GI v7 n1 Paper2

Technical Paper by D.G. Grubb, W.E.
Diesing III,
S.C.J. Cheng and R.M. Sabanas
COMPARISON OF GEOTEXTILE DURABILITY TO

OUTDOOR EXPOSURE CONDITIONS IN THE
PERUVIAN ANDES AND THE SOUTHEASTERN USA
ABSTRACT: Outdoor exposure tests were completed on two woven slit-film polypropylene geotextiles with carbon black and two nonwoven needle-punched polyester geotextiles
in Huaron (~11_S; 4,600 m elevation) and Vijus (~7_45iS; 1,250 m elevation), Peru, and
Atlanta, Georgia, USA (~33_46iN, 315 m elevation), for a period of 12 months. The retained strength values of the polypropylene geotextiles deployed in Vijus ranged from
approximately 64 to 95% and 49 to 122% for the 180 and 260 g/m2 mass per unit area geotextiles, respectively, compared to unexposed specimens. Likewise, the retained strength values
of the polyester geotextiles deployed in Vijus ranged from approximately 64 to 82% and 70
to 98% for the 420 and 550 g/m2 geotextiles, respectively. Higher retained strength values
(10 to 15%) were obtained for the geotextiles exposed to outdoor conditions in Huaron and
Atlanta. The role of latitude and altitude in the strength loss of geotextiles was not clear; the
strongest observed trend was that the highest strength losses appeared to be more closely correlated with the highest maximum and minimum temperatures.
KEYWORDS: Geotextile,
Polypropylene, Polyester.
Durability,
Strength
test,
Outdoor
exposure
test,
AUTHORS: D.G. Grubb, Assistant Professor, and W.E. Diesing III, Graduate Research
Assistant, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0355 USA, Telephone: 1/404-894-7597, Telefax: 1/404-894-2281,
E-mail: dgrubb@ce.gatech.edu; S.C.J. Cheng, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and
Architectural Engineering, Drexel University, 32nd and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19104, USA, Telephone: 1/215-895-2996, Telefax: 1/215-895-1363, E-mail:
chengsc@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu; and R.M. Sabanas, Senior Project Engineer, NTH
Consultants Ltd., 860 Springdale Drive, Exton, Pennsylvania 19341, USA, Telephone:
1/610-524-2300, Telefax: 1/610-524-2317, E-mail: rsabanas@nthconsultants.com.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-4061,
USA, Telephone: 1/651-222-2508, Telefax: 1/651-631-9334. Geosynthetics International is
registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATES: Original manuscript received 12 October 1999, revised version received 1 March
2000 and accepted 14 March 2000. Discussion open until 1 November 2000.
REFERENCE: Grubb, D.G., Diesing, W.E., III, Cheng, S.C.J. and Sabanas, R.M., 2000,
Comparison of Geotextile Durability to Outdoor Exposure Conditions in the Peruvian
Andes and Southeastern USA, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 23-45.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
23
GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure
INTRODUCTION
This is the second part of a three-part study that explores the issues related to the use
and durability of geotextiles under the environmental conditions associated with the
Andean mining industry, i.e. high altitudes, equatorial latitudes, and aggressive
aqueous leachates such as those associated with acid mine drainage or alkaline extraction solutions. The main motivation for investigating geotextile durability under these
conditions stems from the erosional (surface erosion and piping in drains), geotechnical, and seismic instability of tailings dams within the region.
The continuous erosion of pyritic particles into local drainage ditches and, consequently, the local rivers, compounds water-quality issues. For example, Figure 1a is a
photograph showing extensive erosion of the 30 m-high face of the San Felipe Tailings
Dam near Quiruvilca, Peru, prior to its geotechnical stabilization (which is also now
significantly eroded). The acid generating (pyritic) tailings are shown accumulating at
the base of the tailings dam along the crest of the starter dam situated at the bottom of
Figure 1a. Figure 1b is a photograph of the eroded tailings (left) along the crest of the
starter berm (center). The small berm, which was constructed by the mining company,
comprising woven slit-film polypropylene (PP) bags filled with tailings is shown to be
in complete disrepair. Figure 2a shows three woven slit-film PP geotextile bags with
carbon black that were filled with alkaline tailings and were used to plug a solution hole
in the face of a steep (~60_) tailings dam in Vijus, Peru. This solution hole was plugged
in mid-1995 (photograph taken January 1998). Figure 2b shows a much more extensive
repair of an eroded face of a tailings deposit along the bedrock contact using woven slitfilm PP bags filled with alkaline tailings. The bags are failing or are completely deteriorated in sections of the buttress wall. While geotextiles have been used in drainage,
filtration, reinforcement, and erosion protection applications not related to mining
(Koerner, 1998) and while they emerge as possible candidate solutions for the same
challenges within the mining sector, the examples provided in Figures 1 and 2 show that
the geotextiles were not sufficiently durable under the anticipated field conditions. The
main reason for this is that the geotextiles were simultaneously subjected to purportedly
high ultraviolet (UV) radiation and aggressive leachate/tailings conditions (3 < pH >
10), and the database of geotextile durability under these conditions is not well documented. A discussion of the UV and chemical resistance of geotextiles as they pertain
to Andean mining conditions is provided by Grubb et al. (1999).
Schneider and Groh (1987) presented isolines of global radiation that suggested
Southeastern USA and Peru receive comparable levels of radiation (140 kcal/
cm2-year). However, the similarity between these exposure levels at these two locations
is juxtaposed with the work of Zerlaut (1994), who reports that UV radiation intensifies
at lower latitudes and higher altitudes. Two factors known to influence geotextile deterioration are temperature and hydrolysis reactions. For example, accelerated aging and
