed

CJ

C J

c->

£ o o

H

CJ oa a Z

E rn

— ro ox rs m

2 3 — u

E

E

L.

C Q

O H

O

oo

CJ CJ

E

C O

ox ^-^

ON'

SD

T T

oo

P*.

SD

T T oo

TT rn rn

V I

CD

T T m

O rs

rs

•mD

o o o

N O

C O

o o

V ,

O

O N

rs

SD v

(

SD

Vl

m

O rn m

rn o

cn

h . ed _

•u

CJ

rj-

P^ c*o

C J

H

C J

B o

CJ

CL

O

a

L "

TT a -

E

SD

m

£ ^ —

E

C J

* ;

o m

V l

',

h

E cut) -—••

•3 -z 55

rrs oo

Prn

Q

St£

CO

TT

V l

T T m

rs

T T rn

o

ON

O

rn

rs vn r".

m o rs

V l m

rs

V i

N O

rs

rn r-

O

O

— *~ rn p*

o m

O C

T T

V l

CD

T T r> T T m

rn

T t

TT rn

S D

C O

T T

m

N O

o

T T

CD

V l

CD p*.

O N

rs

V i

rs rs

T T

m

r~~

V l

m

T T

C O

ON

CD

= m rsi

N O

N O

V l

rn rn

o

m

O

o

O N

TT

CD

"" ~ —

rs

T t

CD

to oo o

T t

CD

CD

" •

V l

N O

oo

T T

f>

N O

T t p**

V .

rn o p» rj

r s i

rn

O N

rn

NO

m rs

p * rn

v> rn o

T T

ob m m r*

m

rs

O N

m*

O

rs

•*n

Wl

Cj

H

OS

CO

CJ

•a

L-

03

TO

C

03

CO

B rn rn m rn m

V l

O N

V I

m m

O N

o rrs m

O

rs

P"

OC

ON

o

_J

C O

T t

m

SD

m

T T

m

p ^

O

V i

V I m p* oc m

O O

_

SD

m

rn

T T

m

N O

ON

r-~

ON

ON

CO

m

ON

T t

m

NO

rs

CO

rs rs vi

r>

CN

oo

O N

O

oo rn

NO

o

TT

rs

CD

r-

O N

rn

T T

CD

m

O

• o

CD

V l

C O

O m

T T q

CD

oo oo r-

SO

o

N O

V l o

rs

V I

O N v>

rs

V I

O N !

E

V

Im 6

CL

rs rn

^t

w-,

NO

r-

CC C N

O

<

(>5

CO

V )

NO

tf)

m

NO

S5

>

•J

• +

E

B

<73

2

es

CJ

2

F-16

L. CC

CJ

E

O oo wo

o

T

O wo

Cr

Cr

C J p

ro

N O

o

C S

T3r^ c j

T c j wo

ro

Cr

CJ

o ro

ro

T ic.

O

ro o

Cr

O

ro

p. or

O-

- T

O

V i

C L

£

Q

B

E

E

o c

ex .—.

"C -c 55

CJ s .

O

O^

C J

CL

£

CO

O c j

P*

T

o

:

OC

C J

o

C J c j

C C o

C j

C J C C r>

C J cc c j

O c j

W O

C C rs p* cc c j oc

C C

C J

- T

O

C O rsi r~i

C

wo

o r-^

O v-,

V , oc r j

N O

P

C S

CJ

E

O

3

C L

O

U

3

I- Cd

U CJ N

o

CL h JM

C C a 2

E in

o-

11 S

E

E

E

o

E ^

(OJ

•C -z 55

O -

C S

CJ ->.

U O

C L

> cn

p.

rr ro

rr. oc wo

o

ro

Cr

N C

O

N O ro

o-

oc cs C J

O c j

<;

T T

c-

p.

C C

C J

u

ed

Cj

E

O

CJ

C L

-• 5" oo

N O

O N ea *• p.

O O

*> E

- T

O N

« E "Sb

o-

O O O

Q .

O

a

2 3 —

B

E

E

B OX -—.

W O

O N

z -z 55

C S

o

CJ -».

wo

CO

C S

O oc

W O

O N

- T

— w".

c-

p.

C O

C S

T T

r^

C S

C S

O N

C J

o

O

C J oc

C O ic,

o

c j r— f>

rn

N O q q

m

N O

.?•

O N

o o

c j

ro ro o

V l W O

C O p

rs

C S d

so

r O p.

N O

- T

O

C J

V l

O N

C O rs

m >

C O

S O

r^ od

Os

C C

C C

C J

C C

o o

_ rn

C O

T T r rs rsj

p

ro

>- ed _

Vi

ftL "

o

OS *

TT W O

CJ r-

a.

«cc 3 —

oa

•" E

£ E "Sb ro

O N

Oi oo

T T

T T

O

O N

T T

-Of

O -

T T

o

E

<

3

E

o

Oi

B - E

B ox

J-^

T T

O N u "S 55 CS

W O

C O

O i

Of

CO

<

H

3

h OS mm

>

. J

CJ

cw rr-

<

C j oo

T T

3

3 p-

< mt.

C d

E h cd c N O f*"

cc

ft.

CO

CO

3

o u

ft. os oa

£ 'E "Sb O N

2 3 —

-o

W O O

O N

W O

O N

CS C S

> N

CL h JC

O N

O O

rs

C S

o

O C

W O

O

C S

C O

O O

C S

T T

W O

O N

C S O

Cr

O N

C S ft.

00

C C

C C

C J

T T w-i

o

O o>

C S

W O r~ p.

