1. Introduction
Reinforcing soils with geosynthetics is a common practice in many civil engineering works. Geosynthetics are applied as reinforcements to improve the mechanical properties of soils and prevent inadmissible deformations in geotechnical structures [
1]. The reinforcing function can be performed by using different geosynthetics, typically geogrids, geotextiles or geocomposites [
2]. To carry out this function, geosynthetics not only need to have adequate mechanical properties (high strength and stiffness) but also maintain minimum values of these properties for a usually long period of time.
Like other construction materials, geosynthetics can degrade over time. Their degradation agents, which can vary from application to application, are various, including installation damage, weathering, oxidation, heat, hydrolysis, abrasion or creep [
3]. The action of degradation agents, which can affect the performance of geosynthetics over time, must be considered during the design phase of the applications involving the use of these materials. ISO/TR 20432 [
4] provides guidance for determining the long-term strength of geosynthetics for soil reinforcement. This technical report specifies a method for deriving reduction factors that account for the effects of installation damage, creep and creep rupture, weathering and chemical and biological degradation. Partial reduction factors (one for each agent or type of degradation) are obtained in isolation, with the overall effect of the degradation agents being obtained by multiplying the various partial reduction factors. Similar procedures for calculating reduction factors can be found in other documents [
5,
6,
7]. Previous research has shown that, although it is a common method, multiplying partial reduction factors may result in a misrepresentation of the combined effect of degradation agents. When inaccurate, the resulting reduction factors may either be conservative [
8,
9,
10] or underestimate [
11,
12,
13] the combined effect of the degradation agents.
Even if done carefully and following best practices, the installation of geosynthetics, as well as the placement and compaction of soils over them, may cause mechanical damage (e.g., cuts or holes) to these construction materials. In many cases, geosynthetics can experience the highest mechanical stresses during installation [
1,
14]. Installation activities can induce abrasion in geosynthetics, e.g., by the use of vibratory soil compactors, triggering the mobilization of frictional forces between these materials and soil. However, abrasion can actually be a permanent degradation agent in some applications. This is the case of roadways and railways infrastructures, where daily traffic of vehicles can materialize a cyclic load over time that may cause abrasion in geosynthetics.
The resistance of geosynthetics to installation activities can be evaluated by using field tests (e.g., [
14,
15,
16,
17]) or laboratory tests (e.g., [
18,
19,
20,
21]). Field tests normally involve installation under real conditions, providing reliable results on the survivability of geosynthetics. However, they are often expensive and time-consuming and require heavy equipment. Alternatively, laboratory tests can be used to assess the resistance of geosynthetics to mechanical damage. These tests, of which the one described in EN ISO 10722 [
22] is an example, are more expeditious but less specific and provide less accurate results than the field tests under real installation conditions. There are also laboratory methods to determine the resistance of geosynthetics to abrasion, the method described in EN ISO 13427 [
23] (sliding block test) being an example. The damage experienced by the geosynthetics (in the field or laboratory tests) is typically quantified by monitoring changes in their properties, often tensile (e.g., [
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19]) and/or hydraulic (e.g., [
20,
21]) properties.
Previous research on mechanical damage of geosynthetics promoted by exposure to repeated loading and abrasion has shown that the mechanical and hydraulic properties of these materials can be affected by damaging actions [
12,
13,
24]. Different materials have been tested, mostly geotextiles and geogrids, with their structure having a significant influence on their survivability to damaging actions. Although extrapolating laboratory results to reality is complicated, these results can be an indicator of the resistance of geosynthetics to degradation, allowing the behaviour of different materials to be compared.
This work follows a previous study [
24] on the resistance of a reinforcement geocomposite to mechanical damage induced by repeated loading and abrasion, complementing it and including a significant amount of additional results. As will be described later, the geocomposite was formed by two different elements, resulting in distinct structures on each side (the structure also varied with direction). The geocomposite was tested on both sides and directions, with the effect of the degradation tests being measured by their impact on its tensile and tearing behaviour. The main goals of the work included: (1) assess how changing the side and direction tested influenced the degradation suffered by the geocomposite; (2) evaluate how the different elements of the geocomposite were affected by the damaging actions; (3) find out whether changes in the tensile and tearing strength of the geocomposite could be related; and (4) compare methods for determining reduction factors for the combined effect of the degradation agents.
4. Conclusions
This work assessed the effect caused by different degradation conditions (RL tests, abrasion tests and a double testing condition consisting of RL tests followed by abrasion tests) on the mechanical behaviour (tensile and tearing properties) of a reinforcement geocomposite. The influence of the tested direction and the tested side of the geocomposite was evaluated. The main findings of the work include the following:
The degradation tests resulted in visible damage to the geocomposite (regardless of the direction or side tested), readily indicating that the reinforcement function was, in most cases, affected. The damage (type and severity) varied from test to test, anticipating different changes in the mechanical performance of the geocomposite.
The degradation tests induced, in most cases, a deterioration in the tensile and tearing behaviour of the geocomposite.
Regarding single tests, the reduction in tensile and tearing strength tended to be more relevant after RL tests than abrasion. The degradation induced to the geocomposite by the RL tests was relatively close, regardless of the direction or side tested.
The double testing condition proved to be the most adverse scenario for the geocomposite, leading to the most considerable reductions in tensile and tearing strength.
The deterioration of the tensile and tearing strength of the geocomposite depended, in some cases, on the direction tested. This was noticeable in degradation conditions that included exposure to abrasive actions.
The tested side also influenced the degradation experienced by the geocomposite in abrasion tests. The differences were related to the structure of the geocomposite.
An acceptable relationship was found between the decline in the tensile and tearing strength of the geocomposite. In most cases, the difference between the residual values of these two properties did not exceed 10% (in absolute values).
With regard to reduction factors for tensile and tearing strength, the common method was, in most cases, not able to adequately quantify the combined effect of the RL and abrasion tests—the reduction factors calculated by using this method tended to be lower than those resulting from the double testing condition. The underestimation of the combined effect of degradation agents, ignoring possible interactions (synergisms) between them, may lead to incorrect designs.
The mechanical performance of the geocomposite, and thus its reinforcement capacity, was affected by most degradation tests. Knowing that its structure played a relevant role in its resistance to degradation, geocomposites with different structures will certainly have different survivability to damaging actions. To ensure that geosynthetics have adequate properties to correctly perform their functions, both in the short and long term, all types of degradation that these materials may experience over time (and the consequent effect on their properties) must be properly evaluated and taken into account during the design phase. In addition, construction procedures defined by designers and manufacturers must be duly followed to avoid or minimize degradation.