durability test results are modeled using Arrhenius relationships with temperature as
a primary variable (Segrestin and Jailloux 1988; Koerner et al. 1992). It is therefore reasonable to expect that the greatest geotextile deterioration would occur in the warmest
location. Since geotextiles made of polyester (PET) are also susceptible to degradation
by hydrolysis (Reich and Stivala 1971, pp. 55-75; Risseuw and Schmidt 1990; Jailloux
et al. 1992; Mathur et al. 1994; Salman et al. 1997; Cowland et al. 1998; Elias et al.
1999), humidity and/or precipitation trends (e.g. quantity and duration) may also be-
24
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. Photographs of the San Felipe tailings dam in Quiruvilca, Peru: (a) eroded face
of the 30 m-high dam; (b) eroded tailings (left) and deteriorated geotextile berm
constructed of tailings-filled polypropylene bags on the starter berm (center) along the base
of the dam.
come important. Hence, while increased normal solar radiation may change with latitude, altitude, and other topographical considerations, the possibility exists that other
locational factors (e.g. smog and cloud cover) may have offsetting effects with respect
to ambient temperatures and precipitation.
Given the lack of information on geotextile performance in high-altitude equatorial
mining applications, Grubb et al. (1999) conducted outdoor exposure and chemical resistance tests on two nonwoven needle-punched PET geotextiles with different mass
per unit area values (420 and 550 g/m2) without UV stabilizers in the mining town of
Shorey (~8_S, 3,675 m elevation) near Quiruvilca in Northern Peru over a 12-month
period. The PET geotextiles were chosen for their durability under UV exposure and
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
25
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. Photographs of the tailings deposit in Vijus, Peru: (a) woven slit-film polypropylene
bags used to plug a solution hole in the face of a tailings deposit; (b) tailings-filled polypropylene
bags used to repair and buttress the face of a tailings deposit.
acid conditions relative to other polymer-based geotextiles. The retained grab strength,
trapezoidal tear, and index puncture resistance of the UV-exposed specimens ranged
from approximately 68 to 124% and 90 to 101% based on five replicates for the 420
and 550 g/m2 specimens, respectively, in comparison to unexposed specimens. The retained strengths of the 550 g/m2 specimens exceeded those of UV-stabilized nonwoven
needle-punched PET geotextiles deployed under similar solar irradiance conditions at
lower altitudes and higher latitudes in the USA (Koerner et al. 1998). Therefore, Grubb
et al. (1999) concluded that the superior performance of the PET geotextiles tested in
Peru was attributed to the cool moist conditions and above average precipitation conditions associated with the 1997/1998 El Nio event.
To gain additional insight into the potential factors affecting the site specific performance of geotextiles, a second phase of outdoor exposure testing of four geotextiles was
completed at two additional sites in Peru at different elevations. These results are reported in the current paper. Unfortunately, solar radiation measurement devices could
not be deployed to determine actual UV exposure levels in Peru due to cost and security
(theft). The third phase of exposure testing, to be completed in January 2000, involves
the outdoor exposure testing of three additional geotextiles and the embedment of five
26
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
geotextiles in freshly deposited alkaline tailings containing cyanide and pyritic materials (pH 11), in Vijus, Peru. Each of the geotextiles tested in Peru were also exposed
to outdoor conditions in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, in order to potentially link geotextile
durability data sets from Peru to data sets generated in the USA.
TEST LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS
Outdoor exposure testing of geotextiles was conducted in two mine locations in Peru
and at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, USA (Figure 3). Geotextiles were deployed on 1 July 1998 in the town of Vijus (~7_45iS, 1,250 m elevation)
located along the Rio Maraon in the Province of Pataz of the Department of La Libertad, approximately 600 km north of Lima. Vijus is situated due east of Quiruvilca as
shown in Figure 3 and is located in the rainshadow of the continental divide making its
climate similar to arid Southwestern USA. Experimental research was conducted in
cooperation with Compaia Minera Poderosa S.A., which owns and operates Unidad
Minera Vijus. On 6 July 1998, geotextile specimens were deployed at Mina Huaron
(~11_S; 4,600 m elevation), which is located near the town of Huayllay in the southwestern corner of the Province and Department of Pasco, approximately 65 km northeast of Lima. Outdoor exposure testing was conducted in cooperation with Mauricio
Hochschild & Compaia Ltda. S.A., which owns the presently inactive Mina Huaron.
Although much further south than Quiruvilca, Huaron is also located at the continental
(a)
(b)
Ecuador
Tennessee
Columbia
North Carolina
35N
South Carolina
Atlanta
Vijus
Trujillo
Alabama
Brazil
GEORGIA
Quiruvilca
10S
Huaron
Lima
30N
PER
Florida
Bolivia
80W
85W
70W
80W
Miami
20S
25N
Chile
Figure 3. Location maps for UV exposure test sites: (a) Huaron and Vijus, Peru; (b) Atlanta,
Georgia, USA.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
27
divide making its exposure conditions somewhat similar to Quiruvilca (i.e. there are
alpine conditions). Analogous tests were initiated on 20 July 1998 at Georgia Tech in
Atlanta, Georgia, USA (~33_46iN, 315 m elevation). Atlanta is characterized by hot
humid conditions and mild winters. Exposure testing commenced during the dry season
in Huaron and Vijus, and the peak of summer in Atlanta. Table 1a is a summary of the
characteristics of the test locations and select environmental conditions, and Table 1b
presents the ranking results of site factors anticipated to cause the greatest geotextile
degradation at the four test sites.
Table 1a.
Summary of environmental conditions at the test locations.