T

O

o

rn

C O p>

C S wo

O

O N

O N

O O

C J

-o

o o

— rn m

C O

• rs!

TT p

C S

ro so

<i-,

O

C J

V , p.

ro

rs O r j

T T

T T

O

O N

r--

N O

O N

Os c^i

C J V , q

o ro

C O W O oc p r g

C S

VI

CJ

r-

Cj

C

U 03 _

CJ CJ

rj-

O N

C L

<- V* c/l * E

J E "Sb O N

2 3 —

o

CJ

C

O

B

CJ

*-;

E OX mm O O

"B •?; ec

O O

CJ CJ ^ ~

CJ - j ,

C S

CL

"J

CO

T T

o

IJ~I

wo

O N

O N

O O ro

O C ro

O N

o

O N

CS

rs

N O

O N

C C

rs"

C S

&

T T

T T

O

T T

C O

T T

cr-

wo

O

T T

T

O

-T

P*

C-

T

C>

O C

C C

C S

O

cc

C J o p.

ro

Cr

C S C J

C C

O C

C J

T T

W O

C C

o

W O

O N O N o p

rs

O

O N

C S

0>

o

V , q

T p .

rn" o

N O

O N r O q d

T T

O

V l

C C

W O rs

P

rs'

hi It mm cr

Q.

h ?

«J r-

IT "

m-

a -

E p.

X

oa

U

-o

— E "Sb

O N

2 3 —

B h cd

CJ T -

NO

• o

O N

E

C d io

CJ CJ

CS o. r>

CO

T T

W O

O N

o p

C S ro

T T

T T

O

N O

O N in

O N wo

O

T T

C O p.

T T C C wo

T T p .

Crcr

Oi ro

ro

N O

O N

N O

CT

W O

O N

o

O

T T

O

T T

O

C O

rs

r^

O N

C O

O N

C S

o

O N

O

O N p.

C O

CS

c~i

C S

O N

C S

C T

C C

C S

o

ro

cr

0;

C S CNI

C S

p

(OI ro

O

o

CD

r-

C O

N O p rs

rs

E

CJ

.H 6

C L

CO

-

rs ro

T

W 0

•c

p"

oc

Cs

o

^

VI

~r,

N O

<r>

S O

.

Z

<

3

2

6

> 1

+

E

E

03 re

CJ

C J

2

2

F-17

tl

CL

O u

3

u -

CJ CJ r j

C L

•—

<f>

*

<

E

in cr.

o

CJ

tf> * -

.2 "E

«£ 3 m ro

^0

~—" c j o c j

42

ro o

rs

c j ro ro

ro r^

m

C J c l O

~c

N C

SO

N O

DC

cr

m

ro o

-r

-T

43

c j

C C

43

4.

ro o m o r O

-0

T f

C C

C C m

—1

— —

oc

d

S O p

r~

N O o o

B

E

E

£

1

"o X

U

OS

p

T c-

o

"T

N C p

-T

o

CO

W O m

C C

0

— q

wo p.

C C

T

CO in p.

q

W O

cr

CO

Cr

T

CO tn

•Ci

CO

CO wo

o

— o

Tit

O N

O

W O

c

E

0

O h

3

E

v- ea

CJ CJ

rT

C L i-

tf>

<

11

£ ro

T

o

**, o

-r

Cr

W O

T

C O

JO

B

E ^

E

B cx

X X

CL £ c*n

C C q

N C ,

C C

T

C C

T T o o

JO

•o

C O

TT

o o

wo

Cj

E

o

CL

O h

L .

ea

C L i-

cT

« «a

<

E

ca *""

(M

^,

^ 3

N O

1 q

N O

O

T T

C S

N O

— q o

•JO

T T

SO

N O r o

•JO

-o N O

N O

wo rs

B

1

£

-O

X X ox q

W O

P

T T

sO

C O o

W-, o

wo ps

O

m i — c j

P"

c j

C J

O

— ro C J

roc

N O

N O sC

ijT, pi

^

wo

ON

TT

o

O C

— o o

CS rrr

~

V ,

C C

T T

N C

W O

v~.

p. wo

o

mm

O

N O

N O

m rs od

sC N O

-T

W O

O w-,

O

d w-i

O

N O

O N

rn

T T

m u ea

VI

CJ

H

OS

V rs

CL u

2 "

«— E

<

E

oo

p

pi

N O

^ 3

£fc

CO

T T

p.

_

N O

C O

N O

p. w-,

q

C S

ro

W O

so

N O

CJ

•o

E

<

13

O

Ch os

<

3

£

Cj T

-

ex

C S

W O

CS

p

T T

O N

O N

T T

O N

•cr

T T

T o

wo

z

3

OS

3 ft.

CO

>

<

3

m-

P

o

• 3

E cd

Cj * ^

E ox

2 ft.

V, ii

h os oa

CJ

L.

J o

U Cd

CJ CJ

C L L.

JCT

m 2

« "E

2 3

B

'u

"CJ

<

E

p.

3

•O

£k r O

O N

s

3

C/j) rp.

oi

wo ro r^ O rs

N O

N O N O

-T

O

T T

N O

p.

C O

T T

SO

N O p o

T T

w o

o

O

W-,

O

-T

N O

wo

so

mm

so

C S m

p*

o< oo

T T

O O

i»n

N O

~

O

O

W-,

O O o o

.^

SD

r>

T T

O C

T V l

N O

O C

C J

N O

O O

wo ro

TT

-T

O

CS

O C

V l

T t r>

N O

N O

SO

cr

T3T p. TT

o

V ,

-T

C O

T t o

O O

C D

V

CJ

H

L .

ca

O

T T

CL •-

c/1 "

ea

<

E o

T T

^TJ ca 'z

5^

c j

E

O

u

B

O.

