APPLYING OF GEOSYNTHETICS IN ROADS PROJECTS Raghad Qashou’ Jana Kafri OUR PATH Introduction and Methodology Erosion Control Retaining walls Conc. & Recom. Pavement Design INTRODUCTION What are the Geosynthetic products used in this part of project? Bi-Axial Geogrid Geocells Non-Woven Geotextile Geostrips Jana Kafri (JK) - INTRODUCTION REMINDER! What are the uses of Geosynthetic materials ? Pavement Design Soakaway Tanks GS GS Cost Carbon ftprt Cost 1.3 - 9% saving 4.5-12% less 65% saving Soil stabilization Landscaping Slope protection Asphalt Pavement Water Drainage INTRODUCTION Project Objectives Project Significance The main objective of this project is to study both the cost and environmental impact of some elements to be constructed in the conventional way and compare it to the same elements constructed using the Geosynthetics 5 Cost Saving Time Saving Environmental impact Quality METHODOLOGY DATA COLLECTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS EROSION CONTROL REVIEW AND COMPARISON RETAINING WALLS REVIEW AND COMPARISON CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 SOIL STABILIZATION Soil Stabilization Reinforced Concrete Retaining walls Designed to support and resist lateral soil pressure when the required change in the elevation of the ground exceeds the repose's angle of the soil. Components Disadvantages: The steps of concrete mixing, casting, curing will affect the final strength of the structure. Relatively high cost Shrinkage > cracks > loosing strength MSE WALL Mechanically Stabilized Earth The stability of the wall system is derived from the interaction between the backfill and soil reinforcements Main Components: Facing Panels Geostrips MSE Methodology Establish project parameters Estimate wall embedment Evaluate external stability Evaluate internal stability Design of facing element Check Global stability including compound stability LOCATION The location where the retaining wall need to be applied with an area of 15,600 sqm Benefits of MSE Walls Flexibility to accommodate high differential settlement and several feet of total settlement. Extreme wall heights can be achieved. High resistance to seismic and other dynamic forces. Free-draining, due to granular backfill and open panel joints Rapid, predictable, and repetitive construction Excavation works for the foundation are reduced. Extreme loads can be carried. Cost Comparison Area Conventional RC Retaining Walls MSE Walls Cost (AED/m2) Total (AED) Cost (AED/m2) Total (AED) 15,600 m2 1450* 22,620,000 750* 11,700,000 *The prices include labor and backfilling A total saving of 10,920,000 AED which is represented by 48.3% of the cost. EROSION CONTROL LOCATION The location where the Erosion control techniques need to be applied with an area of 90,000 sqm EROSION CONTROL CONVENTIONAL METHOD COMBINATION Reinforcing Steel Grid Concrete mix – form a slab of 15 cm thickness Expansion Joints/4m The cost of applying reinforced concrete mat for slope protection according to the ADM is 65/sqm on avg. including labor, equipment and all the elements mentioned. EROSION CONTROL GEOCELLS COMBINATION Geocells Clip+ Ropes + Anchors Backfilling soil/gravel Effectively increases stiffness and reduces vertical settlement and lateral spreading MAIN FUNCTIONS ASPECTS 1 2 3 6 5 4 7 8 9 COST COMPARISON