Site
Attribute
Huaron
Peru (a)
Quiruvilca
Peru (b)
Vijus
Peru
Atlanta, Georgia
USA
Latitude
11_00iS
8_00iS
7_45iS
33_46iN
Altitude (m)
4,600
3,675
1,250
315
Tmax average (_C)
14.4
16.0
33.2
23.8
Tmin average (_C)
0.0
3.7
22.7
9.3
Average monthly
precipitation (mm)
115
143
51
70
Cumulative precipitation (mm)
1,159
1,862
617
814
Historical annual cumulative

precipitation (mm)
843
1,424
696
1,244
Note: (a) January, May, and June 1999 measurements not available; (b) source: Grubb et al. (1999).
Table 1b.
Ranking of site factors anticipated to cause the greatest geotextile degradation.

Rank
Attrib te
Attribute
28
Latitude
Vijus
Quiruvilca
Huaron
Atlanta
Altitude
Huaron
Quiruvilca
Vijus
Atlanta
Maximum average temperature
Vijus
Atlanta
Quiruvilca
Huaron
Cumulative precipitation
Quiruvilca
Huaron
Atlanta
Vijus
Historical annual cumulative

precipitation
Quiruvilca
Atlanta
Huaron
Vijus
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
Two woven slit-film PP geotextiles (180 and 260 g/m2) with carbon black and two
nonwoven needle-punched PET geotextiles (420 and 550 g/m2) were deployed at each
site. The UV deterioration test (ASTM D 5970) was conducted using five 1 m 0.95
m specimens of each geotextile attached to wooden A-frames oriented 45 above the
horizontal and facing due north in Peru for maximum sun exposure (facing south in the
USA). The UV deterioration tests were conducted using sedimentation tank E-3 in the
ore processing plant in Vijus, on a grassy knoll adjacent to the security guardhouse in
Huaron, and on the roof of the civil engineering building on the Georgia Tech campus
in Atlanta. These locations were chosen because sunlight was not obscured and the sites
had limited access. Specimen collection was targeted for 30-, 60-, 90-, 180-, and
360-day intervals. Due to plant shutdowns and PET geotextile theft at the Huaron site,
the specimen collection dates for the PP geotextiles were changed to 30-, 60-, 180-,
270-, and 360-day intervals, and to 30-, 60-, and 156-day intervals for the PET geotextiles. Care was taken to ensure that the geotextiles were not torn or stretched during
collection. Wet or moist specimens were air-dried indoors away from sunlight. All specimens were wrapped in black polyethylene bags to protect the geotextiles from moisture
and light.
The maximum and minimum daily temperatures, and monthly rainfall recorded at
the weather stations for the test locations, are shown in Figures 4 through 7. Figure 4
suggests that Vijus and Huaron are characterized by fairly constant trends in maximum
and minimum daily temperatures. On average, the maximum and minimum daily temperatures recorded in Vijus are warmer than Huaron by approximately 19 to 22_C. The
50
Vijus, daily maximum and minimum temperatures

Huaron, daily maximum and minimum temperatures
Temperature (C) .
40
30
20
10
Huaron PET
replacements, 156 day
Huaron PET
30, 60 day
0
-10
Ju
Ju
Ap
Ma
Ja
No
Ju
Ma
Fe
De
Oc
A
Se
n
l
n
l-9 ug98 p-98 t-98 v-98 c-98 -99 b-99 r-99 r-99 y-99 -99 -99
8
Month
Figure 4. Daily maximum and minimum temperatures in Huaron and Vijus, Peru,
during the test period.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
29
weather station in Huaron was inoperable during January, May, and June 1999, and,
hence, there is no record of temperature (Figure 4) or precipitation as shown by the asterisks in Figure 6. While the geotextile test intervals were continuous for all other geotextiles at each location, the staggered test intervals for the originally deployed (30- and
60-day) and replacement (156-day) PET specimens at the Huaron site are indicated in
Figure 4. The temperature data for Atlanta (Figure 5) shows a distinct summer and winter season, with the summer and winter periods being characterized by temperatures
somewhat similar to Vijus and Huaron, respectively.
Figures 6 and 7 present the measured and recorded historical precipitation averages
for Huaron and Vijus, and Atlanta, respectively. The Peruvian sites have distinct wet
and dry seasons (Figure 6, and Figure 3 in the paper by Grubb et al. 1999), while Atlanta
exhibits a more evenly distributed trend in precipitation (Figure 7). The historical data
for the Huaron mine is based on the 1974 to 1981 and 1986 to 1997 measurements collected at the Carhuacayan national weather station situated at an altitude of 4,150 m,
approximately 25 km south of Huaron in the province of Yauli in the Department of Junin (Walsh Peru S.A. 1998). The historical data for Vijus is based on the average monthly measurements recorded at the Buldibuyo national weather station situated at an
altitude of 3,243 m, approximately 45 km south of Vijus in the province of Pataz in the
Department of La Libertad (CESEL S.A. 1997). For the Atlanta region, thirty-year historical data (1961 to 1990) is presented based on measurements taken at the Atlanta airport weather station (Georgia State Climate Office 1997). Table 1a contains the
averages of the data presented in Figures 4 through 7 and also summarizes the data from
the Quiruvilca test location discussed by Grubb et al. (1999).
50
Temperature (C) .
40
30
20
10
0
-10
Ju
No
Ja
Ma
Ju
Ap
Ju
A
Se
Oc
De
Fe
Ma
n
l
l-9 ugn
98 p-98 t-98 v-98 c-98 -99 b-99 r-99 r-99 y-99 -99 -99
8
Month
Figure 5. Daily maximum and minimum temperatures in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, during
the test period.
30
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
350
Huaron Reported Values