O

.§ .£f

O tj o p

wo

CL £

C/j*

O r^

TT

N O cn

p.

o o

ro

C S

N O

N O

ro p^

C J

N O

r^ ro

N O r~ o ro T T

3

C J

SO

-T

W O

O

— •

SO ro

N O

W O

ro w o

—; p

N O

T

S O

CO

rsi

T t

O N

C O

NJD

T t

SD

CS

o

W O

r-

p

T T

T T p

TT

mO

p

T T

ON

ON

T T

,—

W O o

wo

ON

T T

O J

O N

T T

r^ r^

o

TT

O N

T T

C O q o s o rs

m

T

o

V l

CTJ

-J

H

OS

O

cT

wo

if) • « -

<

E o

ro

N O o

T T r^

--r

O

•CT

N O N O

CQ

*.

3 u

E

TT

3

N O

ro rcs

N O r~ o

C S

N O

TT ro

N O

N O

N O

r^ sO p.

d

N C

O

N O

mO

P.

o

N O

N O

N O

C S

N O

p.

E

S

E

E ox

55

?

•ON

s

cn

C J o

W O o p

wo

rs

SO

p

ON

T T T T

T T

O N

TT r—

o

wo

o

ON

o

ON

TT TT

T T o

Cr

S O

O N

T T

B

CJ

.§. d

Si

Z

C L

cn

r j

ro

~r

WO

L O m

ON

o p

V ,

p-

—;

—* r» vi

NO

SO

r-

S D o o

O O

—|

T t

un

O

V l

oe

»

e z

<

Q

>

CJ

3 C O

fi

\f>

N O

<f> in

N O

E ea s j

+

E ca

CJ

2

2

F-18

CJ h CS

Cj CJ c o -

zz

c

CJ r i O C o.

L.

rs

ir, °d < a -

E o r j r .

Q, c, h

— E "ox

IN

•c 3

w r 1

Q

mT

V , r i r

J r-.

CD o o m o rsi r J

C D o oc

O r

J

-r o o

C

r j

_ o

_ o

— r

J n

E

E

CD

CD

CD

»••<

E

CJ *-

E -E O

E OX "

Cj -,,

T

o

CL

,t cn

Tit oc

~r o

T

O r

J

T

N O

,

•or

-r o

r " .

O o

V i rn sd

~ o

V , at o

- T

O a

m

O r j o oc a r J

P" i*n

V , o

O

CD oc o

r j

rs oo r-J. r-j rn

T o

T o c

V , i*n

CD

P-

O m

T T vd

N O cj

3.

O u

Q -

L. ed _ o

O

«~n rn

-T

CD r j o

O

La

Q

E

E

E

1

2 m

"S i, 55 r j

CJ ->. O nn p*

CL > co

ON r j

O

O r n

S D o

N O c*c o r 4 r j o r j

O r j

N O o

P*

O r—,

'O o

CJ

C

O

CJ

C L o

1_

Q

E

1- 03

CJ CJ

ST

V , r n

r j

CL

h r*

«*.

3

P* w, ~- CC

_ .

03 ed *—

" 5 L

O

E OX

w

C D

*o

O r j

T

CD r j

T

•T

— o r j

Ci'j

CD

V ,

O r j

E

E

CD

E

S

"S o 55

- O

CJ - j .

O O

O O

-r

T T rs rs

• o

*o

V r i o

_ r o rs oc rn r j

• o

O C p* rn

SD o r j

O N r j r*.

N C

r j o

q

o

V :

— o

O N m

N O

O o

T o r j o oc

— cr

d

m o c o

r i

r-

CD

P-

CD rs r j r 4 o

CD a-

N O o rs

rn

vO

N O

<

3

» _ C d _

«o

O J a

L

"

CD

"> cd '

~T

E

O O

OS

h

QS

^ E rs

O N ca 2 3 "

CJ

-o r-

C7J o

as

OS

E

flj *

E tic -—•

O

— sO N O

CL :>

O N

C/2 o o

P*

C D

O r-i o

— rs o rs

_ o rs rs

N O

•"••

'O

N O

OS

<

3

Z

3

OS

3 a. co

CO

>

> rr >

3

O i_ ca _ s.

£ r O O

CJ

H s " s

O m

Cr; ca ca '"" >v

CD

E CJ v) ** E

U

£ 3 *-*

~o

E

O O

O rn

O N

N O

N O

CD rs o

Cs|

E

h -

B O C !•••»

Ov ov

~ o m

'O N O N O

>>

CL jC

a,

t/j"

T T

O N

O N m

*o

-r,

rrs o r j

1 — o

VO oo

SO

V l

C C

CD

O rs

V , oc o rs

T

O v .

* T

V l r-j

O" rs

D> O rs r j

VO m o o

r j

O C

T o o

N O

N O

N O

V i

ON rs

O rs rr j

T t

V l

•-0

<~n

O C rs o>

N O rn r-~ o rs

O

NO oc

O a

r-i \f.

rs

<-n O rn

— N O N O

— cr,

O J ro

L.

« cj

OJ

C T

P-

CL

»-

y

r-

% 2 B

_ cd '~* "jS o

— E OX'

.i

3 -' rs p-

T T

T-r o rs

ON

O N

O

CJ G

CJ * a. o h

3

GO v .