Area (m2) Conventional Geocells Cost (AED/m2) Total (AED) Cost (AED/m2) Total (AED) 90,000 65 5,850,000 39* 3,510,000 As provided from Best-Grid Co., The price of installing the Geocells including labor work and backfilling material is 39 AED/sqm on average. The savings in this project will be 2,340,000 AED, which will be saving 40% of the cost Sales Geocell cost SAVING 60 40 Advantages of Geocells Easily transported {Logistics is Large QTY is not a problem} Easy to install {No skilled labors needed} Can be installed in any weather condition. Faster to install {1100 sqm/day} Cost effective Reduce carbon foot‐print More aesthetic 21 PAVEMENT DESIGN Local Road LOCATION Qabatyia-Sanur Street problems Severe cracks along the street. Potholes. Deformation in asphalt were noticed in some areas. No shoulders on any side of the street. Limited/tight width of the street. PAVEMENT DESIGN   Trailer Single unit 3 axle Single unit 2 axle 6 tires Bus Single unit 2 axle 4 tires Taxi van Passenger car ESAL factor (1) 0.98 0.73 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.0004 Number of axles 5 3 2 2 2 2 2 Number of vehicles (2) 18 1 11 5 4 28 363 Design lane factor .45 .45 .45 .45 .45 .45 .45 Growth rate (3) 29.78 29.78 29.78 29.78 29.78 29.78 29.78 AADT 2870 2870 2870 2870 2870 2870 2870 Percent of vehicles 0.0418 0.002325   0.02558   0.0116   0.0093     0.0651     0.8441   ESAL 2.87 x 106 7.15 x104 1.51 x105 6.84 x104 6.5 x103 3.6 x104 9479 Total ESAL 3.21 x106 (1) Source: Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Ramallah, Palestine (2) From the peak hour count (3) Based on an annual growth factor of 4% for a design period of 20 years. PAVEMENT DESIGN DATA ANALYSIS Log10 W18 =(ZR) x (S0) +9.36 x log10(SN+1) -0.20 +2.32 x log10XmR – 8.07 + INPUT PARAMETERS PARAMETERS QABATIYA-SANUR ST. ESALs 3.21 x 106 Reliability (%) R 95% Standard Normal Deviation -1.645 Overall Standard Deviation, So 0.45 Initial Serviceability, Pi 4.5 Terminal Serviceability, Pt 2 Design Serviceability Loss ΔPSI 2.5 Drainage Coefficient, m 0.8 PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement Required ESAL Calculated SN Conventional Pavement Geosynthetic Pavement 1 Geosynthetic Pavement 2 SN ESAL SN ESAL SN ESAL LOCAL 3,210,000 4.136 4.189 3,529,013.5 4.139 3,226, 669.1 4.154 3,311,234.7 Using the previous parameters as an input for W18 equation the following summary is resulted: As summary of the calculated thickness for both conventional and geosynthetic designs, in addition to saving results is shown as follows: PAVEMENT DESIGN Layer Description Conventional Section Reinforced Section Option1 Reinforced Section Option2 Thickness (mm) Thickness (mm) Thickness (mm) Asphalt Wearing course 50 50 50 Asphalt Binder course 90 70 60 Granular base course 150 150 150 Granular Sub-base course 200 150 180 Geogrid Reinforcement - EGRID 30-30 EGRID 30-30 TOTAL THICKNESS 490 420 440 Structural Number (SN) 4.189 4.139 4.154 ESAL’s 3,529,013.5 3,226,669.1 3,311,234.7 REQUIRED ESAL’s 3,210,000.