Huaron 20 yr. Average Historical Values
300
Precipitation (mm) .
Vijus Reported Values
250
Vijus Average Historical Values

Note: Absence of a bar indicates zero precipitation
for the given month.
200
* No reported values
150
100
50
0
Ju
l-9
Au
g-9
Se
p-9
Oc
N
D
F
J
M
A
M
J
t-9 ov-9 ec-9 an-9 eb-9 ar-9 pr-9 ay-9 un-9
9
8
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
9
Month
Figure 6. Select 1998 and 1999 monthly and historical precipitation values in Huaron and
Vijus, Peru.
350
Atlanta, 1998 and 1999 reported values
Atlanta, 30-year average historical values
Precipitation (mm) .
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Ju
l-9
Au
g-9
Se
p-9
Oc
t-9
No
v-9
De
c-9
Ja
n-9
Fe
b-9
Ma
r-9
Ap
r-9
J
Ma
y-9 un-9
9
9
Month
Figure 7. Select 1998 and 1999 monthly and 30-year historical precipitation values in
Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
31
Given the varied site locations and conditions (Table 1a), it is interesting to explore
whether patterns of geotextile durability emerge that reflect the trends discussed in Section 1. Table 1b shows the rankings of the sites with respect to the lowest latitude and
highest altitude, average maximum and minimum temperature, and precipitation for the
test period; these factors are hypothesized to have the greatest impact on geotextile deterioration. For example, if proximity to the equator (latitude) is positively correlated
with geotextile deterioration, the geotextile strength losses should be ranked accordingly from highest to lowest as Vijus, Quiruvilca, Huaron, and Atlanta (Table 1b). When
comparing the Peruvian sites, negligible differences in strength loss should occur due
to small differences in latitude (~3_), but strength loss differences may result due to
significant differences in altitude, ambient temperatures, UV exposure, and precipitation. Vijus is the warmest, lowest, and driest of the Peruvian sites by large margins. Huaron and Quiruvilca rank the highest with respect to elevation and precipitation, but are
the coolest sites. Quiruvilca has comparable maximum temperatures to Huaron, but
maintains an average daily minimum temperature of 3.7_C, which is almost 4_C warmer than Huaron. While the temperature trends in Huaron are quite constant, it is not anticipated that Huaron will overtake Quiruvilca in annual precipitation (during 1997/1998
El Nio event) for two reasons. First, the precipitation data not obtainable for Huaron
includes May and June 1999, which are part of the dry season when the historical average precipitation is reported to be less than 50 mm/month. Secondly, the historical annual precipitation in Huaron is significantly lower than that of Quiruvilca. The average
annual precipitation estimated from the 30-year average reported values for Quiruvilca
is approximately 1,424 mm, indicating that the 1997/1998 El Nio event caused approximately 440 mm of precipitation above the historical average. It also appears that Huaron and Atlanta experienced wetter and drier years, respectively, during the test period
than the historical averages. Vijus is the driest of the sites, and its arid conditions are
also implied by the ubiquitous local fauna (cacti). Although warm, large differences between Atlanta and the Peruvian sites exist with respect to latitude and altitude. If temperature is the single-most important factor, then geotextile deterioration should be the
greatest in Vijus followed by Atlanta. Temperature considerations aside, geotextile deterioration should be highest in Huaron and Quiruvilca on the basis of latitude, altitude,
and precipitation.
3
TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
Due to the limited quantity of field specimens, only the grab tensile (ASTM D 4632),
trapezoidal tear (ASTM D 4533), and index puncture (ASTM D 4833) tests were completed. The grab tensile and trapezoidal tear tests were performed in the machine (MD)
and cross-machine directions (CD). All specimens were carefully examined manually
and then cut to fit each test device. The mass per unit area of select specimens was measured before destructive testing. Specimens were analyzed by the Geotextile Laboratory of NTH Consultants Ltd. (Exton, Pennsylvania, USA), which is a Geosynthetics
Accreditation Institute (GAI) certified facility.
Select minimum average roll values (MARVs) and average roll values (ARVs) reported by the manufacturer for the four different types of geotextiles are presented in
Table 2 as well as the MD and CD strength test results for the PP and PET (unexposed)
32
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
Notes: MD and CD = machine and cross-machine directions, respectively. Measured averages and standard deviations determined using measured values of five
replicates. St. Dev. = standard deviation. % Difference for controls represent the difference between manufacturer-reported MARVs and ARVs to the controls, respectively.
% Difference for field exposed specimens (geotextile mass/unit area) are referenced to each respective control specimen. Dates in parentheses show alternate collection
intervals for Huaron specimens only. (a) MARV (minimum average roll value); (b) ARV (average roll value).
Table 2. Manufacturer-reported geotextile roll values, measured parameters for woven slit-film polypropylene (PP) and nonwoven
needle--punched polyester (PET) control geotextiles, and mass per unit area measurements for field exposed geotextiles.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
33
control specimens. The measured geotextile mass per unit area and average strength
values and their standard deviations are based on five replicates. The percent (%) difference values for the control specimens compare the measured parameters to the MARVs