T t r J

NJD N O

** rr p o r-i

O

— rs c

<-N o r p

T T

O r-J rs o r-

— 1

T o r-j r n o r-j

V ! rrs

O rs

O o oc

O r j r~ — o

N O

N O rs o> sd rn

_ r p

«d

N O

O r j

N O

O C

•of r n

-0

• o

o p» rn o rs o

V ) r j o r j

O C

r-~)

T

O cr-

O N ro r-J

_ rs o oo

• o

O r-j d

oc

q

T t m

•d

N O

VI

CJ r-

QS oa

CJ

L . CC

CJ CJ

rrr

V

O C

CL h,

P* p*

a mm B

od *-" — _ rS

O rs

-z.

3 *"

O

O r-J o rs o

— rs o rs ro p*

T t

O N

ON rs

P*

T t p -

T f

O rs m o rs

N O o t o rs

V ,

O

V l

O rs

<™n o o o r j oc o rxj o rs a

; r j

^t

CD

_

V J

vn

T t coer-

N O o rs

"O

C

03

CO

O O r-J m

N O N O N O

N O

N O oo

T o rs

•o

N O

__ rs rs rs

N O N O

V , rsj oc r-J o-

N O

N O

O

O

d

T T

O ce

O o

O N rs

N O

E

CJ

.<= d

C L

C/J

rs

rn

tt

CTJ

N C foo o e

M

U",

NTD

<S)

•T,

NO

, _,

m

<

^

a

CA

> u

E

CT.

+

E ea

2

u

2

F-19

u oa

CJ

o

CL

h* p

« " P

Cl

ON

-T

wo

CJ o.

.2 = "S.

o

h

Q

Z 3 •-» wo

-r

-T c j J O

wo

c j

C O

T

C J

W O

cl so

C O

-f

CO

r-

C O

f

E

E

o o

E

E *

W-,

T

E OX

— N w-. or

'S -z 55

CJ - j , -T -T

CL

it

ro

wo

TT

-T

SO

f rO

in

Tf

cn

T rO

O

-f r— cj

O

r-i

T

O

rr, r*

ON

-f

C J

CT

w-,

-f

oo

CM

Cr

ro rN o

N O

V ,

T t q

rn

V l

-T in

T

W O

in

Tf'

O

Tf

NO Tf

w-,

NO

Tf'

T f

TT

• c

• j - ,

T f ro o

o o

m

T T

r-

N O

-T

T t

CJ

E

O

CJ

Q , o

h

L.

ed

CJ

CJ

ZJ-

C L

h V*

O

sO

- 03 a -

E

« E "a,

S 3 — oi

T

o

SO

ON

T

CJ

NO

CO

T f

Q

E

E

o r~

E

2

e

SO

"s z it.

CJ - j ,

wo

-cr

CL

?

CO

mm

c j

Cl

NO

ro wo

CO

-f

NO w-i

T-T rr.

rwo

NO

TT'

T T

ro wo

-f

rO

O

cr-

c o

T

r-

O

C O

rs

o

rr r-

o

m

V i

r-

W O

cr o r-

r-j

P*

T

p*

N O

TT

o

T t

CJ

E

O

CJ

CL

O h

h ed

CJ

CJ

STT f* oo

E L

ON

3

NO

vs

T -

E

5 'E "oi

or

CN

O N o

wo

Cl

SO oo

N O

W O

C-l

rr

W O

2 3 —

Q

E

E

E

B OC -—.

CJ

N O

z -z 3$

T f

o

U O

c^

ii -m

C0

CC

T f

T f

O

SO ro w-i

in

N O

T f

T f

ws

Cj

H as

U

°» mm

ii ii S v

O

Oa

L " o

N O

.2

ea *•

E "oi

wo

a "

E

O N

T f oa

TT

C N |

N O

N O

cr

r-' O f

W O

W O

CS

WO

E

E

CJ "g

E OC r-. co

" • •— OC

N O

W O

<

3 os

c-l

3

CJ CJ

rSJ

T t

CJ - j ,

CL

r>

W

3

OS

3

o

X

3

ts>

C J

H

ft.

O

OS

03

U

CO u ed

CJ

CJ

i T

EL h

C H

T f

C O ed *-

2 'E "£i

W O

T f

S 3 —

B

0J *-*

CO

co

<

2

E

Cd

u ro

Tf-

T f

So

T f

O O

CN| o

T f

o

W O

T}o

N O

T f

ro

ON

oi

T f

O

cr

W O

r~ wo

3 wo wo

WO

r~

WO

C O

N O

Tf Tf

T f

WO

mO

T f

C-I

NO

T f

ro

i—i

O

C C

ri

C J

in

"

r-

ON r j

V l

.—. rn o

T

OO

m

V l

"

M

i^-i

T f

r^ o

PS

V ,

o

NO

T

O N

N D

T

T t

C N |

W O o

wo

\o

ON

O

rn

— —

ON

rs r-

T

N O

rm

V l

cr

NO

wo

T f

o o o rn

O N

T

T T

O N

N O

Tt

O

N O o

T f

~

Cl

NO

V l

p*

C-J 1—1

P* m

PS ON

V ,

rr m

V l

~ ™

NO

W O

T f

CO

o o v> rrn

ON

NO

-T

Tt

mm

VI

CJ

H

Cj

CJ CJ

ST

C O

Q.

L.