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN COST-OPTION 1 LAYER DESCRIPTION   CONVENTIONAL SECTION   BG REINFORCED SECTION (Option 1) Asphalt Wearing Course 50 mm 25.30 NIS /m2 25.30 NIS /m2 50 mm 25.30 NIS /m2 25.30 NIS /m2   Tack Coat 1 Layer 2.5 NIS /m2 2.5 NIS /m2 1 layer 2.5 NIS /m2 2.5 NIS /m2   Asphalt Base Course 90 mm 45.54 NIS /m2 45.54 NIS /m2 70 mm 33.87 NIS /m2 33.87 NIS /m2   Prime Coat 1 Layer 3 NIS /m2 3 NIS /m2 1 layer 3 NIS /m2 3 NIS /m2   Base Course 150 mm 85 NIS /m3 12.75 NIS /m2 150 mm 85 NIS /m3 12.75 NIS /m2   Sub-Base Course 200 mm 80 NIS /m3 16 NIS /m2 150 mm 80 NIS /m3 12 NIS /m2   E’GRID 30-30 0 Layer 8 NIS/m2 0 NIS /m2 1 layer 8 NIS /m2 8 NIS /m2   TOTAL 105.99 NIS /m2 97.42 NIS /m2 PAVEMENT DESIGN COST-OPTION 2 LAYER DESCRIPTION   CONVENTIONAL SECTION   BG REINFORCED SECTION (Option 2) Asphalt Wearing Course 50 mm 25.30 NIS /m2 25.30 NIS /m2 50 mm 25.30 NIS /m2 25.30 NIS /m2   Tack Coat 1 Layer 2.5 NIS /m2 2.5 NIS /m2 1 layer 2.5 NIS /m2 2.5 NIS /m2   Asphalt Base Course 90 mm 45.54 NIS /m2 45.54 NIS /m2 60 mm 29.17 NIS /m2 29.17 NIS /m2   Prime Coat 1 Layer 3 NIS /m2 3 NIS /m2 1 Layer 3 NIS /m2 3 NIS /m2   Base Course 150 mm 85 NIS /m3 12.75 NIS /m2 150 mm 85 NIS /m3 12.75 NIS /m2   Sub-Base Course 200 mm 80 NIS /m3 16 NIS /m2 190 mm 80 NIS /m3 15.2 NIS /m2   E’GRID 30-30 0 Layer 8 NIS/m2 0 NIS /m2 1 layer 8 NIS /m2 8 NIS /m2   TOTAL 105.09 NIS /m2 95.92 NIS /m2 PAVEMENT DESIGN SAVINGS OPTION 2: SAVINGS OPTION 1: In Construction Cost = 7.67 NIS/M2 Carbon footprint = 14.06 kgCO2e/m2 Total area of Local roads in the design area = 61200 m2   TOTAL SAVINGS Conventional Cost = 6,431,508 NIS Saving in Construction Cost = 469,404 NIS (7.3 % saving) In Construction Cost = 9.17 NIS/m2 Carbon footprint = 13.78 KgCO2e/m2 Total area of Local roads in the design area = 61200 m2   TOTAL SAVINGS Conventional Cost = 6,431,508 NIS Saving in Construction Cost = 561,204 NIS (8.73 % saving) Suggested Solution For high water table Perforated Pipes Capillary Break Layer CONCLUSIONS Cost Saving As noticed, using the geogrid in the pavement design saved 7.3-8.7% of the cost comparing to the conventional method. Using MSE walls saved up to 48.3% of the cost as well as using the Geocells in erosion control saved 40%. Environmental Effect The carbon footprint/ (CO2) emissions calculated shows that using the geogrid the pavement design has reduced these emissions by 7.34 as well as designing the pavement in Chapter 8 has saved around 13.3-13.5%. . Raw Material Reduction Reducing the Asphalt layer’s thickness in Pavement Design, in addition to reducing the usage of concrete to zero in Tanks Design, all of the designs have reduced the usage of raw materials in addition to water and energy consumption (e.g. Machinery). RECOMMENDATIONS The project team advise the relevant Palestinian stakeholders who are responsible on infrastructures design and construction in general in Palestine to implement a feasibility study for using the Geosynthetic materials in Palestine. The project team recommends to include Geosynthetic material in Palestine Standards as a first step to enhance the usage of Geosynthetics in infrastructure and engineering projects. THANK YOU ! image1.jpg image2.jpg image3.jpg image4.jpeg image5.png image6.png image7.png image8.jpg image9.png image10.jpg image11.jpeg image12.jpeg image13.png image14.jpeg image15.jpeg image23.png image24.png image16.png image17.png image18.png image19.png image20.png image21.png image22.png image25.PNG image26.jpeg image27.png image28.jpeg image29.jpeg image130.png image30.jpg image31.png image32.jpeg image33.png