and ARVs, respectively, the data being more positively skewed for the MARVs because
it represents a lower bound than the ARV. No % difference is presented for the mass per
unit area values of the PP geotextile specimens because these values were not reported
by the manufacturer. Also presented in Table 2 are the mass per unit area measurements
for the field exposed geotextiles at each test location. The % difference for the field
exposed specimens are referenced to the respective control specimens (not the MARVs
or ARVs).
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the strength test results for the field-exposed PP and PET
geotextile specimens, respectively, as a function of the targeted collection intervals.
The actual collection dates are reflected in the summary figures for each geotextile. The
bracketed dates in Tables 3 and 4 denote the alternate specimen collection dates for the
PP and PET geotextiles deployed in Huaron. The gaps in Table 4 arise from the fact that
several PET geotextiles were stolen from the Huaron site and had to be replaced; see
Figure 4 for the test intervals. The average % differences in measured parameters for
each exposure interval in Tables 3 and 4 are referenced to the measured parameters of
the control specimens reported in Table 2.
The trends in geotextile mass per unit area values from Table 2 as a result of outdoor
exposure are shown in Figure 8. The retained mass per unit area values of the PP geotextiles are well clustered and show a slight increase (< 5%) with a minor trend suggesting
that the mass per unit area increase is greatest and lowest in Vijus and Huaron, respectively. The PET results are somewhat more intriguing. The 420 and 550 g/m2 geotextiles
show decreasing (7 to 10%) and increasing (8 to 11%) retained mass per unit area trends,
respectively, with the Peruvian data being more extreme than the Atlanta data. Visual
inspection of the 420 g/m2 specimens from Peru showed that the geotextile was becoming unspun and unwoven while the 550 g/m2 specimens remained intact. The average
quotient between the % difference of the mean mass per unit area value and the standard
deviation, and the mean mass per unit area value for all mass per unit area tests for the
PP and PET geotextiles are approximately 1.2 and 0.4%, respectively, which suggests
that observed trends based on geotextile mass per unit area are significant.
The retained grab strength, trapezoidal tear, and index puncture resistance of the
geotextiles are presented in Figures 9 through 14, respectively. For clarity of presentation, bars showing the standard deviations are not plotted, but the standard deviations
for each data set are presented in Tables 3 and 4 for comparison purposes. The average
% difference between the mean strength value and the standard deviation for all
strength tests for the PP and PET specimens are approximately 9.2 and 8.5%, respectively, which suggests that observed trends based on averaged strengths are significant.
The average % difference between the mean strength value and the standard deviation
for all strength tests for the 180 and 260 g/m2 PP specimens are approximately 9.7 and
8.6%, respectively. The corresponding values for the 420 and 550 g/m2 PET specimens
are approximately 9.4 and 7.7%, respectively. In general, the standard deviations decrease with increasing mass per unit area for each geotextile.
The retained grab strength, trapezoidal tear, and index puncture resistance of the PP
geotextiles deployed in Atlanta, Huaron, and Vijus are presented in Figures 9 through
11, respectively. Focusing on the 360-day results, the retained strengths of the PP geo-
34
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
Notes: MD and CD = machine and cross-machine directions, respectively. Average strengths reported in newtons (N) based on five replicates. St. Dev. = standard
deviation. % Dif. (% difference) between average measured strengths compared to control specimens. COV (coefficient of variation) for 360-day interval. (a) Dates in
parentheses show alternate collection intervals for Huaron specimens only.
Table 3. Results of UV exposure test program for woven slit-film polypropylene (PP) geotextiles deployed in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, and Huaron
and Vijus, Peru.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
35
36
Notes: MD and CD = machine and cross-machine directions, respectively. Average strengths reported in newtons (N) based on five replicates. St. Dev. = standard
deviation. % Dif. (% difference) between average measured strengths compared to control specimens. COV (coefficient of variation) for 360-day interval. (a) Dates in
parentheses show alternate collection intervals for Huaron specimens only.
Table 4. Results of UV exposure test program for nonwoven needle-punched polyester (PET) geotextiles deployed in Atlanta, Georgia, USA,
and Huaron and Vijus, Peru.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
Retained mass per unit area (%) .
115
110
105
100
95
90
PP 180 Atlanta
PP 180 Huaron
PP 180 Vijus
PET 420 Atlanta
PET 420 Huaron
PET 420 Vijus
85
80
75
0
50
100
150
PP 260 Atlanta
PP 260 Huaron
PP 260 Vijus
PET 550 Atlanta
PET 550 Huaron
PET 550 Vijus
200
250
300
350
400
Time (days)
Figure 8. Retained mass per unit area values for the woven slit-film polypropylene (PP)
and nonwoven needle-punched polyester (PET) geotextiles due to outdoor exposure in
Atlanta, Georgia, USA and Huaron and Vijus, Peru.
140
Retained strength (%) .
120
100
80
60
180 Grab Test MD
180 Grab Test CD
180 Trap Tear MD
180 Trap Tear CD
180 Puncture
40
20
260 Grab Test MD