^

O N o-i

03 '

O

O N

; wo

O o

3

W O

B

L. Od

r~ wo

T f

SO

_

WO r-

Tf

r<i

NO

Cl W O

rs wo

C J

W O

ro rN

CJ

CN wo ro

W O

T f

(N

3

wo

Tf

T f

3

wo

Os w-,

V l

O

.—

O O

O O rq

T t

V ,

CJ

CL

O h

B

CJ * *

a

CO t— wo ro

NO

Tf

rr ro

N O

T f

Cl

NO o

wo

T f T f

T f

W O

T f

T f

N O

T f

r-

NO NO f f

CJ

N O

T f

wo

V

o

q

o

T T

V ,

O

P*

T t

L. Cd

Vi

CJ CJ

S T

CN|

ii

H

ON

CL L.

r"

"" 2 E

CC

J E "oi o

wo

CQ

U

•a

2 3 —

E

Tf

wo

O

NO

ro wo

O

•scl-

OO

OO

NO

WO

rN wo

CS

WO

CNl

ro

C-I

NO

W O

CO

C N |

wo wo

CJ'

WO

O

W O o

W O

NO

ro

r<j

CC o

W O

m—

WO

r-

V > r*

ro

o

ON

— O

ON'

Tt o

Tt

vn ca

E ea

55

o

N O

OO

NO

TJ-'

•cr'

sO

wo

NO

NO

WO

NO

Tf'

Tf

Tf

r~

NO

Tf

s

WO

NO

Tf

Tf

O

W O

T f

O O

W O

Tf'

ro

N O

T f

Tf

O

O

ON

o

O

•O

VI o

Tt

Tt

B

W

J d

Si z

CL

CO

~ r-l ro

T »

UO NO

r~

CO

OS o

.

Vi tf) tf)

\f\

VO

\n

z

<

3

6

c/5 t

>

u

E

a

CJ

+

E

ca

2

^

mWt

F-20

rj it

r-

1/3

UJ r-

mi z

o

Q. u

Q

3

Cm, tr, n

re

mj

E

7*

3 r-«

<

E

_

T wn r-

a.

o

5 rrvi m

sTl t>-

C O r j

c

B

E

'mi

E

2 m ro r-

r-j

o

S

-T

-c

T o

CO

• *

— o r*i

<

o

I r*

TT fN m

-O

CO

Cf

r j

O r n o „

•S

1 " . q fN

CO

(N

rsj

3

CJ

Bi

tsy

oo

OS oo o'

Q

ON o

O-'

-T rn

O-

r-j

«q oo

C O

ir,

0

-r r— o-

r j

_ r-

ST.

r-

".

r J

OO

NO

c-

»*n

mZ

r i

cr,

r-j

ro r-

O

ON

r-J

m o "

V rf N

CO rn

<J

C o

CJ

Q .

O

U

Q

m-

re

(J

C L

wO

m^.

CJ

H re

rJt

<

— m

E

^

Z.

o o f*l rn

S j ' !

O O o

r-j

"—'

O O o

C O

PH m o-

P"»

N O

O

-o

I " " ,

rr,

i — ,

r j

m

a-

-o rM

NT,

TT m o orn o

T o c-

r j

m

T

«-N

CJ"'

O r»i o

TT

Tf' r n

-o

• o

fN

Os

NO m

O

N O

O O

—!

CO

r J

T T m

3

E

E o c

E

JZ

ox

<J

•J

CJ

'ox o o o r-

Ooo o o o

r j

C O

O N '

o

H

V u c

CL

O

i_

CJ

Q . re u

J5 to

^ c

-J r *

1

<

"a

— • cr, m o o^ r.

-O

*T m oo rs

C O r n oo

-O r-

V i

oo rs

C O r-j

V I

>o r-i

O-

r j

r—

Oo' f>

V ,

O N '

CO

rr,

V

O'

O

O-

T

T

ON"

OO

V

ON o

NO o

-C

O N r j V l

N C O O

r— wo

O

r j

O O

rr\

NO oo

r j

m

NO

p j | r j

— i

_

Tf fN oo

(N

ON r-i

Q

E c

E o

5

E

sj

CL

— ex

^^ ox

u r " !

O O

o 5/5

-T

•q oo o r-

OO

— r— oo rs ooo

00 r-

OC

-c r

J

C o

CO s O

O

O O

CU

C o u o

C L

t«o

u

CL a£

O

3

CTJ

O n

3

_

<

E

C

D

_^

-JO s O

oo r t

r i

^ x m rn

' ' m

r j

O

r j r-i

^ oo oo o

V i

oo oo

Ch

r-j

m

a

E

-r

E

V

P*

UJ

Cm

< et

o

C

CJ

E cu

jC

ox

sU

IH

O

O O

ON

H

3 a : ro

J<

U.

mm

_ re

C J

3

<V1 s

CC

I? c

03

r*

r-i

5*

f-l

<

E

cri

O-' o.

r-J

Or-i

L U a.

CC

UJ

w

H

C O

CO

<

?i

CJ

-a c

3

O

CC

c j

^ j

'ox O

"CJ

O

ON

mm>

CL

OO fN

O N '

r-J

O r-.) o

T T

O O r-i

ON r>

ON r-i

S J - 1

OO o

r j s O

wq od

-

O N '

C O

O

ON' r* o-

O

O-

CO c—• r~»

NO r

— r n

TT

N D

"O

CC m rc>

r j

OO

O

V i

TT m

CO

ON cr>

*T

O

•JD r-

O

* o

ir.

v o

O

O

O-l

O

r I

f N

• O

m

— r-i

-T

CO

c- 1

I T S .

rn m

O m

O oo-

CO o r*i

O O r-j

O O

_ m

ON

-

sj

r-

CC

1_

CU

CL

CQ

CJ

^rt re

C J

L.

re

C

_J rT r-t

< r-

E oo

^

o

f^l

—' r-

O N

O m

0c cu

E

Cm

E ox

'CJ

rj

EL

C/5

>

TT

3

T

T T

ON'

V l

oo o

O m

o

O N

O r-i

N O

O

r — 1

m

P-.