260 Grab Test CD
260 Trap Tear MD
260 Trap Tear CD
260 Puncture
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time (days)
Figure 9. Retained grab strength, trapezoidal tear, and puncture resistance of woven
slit-film polypropylene (PP) geotextiles due to outdoor exposure in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
37
textiles deployed in Atlanta (Figure 9) ranged from approximately 72 to 96% and 58

to 122% for the 180 and 260 g/m2 geotextiles, respectively. The puncture resistance values of the 260 g/m2 geotextile all exceed 100%; this response is attributed to strain hardening effects. All of the other retained strengths are below 100%. The retained strengths
measured by the MD trapezoidal tear test for the 180 and 260 g/m2 specimens are consistently the lowest (the latter having the lower values of the two). The CD results are
typically higher than the MD results. These trends are evident at all test locations. The
retained strengths of the PP geotextiles deployed in Huaron (Figure 10) ranged from
approximately 71 to 99% and 58 to 109% for the 180 and 260 g/m2 geotextiles, respectively. Quantitatively, the Huaron results do not vary significantly from the Atlanta results except that the 180 g/m2 geotextile index puncture results have the second highest
retained strengths. The retained strengths of the PP geotextiles deployed in Vijus (Figure 11) ranged from approximately 64 to 95% and 49 to 122% for the 180 and 260 g/m2
geotextiles, respectively. Both the quantitative limits and internal variability (spread)
of the results from Vijus are greater than Atlanta and Huaron. Again, the 180 g/m2 geotextile index puncture results have the second highest retained strengths. Both the
trends and the values of retained strength suggest that the exposure conditions in Peru
may produce more geotextile strain hardening than in Atlanta.
The retained grab strength, trapezoidal tear, and index puncture resistance of the
PET geotextiles deployed in Atlanta, Huaron, and Vijus are presented in Figures 12
through 14, respectively. The 360-day retained strengths of the PET geotextiles
deployed in Atlanta (Figure 12) ranged from approximately 69 to 82% and 71 to 95%
for the 420 and 550 g/m2 geotextiles, respectively. With the exception of the 360-day
puncture resistance results, the retained strengths of the remaining 550 g/m2 geotextile
specimens exceed 84%. The retained strengths of the PET geotextiles deployed in Huaron (Figure 13) at 156 days ranged from approximately 70 to 96% and 74 to 102% for
the 420 and 550 g/m2 geotextiles, respectively. Quantitatively, the Huaron results at 156
days are not significantly different from the Atlanta results at 180 days, but the retained
strengths of the 550 g/m2 geotextiles from Atlanta are on average higher and somewhat
more closely clustered. The 360-day retained strengths of the PET geotextiles deployed
in Vijus (Figure 14) ranged from approximately 64 to 82% and 70 to 98% for the 420
and 550 g/m2 geotextiles, respectively. While the trends for the 420 g/m2 geotextile
specimens tested in Atlanta and Vijus are similar, the retained strengths of the 550 g/m2
geotextiles deployed in Vijus are clustered approximately 10 to 15% lower. For example, excluding the 360-day grab strength (MD) results, the retained strengths of the remaining 550 g/m2 geotextile specimens do not exceed 77%.
The coefficients of variation (COVs) values for the measured strength parameters
are indicated in Tables 3 and 4 for the 360-day collection interval only. The COV results
for the entire test period suggest that after some initial exposure period (30 to 90 days),
the natural variability of the geotextiles became dampened and in many cases the COVs
stabilized by 360 days. The COVs for the PP and PET geotextiles deployed in Vijus varied from approximately 3 to 16% and 4 to 17%, respectively. The maximum COV values at 360 days for both the PP and PET geotextiles were approximately 4 to 7% larger
in Vijus than in both Huaron and Atlanta, suggesting that the environmental conditions
in Vijus either produce or maintain the greatest variability in material strengths due to
weathering.
38
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
140
120
100
80
60
180 Grab Test MD
180 Grab Test CD
180 Trap Tear MD
180 Trap Tear CD
180 Puncture
40
20
260 Grab Test MD

260 Grab Test CD
260 Trap Tear MD
260 Trap Tear CD
260 Puncture
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time (days)
slit-film polypropylene (PP) geotextiles due to outdoor exposure in Huaron, Peru.
140
120
100
80
60
180 Grab Test MD

180 Grab Test CD
180 Trap Tear MD
180 Trap Tear CD
180 Puncture
40
20
260 Grab Test MD

260 Grab Test CD
260 Trap Tear MD
260 Trap Tear CD
260 Puncture
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time (days)
slit--film polypropylene (PP) geotextiles due to outdoor exposure in Vijus, Peru.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
39
140
120
100
80
60
420 Grab Test MD

420 Grab Test CD
420 Trap Tear MD
420 Trap Tear CD
420 Puncture
40
20
550 Grab Test MD

550 Grab Test CD
550 Trap Tear MD
550 Trap Tear CD
550 Puncture
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time (days)
Figure 12. Retained grab strength, trapezoidal tear, and puncture resistance of nonwoven
needle-punched polyester (PET) geotextiles due to outdoor exposure in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
140
120
100
80
60
420 Grab Test MD

420 Grab Test CD
420 Trap Tear MD
420 Trap Tear CD
420 Puncture
40
20
550 Grab Test MD

550 Grab Test CD
550 Trap Tear MD
550 Trap Tear CD
550 Puncture
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time (days)
needle-punched polyester (PET) geotextiles due to outdoor exposure in Huaron, Peru.
40
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
140
120
100
80
60
420 Grab Test MD