TT

UO

O N '

ON m rn

o

r* o r-

T f wT,

i

O

— .

TT

OC

T oo ro o m

V I m

Sj-i

OC m c-

-T

CO

TT

O

— o-

—.

NO

ON re

sj

c o

<J

CL

CJ

CJ

C L o

3

<TJ

Z

It _J

r-Jl

r-

<

E

1

V ,

O

"a o

0 0

r j

O

M D

T r-j m

r j

V , rn r o m m o o m a

E

C

CJ

E

E

Z

o

CJ

- J * =

OX

"sU

TT m r-J

N O r-i m

OO m

TT r-

• — , rn

«

O un

CO

r-j c-i

o

00

«q

TT

O N

OC

r j

r~~)

rn m oo

OO rr-

U-,

u-,

r o

C O

f N

ON m m

TT rn

r j

OX rn

O N '

o

O N '

I"** o r-i

N O

Vi

TT

O N m

O-" o

r j

O

O

r j

co

1-r,

OC

CO OO o-

ir,

o

CO' r-

TT

N C

**n

O O

r-

T T

O re

sj

a.

CU r» o

V i

E o_ o m

CQ

U

-J r>

E re

•D c

C/S

<Tj

c

CJ

E

'Z

CJ ox

"ox

'CJ

ON

ON

>

JO rn

TT

V *

T*

O f*|

ON'

O N r-i

O N

TT r-

TT r-i

r-j

m

TT r-i m o rn rn

O O

v r-J m

r-j r-i

m

r-j

ON

TT

TT

N O rn m

OO r-

TT

O m

r-j

r-

NO

TT

V

TT'

TT m

-o

OO fN ON rn o-

r-j

o

TT m

r j

m

ON'

ON

N O

O O

o

Ooo

ON'

TT

O

O

TT c-

TT o

N O

NO

ON

O

r-j

O N

r-

N O

O N

T T

TT

O

«0

T T

TT

O O

ON rn o c

C J

E d

4*

CL

mf)

^ 1 r-i m

*T ir, N O roo o

©

an

V ,

NJO ifi

\r.

N O

7L IS\

< a

UJ

WW mf.

j!

>

U re

mm

_; c

+

c

cj

re

V

F-21

F-22

CJ

E e

.2 e "Sk r-J

O r-j

T

Cr-

rn

oc

O o

~

2 3

w

mT.

rrn r^

— r-j

~~ ~~'

O

E c

1

s

E

UO e

cn

rj

"S « .25

CJ - j . rn rn r j rn m

«n m m rn

] M3 r-rr, m"

CJ

L- CC

CJ CJ

rr-

TCf

Q . L.

_ c o o u a -

E

NO

2 = "Sk

S 3 — o rfN rN

— f* m

<~n p*

C*

ro

— —

r-i

Q

E

E

CD r* c

1 i

TT

•B -5 .25 vr. rn

-n*

P» r-

<y-, m rn oo

V ,

OC

NO •o rn

r^^

rs q

OC

sj^.

r-

~

OC wn

O N rn

c-

vrj r-j

im

T

tr> rN rr. O in

— rm q

TT

CC m" rn

m>

r-J P» c" o

— i

r-J

TT r-j

CC oc

-T rN

— o p* rn r-j

TT oc

•o O

r^-i

o

TT o r-j

CjT,

rrrs m rn

U CC

CJ CJ

r r

CC un oo i*n cu m

S ! E oi t>

3

c

«rc 3 o

w o m sO to

©

— oo o rj o rn o

U

•a c

<

3

<

>

3

B o a:

CJ

~

E CX mm

u -z 22

m m

ii mm

TT "T rn rn

CO

Z o

CO

CU

L. CC

O .

L.

r« oo

3

X

3

3

2

cn

3 cS

H

Bj ca

U

5 'E "Sk

Ji 3 — '

•a

B

cn

ro

NO rn rN

E aa

E OD -—-

MD

— .— oD

> >

Cu

4i ^ .

C, \S p ^ p* m in r-j m m m m

T rn

TT rn r^ sO oo

— — o

n

TT un m

O

00

*c rn

«o m

T T

P*. r^

O

•o c<n o«

P^ rs rN

NO oc rN

O r-j

NO r-j oc rj o« o

*vn

* rs rn m rn o

O

O

— i

rn

'

NO m rj

NO r-J m"

TT r-i

~" rr. t>

«o m o o

NO p.

-T

O rrs rn rn

<U

H

CU

C

L.

« —

P^ c/i * B

42

'B

"Si

_ o

3 a

2 3 —

B

CJ

*•

OC

TT o

L. rn rn in

NO

OC

<y-j

svn m

-T rN

_ r-j

_

_ r-

_ rn

TT

TT m" rn

O

-T oc un

r - j

rn

3

CO

--O

r-

oc

rs

TT

_

OC

rn

OC o r-iri

-T' CNJ r^

_ —

TT

-r rn

•oc m o

— rr, rn rn

TT p* rn

o oc

T

~

T

rj rj

OC m

Ij^j

o

TT rN

O rN m" rs o

O m o rj

ZmC

c

r.