420 Grab Test CD
420 Trap Tear MD
420 Trap Tear CD
420 Puncture
40
20
550 Grab Test MD

550 Grab Test CD
550 Trap Tear MD
550 Trap Tear CD
550 Puncture
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Time (days)
needle-punched polyester (PET) geotextiles due to outdoor exposure in Vijus, Peru.
DISCUSSION
The pattern that emerges from reviewing Figures 9 through 14 is that the strength
loss for the PP and PET geotextiles was the greatest in Vijus followed by Atlanta and
Huaron. As expected, the woven slit-film 180 and 260 g/m2 PP geotextiles with carbon
black experienced greater strength loss and variability (spread) in the retained strengths
than the nonwoven needle-punched 420 and 550 g/m2 PET geotextiles without UV stabilizers. In every category in Table 1b, Vijus ranks above Atlanta except cumulative
precipitation and, hence, more degradation of the geotextiles would be expected in Vijus than Atlanta. While there are some similarities in the results, the ranges of retained
strengths for the PP and PET geotextiles deployed in Vijus are 10 to 20% and 5 to 10%
larger than the corresponding ranges for the Atlanta deployed geotextiles, respectively,
as suggested by Figures 9, 11, 12, and 14. On average, the retained strengths of the specimens deployed in Vijus are also clustered lower than the corresponding geotextiles
deployed in Atlanta. Since Vijus is approximately 26_ lower in latitude, approximately
900 m greater in elevation, and 10_C warmer than Atlanta, the exact role of latitude,
altitude, and temperature on geotextile deterioration remains obscured; however, the
overall effect of environmental exposure appears to be somewhat more aggressive.
Huaron ranks highest in altitude and is comparable to Vijus in latitude (Table 1b).
Although approximately 3,400 m lower in elevation but at a comparable latitude (~3_
difference), the greater deterioration of the geotextiles in Vijus appears to be more
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
41
closely correlated with the elevated temperatures and reduced precipitation. A comparison of the 180- and 156-day data for Atlanta and Huaron (Figures 9, 10, 12, and 13)
suggests that the environmental exposure conditions in Huaron are comparable to and
slightly more aggressive than Atlanta. These results, taken in conjunction with the Vijus
data, suggest that the combination of high altitude, high precipitation, and low average
maximum and minimum temperatures can be offset by significantly warmer temperatures, regardless of latitude.
The overall role of altitude is further questioned when we consider the results of
Grubb et al. (1999) who conducted outdoor exposure tests on the same 420 and 550 g/m2
PET geotextiles near Quiruvilca (Figure 3). The 360-day retained grab strength, trapezoidal tear, and index puncture resistance ranged from approximately 68 to 124% and
90 to 101% for the 420 and 550 g/m2 geotextiles, respectively. These values significantly exceed those of identical PET geotextiles deployed in Atlanta, Huaron, and Vijus.
The higher retained strengths of the geotextiles deployed in Shorey were believed to
be related to the cool temperatures and the extremely high levels of precipitation associated with the 1997/1998 El Nio event. Consequently, the influence of microclimates
on geotextile durability is unmistakable. For example, while the latitudes of Shorey and
Vijus are essentially the same, the cool moist conditions associated with the continental
divide produce exposure conditions much different than the relatively dry arid conditions of neighboring Vijus, which is approximately 2,400 m lower in elevation. This
further suggests that altitude may play less of a role in geotextile durability than average
mean temperatures (maximum/minimum) and precipitation levels. In fact, high cumulative precipitation appears to be inversely correlated with geotextile deterioration because the ranking of the site locations (Table 1b) is exactly the opposite of the actual
ranking of exposure locations by greatest strength loss (Vijus, Atlanta, Huaron, and
Quiruvilca from greatest to least).
While there is no substitute for site specific data, the results of the current study suggest that exposure conditions in Southeastern USA are comparable or slightly less
aggressive than exposure conditions in Central and Northern Peru. Also, the retained
strengths of 550 g/m2 PET geotextiles without UV stabilizers presented in Figures 12,
13, and 14 compare favorably with outdoor UV exposure tests conducted in Spartanburg (South Carolina, USA) and Austin (Texas, USA), which showed that 552 g/m2
nonwoven PET geotextiles with carbon black UV stabilizers retained approximately 70
to 80% of their initial (strip) tensile strength after 12 months (Koerner et al. 1998). This
lends further credibility to the general similitude of the exposure conditions of the two
regions with respect to the corresponding retained strengths of the tested geotextiles.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Outdoor exposure tests were completed on two woven slit-film polypropylene (PP)
geotextiles with carbon black (mass per unit area values of 180 and 260 g/m2) and two
nonwoven needle-punched polyester (PET) geotextiles (mass per unit area values of
420 and 550 g/m2) in Huaron (~11_S; 4,600 m elevation) and Vijus (~7_45iS, 1,250
m elevation), Peru, and Atlanta, Georgia, USA (~33_46iN, 315 m elevation), for a
12-month period. The retained mass per unit area, grab strength, trapezoidal tear, and
index puncture resistance of each geotextile were measured and averaged using five re-
42
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
plicates. The retained strength values of the slit-film woven PP geotextiles deployed
in Vijus ranged from approximately 64 to 95% and 49 to 122% for the 180 and 260 g/m2
geotextiles, respectively, compared to unexposed specimens. Likewise, the retained
strength values of the nonwoven PET specimens deployed in Vijus ranged from approximately 64 to 82% and 70 to 98% for the 420 and 550 g/m2 geotextiles, respectively.
Somewhat higher (10 to 15%) retained strength values were obtained for identical geotextiles exposed to outdoor conditions in Huaron and Atlanta. The retained strength values of the PET geotextiles exposed to outdoor conditions in Vijus were substantially less
than those in neighboring Quiruvilca located at the same latitude but greater elevation,
principally due to differences in microclimates. The role of latitude and altitude in the
strength loss of geotextiles was not clear; the strongest observed trend was that the highest strength losses appeared to be more closely correlated with the highest maximum
and minimum temperatures. Precipitation appeared to be negatively correlated with the
strength loss of geotextiles.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was funded in part by the Peru Mission of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) (Project No: 527-0368-O-00-7283-00), a National Science Foundation (NSF) CAREER Award (CMS-9703367), Mauricio Hochschild &
Compaia Ltda. S.A. (MHC) and Compaia Minera Poderosa, S.A (CMPSA). The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their help and cooperation in
Peru: A. Davis of USAID/Peru; F. Injoque and A. Diaz of MHC; J.C. Alcalde, M. Santillana, E. Alvarado, and V. Mamani of CMPSA; and O. Frias of San Ignacio De Morococha, S.A. (SIMSA). D. Klinger of NTH Consultants Ltd., and R. Valencia and G. Kolb
of Georgia Tech are thanked for their assistance with the geotextile specimen test program. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID,
NSF, MHC, or CMPSA.
7
REFERENCES
ASTM D 4533, Standard Test Method for Trapezoid Tearing Strength of Geotextiles,
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
USA.
ASTM D 4632, Standard Test Method for Breaking Load and Elongation of Geotextiles (Grab Method), American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
ASTM D 4833, Standard Test Method for Index Puncture Resistance of Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, American Society for Testing and Materials,
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
ASTM D 5970, Standard Practice for Deterioration of Geotextiles from Outdoor Exposure, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
43
CESEL, S.A., 1997, Estudio de evaluacion Ambiental Territorial y de Planeamiento

para la Reduccion o Eliminacion de origin Minero en la Cuences del los Rios: Moche,
Lluancano, Parcoy-Llaucabamba, Informe Preliminar, CESEL, S.A., Engineers
and Consultants, Av. Jose Galvaz Barraenechea 634, San Isidro, Peru, January 1997.
Cowland, J.W., Yeo, K.C. and Greenwood, J.H., 1998, Durability of Polyester and
Polypropylene Geotextiles Buried in a Tropical Environment for 14 Years, Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics, IFAI, Vol. 2, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, April
1998, pp. 669-674.
Elias, V., Salman, A. and Goulias, D., 1999, The Effect of pH, Resin Properties, and
Manufacturing Process on Laboratory Degradation of Polyester Geosynthetics,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp 459-490.
Georgia State Climate Office, 1997, http://www.bae.uga.edu/climate/atlanta/precip.html.
Grubb, D.G., Cheng, S.C.J. and Diesing, W.E. III, 1999, High Altitude Exposure Testing of Geotextiles in the Peruvian Andes, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6, No.
2, pp 119-144.
Jailloux, J.M., Anderson, P.L. and Thomas, R.W., 1992, Chemical-Compatibility
Studies of Polyester Filaments and Yarns to be Used in Geocomposites. Phase 1: Tests
at 95C, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 277-290.
Koerner, R.M., 1998, Designing with Geosynthetics, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 761 p.
Koerner, G.R., Hsuan, G.Y. and Koerner, R.M., 1998, Photo-Initiated Degradation of
Geotextiles, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 24,
No. 12, pp. 1159-1166.
Koerner, R.M., Lord, Jr., A.E. and Hsuan, Y.H., 1992, Arrhenius Modeling to Predict
Geosynthetic Degradation, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.
151-183.
Mathur, A., Netravali, A.N. and ORourke, T.D., 1994, Chemical Aging Effects on the
Physio-Mechanical Properties of Polyester and Polypropylene Geotextiles, Journal
of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 591-626.
Reich, L. and Stivala, S.S., 1971, Elements of Polymer Degradation, McGraw-Hill,
New York, New York, USA, 361 p.
Risseuw, P. and Schmidt, H.M., 1990, Hydrolysis of HT polyester yarns in water at
moderate temperatures, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Balkema, Vol. 2, The Hague,
Netherlands, May 1990, pp. 691-696.
Salman, A., Elias, V., Juran, I., Lu, S. and Pearce, E., 1997, Durability of Geosynthetics Based on Accelerated Laboratory Testing, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 97,
IFAI, Vol. 1, Long Beach, California, USA, March 1997, pp. 217-234.
Schneider, H. and Groh, M., 1987, An Analysis of the Durability Problems of Geotextiles, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 87, IFAI, Vol. 2, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
February 1987, pp. 434-441.
44
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
Segrestin, P. and Jailloux, J.M., 1988, Temperature in Soils and its Effect on the Ageing of Synthetic Materials, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 7, Nos. 1 and 2, pp.
51-69.
Walsh Peru, S.A., 1998, Informe Climatologico Mina Huaron, Proyecto No.
MIN1038, Walsh Peru Engineers and Consultants, Lima, Peru, Mayo, 12 p.
Zerlaut, G.A., 1994, Solar Ultraviolet Radiation: Aspects of Importance to the Weathering of Materials, Accelerated and Outdoor Durability Testing of Organic Materials, Ketola, W.D. and Grossman, D., Editors, ASTM Special Technical Publication
1202, pp. 3-26.
ABBREVIATIONS
ARV:
ASTM:
CD:
COV:
GAI:
MARV:
MD:
PET:
pH:
PP:
UV:
average roll value

American Society for Testing and Materials
cross-machine direction
coefficient of variation
Geosynthetics Accreditation Institute
minimum average roll value
machine direction
polyester
negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration/activity
polypropylene
ultraviolet
S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1
45

GI v7 n1 Paper2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GI v7 n1 Paper2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Paper by D.G. Grubb, W.E.

COMPARISON OF GEOTEXTILE DURABILITY TO

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

TEST LOCATIONS AND CONDITIONS

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

Summary of environmental conditions at the test locations.

Tmax average (_C)

Tmin average (_C)

Cumulative precipitation (mm)

Historical annual cumulative

Ranking of site factors anticipated to cause the greatest geotextile degradation.

Maximum average temperature

Historical annual cumulative

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

Vijus, daily maximum and minimum temperatures

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

Huaron Reported Values

Vijus Reported Values

Vijus Average Historical Values

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

Retained mass per unit area (%) .

Retained strength (%) .

260 Grab Test MD

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

textiles deployed in Atlanta (Figure 9) ranged from approximately 72 to 96% and 58

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

Retained strength (%) .

260 Grab Test MD

Retained strength (%) .

180 Grab Test MD

260 Grab Test MD

S 2000, VOL. 7, NO. 1

GRUBB, DIESING, CHENG AND SABANAS D Durability of Geotextiles to Outdoor Exposure

Retained strength (%) .

420 Grab Test MD

550 Grab Test MD

Retained strength (%) .