Tf r-,

NO

NO rr, rn m

L « _ .

LT, rN)

C/1

CU

H

BS

S3

°" mm

<

a " E vvn r j

__"

S 3 —'

— u

1 3 h

CC

-rs

O

T T t> m

C

o

OC o

— oc rn

CC rn rn rn

C, £

55

C/3 m m

TT

O

O

ON

T* o

OC

O

C-N)

— m' m oo rn o un c^n r^j o q

__

— r-

NO r-

..n rN oo

ON o m

O

TT p* un m m oo rN sO o

T T m* m" rn oc

NO p*

„ — p-

~~' rj

-r

OC

O sO

T T o

LO m

CN rj r-j r-J

TT

O

N O

TT

O rn

NO r^ m

B

Id

-

CjT}

IS)

r^

rn

•n* i>o

•JO r-

C5C o

O.

2

^^

J5 ifi

NO

Q

>

U c oa

+

Sm-

sU

2

F-23

Cj

r-

0

3

Q.

C h u ca

CU (U rs

tf> • * -

< c

_ rn r-

oc

T

o

rn

•o

i-r.

-r ~ T

-?

r-

o rn rn

T T

•o o"

-T

3

E c

2

1

E o r-

GO

M

E OD

t?

T

C C

- T

TT

r*-i

T T

nr

T

p* m

N O

in

T T

"*

CJ

C

C

3 c i- « a.

L.

in

OS

tf) •*—

«2 'E

<

E tu rn oc-

T T

oo

&

N O

* T

S 3 o

N O

rn

_

0>

T

t>

T rr, c-n

3

E

E o

LT, r j c

S

1 rex m

E oD

*T

CL \%

C/3

O C

T T

T T

o

KT.

P*

r-

in

N O

T TT T r-j

IT.

N O

T T

C C m rn r j

o

KT.

N O r j

- T

N O

rn

o iy, r-

T T

T T

r-

O

t> in

m r*--,

C C

<jn

•r^

— T T T T m

O N

• O

T t

C C

T T r-i

O C

^ T

O O rs

un

N O m

un r^

r^

OC

«jn o T T

T T o •-•

N O

T T

oo

sO

•Jt

T T

„^ cr,

CJ

H cc

U GC

O N

CL 1-

mT)

* -

<

£ o

— o

,2 c

-t 3

~cx sO T ca

r-i un in

T T

— i

un

T T

IT!

ON"

on

C j T ,

un

<

3

>

3

"O

B

<u — c o cc

E OD

O 'tu

M

O N

C C r j

T T

T

_

r-

N O

cc

T T r-

•»cr T T T T

mmC <

3

3

OS

3

CO

o o

Ul

Cj

C O

^.

H cc

3 ca

U

CC

-a

3 CO

<

2

H

I— CQ

r^

CL i-

< to "

5 c

un cc

E u

T

V.T,

«£ 3 c

CU * *

__ rs

rn

m

un oc

T T

rrn wn

O m

»*n TT m

•o

E

CC

h

E

OD ox

"u '£ rs

p*

43

TT'

J O

S-

CL £

</) rs

r*-

P-.

rn

T T T T ro>

TT

O

r^

r-

"T

t y - j

~

oo

C N | o

m

mT.

ro

T r-

N O r-

N O

O m r^ r j

TT"

o o

<--", m or-j

C/-S,

-T

r-

C C

m

V ,

r-J

N O i y - j o

r-

T T

O N wn r-J TT r-J iri

•if N O

O N sO

T T

_

CN

-O m

O

TT"

T

T T rn o nr

mT,

L. CQ

T T

CJ r-

CU a -

<

E

N C

r-

03 *T"

^^

«t 3 ex

T T

B c u

CL c

CJ T -

.—

.Sf o

vn

o

Cj - j .

T

-T q

m

T T

O r-J

oc

-T

P*

o m

— ]

m

T T

P*

N O

—^

n-

C J " )

T T

-T

rn

»yn

T

<-D

r-j rn m • o

- T T T T T

— rn

-T

-T

T T

T T

m

T T

T T rN

C N

O m o

0>

»n

rr r-

N O

«n o o

C C

T T o

N O

T T

Ptn

o

r-

T T T T

C C m

-T

N O

O N r j

P*

r-j r-

rN

d

«/n

*-r

«vn

— m

T T rn

O

N O

Cr-

r-j

rN

O-

-T rn r-

T T o.

>

_

CJ

:-

CC

ss

U

cn

L.

cd

CJ CJ

O .

h

</, «

2 5 r j

<

E c« •*—

•»•,

OX

OC

N O

T T

T T c h

CC

C

CJ

*c

_E ox

CJ cj

M

CJ

T T

T T

Cj ->,

CO

O.

>

CO

s V ~ i

I V ,

in rn r--

00 O rs

rs

m

•o

•o wn

Tt

T

-T

C?

— I

vn

O

^O

O N

T T o

r-

m"

T T q irn

p-

r j

T T •rr

TT

r-

T T

T T

O

T T

pun roo m

T T

T

rn

o

P*

O N r~. CC

rN

d

T

TT cyn

nr

T T T T

T T m

N O

T '

T t

N O m

T T

C C m

T T r j

T T

TT' m rn

T T

O

«jn

T T

rn

— o r-

O N

CC

rN

r-j rrs TT

T T

C/1

If)

in

N O c

CJ

J e

CL

cn

-

r-i rn

T T

ITI

vO r-

CSC O N

©

<

Q c ^

> c

E

CQ

%

2

F-24

u

CQ co c_

CJ cr.

3

• re c u

»c_.

3

CC c

„ r7 — c: rr r-

<

© rs m

E

O C

"ex rs rs

r j

T

ON o rs

O

N O

C C r-

r j

E

E e

C u

E u

-E

OX

'tu

C U

©

?

Cr-

o rs

2

-o

O C

C C O C

Cfl

m

O c>

C C ps m

o r-

r j

p -

C C

r j

r* c m r*

1

-O. o oc

«y-i

oc

r j

C C r j m

T

O m

-c m vy. o

O C

© oc o

r j

m

© rn

- T

r j

O C oc

•JTI rrs o

C C cc 0 0 rm

C C

_ r j pm oc ©

• n o

CT

TT rN rn O C ON"

C j

c

3

Q .

0 h

La

U cr.

cr,

cc u u r:

C C

^

E

D rT

<

E po c

C C ex

— • •

r j

3

E

B

C J

E ox

E o r~

IT,

C J u tu

CL

Cfl

>

O o w n rn

- T

»yn

C C C C rs r j

©

"T

P-^

O O rN oc

O

C C

r j

o

O o

r j

vO r—

C C oc r^ r-

O C oo

CJ c o

C h u o

CL

iir.

cr: la

C C

• —

1<

E

^

rl

<

E

^x

cr-

r j

T

C C r j

*—' r j r j cr,

T T cr. r—

o*

C C rs rr j oc r j m o

3

E

E o cr.

C l

B

CJ

E

C3

OX' o

CJ

CL

J*J

£

OX oc

N O m oo r j vO oc

«y-

(

oc r-

•/-. r^ C C

O C oc

V-

•Tj"

i/n

N O

O C r-j o

•y-, r j

m

; d

P* o oc

r j

©

O O rs m roc

t y ,

o d r-t

>C m o

_

N O

oo oc

C C

3

-T rn

-T

CC

r j

T o

'J-,

m rn

ITN,

O r> _

—. r-

r j

o

rs

O O

O

O C

- T o-

49

<y-,

V ,

T T

O C

©

O N oc

JN

C j

h cc

1CC

(U

©

M

CC

<u

L . cc

- —

-*_: c

( N

<

E co>

_-

•er

i-r,

rn oc o-

T

Ixc o r-j p» r-j p* rN

O

*T

P*

O O

O

-o

O C C C rs

r j

35

mi

3

3

TTJ

C cn

O

E

C U

E

3~:

OX

'ox

O

' c j

'<u

O C

CJ

Q , r> oo

C C m oo

ND r -

r j

rcc oo

OS

<

>

3

Cfl

CC

Cfl z

3 ro

Of JT tr u

O

CC

CU

C j

— cri

CL

<s>

CC c

3

3

CO

CO

2

CC

CC

U

-o

E

s

tv

3

-E

3

E

CC

E

-^

H

_ox h

CJ

C J

J O

C-

B.

CL

Efl

CN

^

O C

<

E o vO

O C r j rs rp-

D C rs

NO r-

*n oc t-N

^o o rs rN

O N o

o

oc r-j r j ei

oc

r^ r -

C C O O rs rn m

O C oc oc

Cr~~

r n

9 cc rs

-o

T

T r j rm

r j

vn rr J

O N rN

Ijr,

•q

r J

d

C C

-T r j

O rn

C C

©

©

O N

-T

-T

r j

-r rr N O

C C rN id rn

ri

rr j

T T m

mT\

o

r-j r-*

©

•o r

J

© oc rs

-T m rn

©

© rsi

C C i_

CU

CC

CU

C-

CC cl

<

S > 1

C j

H ti c

01

2

E

E

P

"ex

r~-

o r j

T j "

m

C^ C C rs rN rr*o-

N O r-j rrs

O

r j

*T

-T

O N

-O rn

T

O C

C C

O N

O C m

C C r-J rs rs

©

C C

r - j

wn m

T

C C

0"

O N

•yn rs r-j

iy~,

ri

C^

O N

C C

r j

d p tn o-

C C

O N

C C rn rn

-o rs o<

ON rs u

©

E u

E

_

- E ox c

CJ

'tu

Q

t U

© y; ox

© o o sO r-~ m

T T

OC

C C m o\

P^

• O

oo

C C

m

O C

C C m

-O vO

IjT,

O C O C

_

C C r j r-J O N

O N

«y-,

P-^ cc m m

r~-

T cc © c> m

O O

T T

~~

C3N h

«

CO

U u

CU

CL

(A

CC cU

L.

C0

H H

E

3 cJ,

<

E

© rN

O C o rrs m

-o »n oc rN

O N r-i oc r j

© o rrN

©

rn

O C

»yn m r-i

CO

- T

m

Ch

r-j

N O o rs

P* P^ rN r~r j

C C r j cc

-T oc rN

T op*

©

N O

T rrs in

• o

C C r-i r^ r-J p* rN

O

N O

OO

© rs

-o u

M

-o

H c

Cfl

B

CU

E

CJ

U

CL w

_ox

OX

C U cc p«. fN

C C

P*

C C C C o

©

om

T

<o

cc CC

Cfl

-T

T T

O

©

O C wn

O

T p* cc

-O oc

• y ,

oc rs

N O

T T

~ rs o>

oc

©

~ o<

E cU

E

6

' t j

C U

CL

Z

Cfl

r^

rn

T rOC o

©

Cf tf.

N O

-n

\o

<

Q

Efl

> c

J

C C

C J

•cr-

+

E

« tU

s

F-25

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement