CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Geotechnical Engineering and Soil StabilizationLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesGeotechnical and construction materials studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Weathering of a Nonwoven Polypropylene Geotextile: Field vs. Laboratory Exposure

Open access
Carneiro, José Ricardo, Lopes, Maria de Lurdes·2022·Materials
DOI 10.3390/ma15228216PMC PMC9696573
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Like other plastic materials, geosynthetics can undergo changes in their properties due to weathering. These changes must be known and, if necessary, duly accounted for in the design phase. This work evaluates the resistance of a nonwoven polypropylene geotextile to weathering, both in the field (under natural degradation conditions) and in the laboratory (under accelerated degradation conditions). The damage experienced by the geotextile in the field weathering tests was evaluated by monitoring changes in its physical (mass per unit area and thickness), mechanical (tensile, tearing and puncture behaviour) and hydraulic (water permeability normal to the plane) properties. Microscopic damage was assessed by scanning electron microscopy. In the laboratory weathering tests, only the tensile behaviour of the geotextile was monitored. The results showed that all geotextile properties were affected by weathering. The mechanical strength of the geotextile decreased in the field weathering tests. Microscopic transverse cracks were found in the weathered polypropylene fibres, which may explain the reduction in mechanical strength. The accumulation of dirt on the nonwoven structure altered the physical and hydraulic properties of the geotextile. Comparing the field and laboratory weathering tests, the reduction in tensile strength found after 24 months outdoors (roughly 30%) was very similar to that observed after 4000 h in the laboratory. This relationship may not be valid for other geotextiles or other exposure locations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/ma15228216

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the specimens used in: (a) tensile tests according to EN ISO 10319 [31]; (b) tensile tests according to EN 29073-3 [28]; (c) tearing tests; (d) static puncture tests. The roll arrows indicate the machine direction of production. The gripping area is indicated in grey.
Figure 1 Schematic representation of the specimens used in: (a) tensile tests according to EN ISO 10319 [31]; (b) tensile tests according to EN 29073-3 [28]; (c) tearing tests; (d) static puncture tests. The roll arrows indicate the machine direction of production. The gripping area is indicated in grey.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Schematic representation of the equipment used in the water permeability normal to the plane tests (the water course is indicated by arrows).
Figure 2 Schematic representation of the equipment used in the water permeability normal to the plane tests (the water course is indicated by arrows).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Reduction (in percentage) of mechanical strength over time. (Notation: T—tensile strength; FR—tearing strength; FP—puncture strength).
Figure 3 Reduction (in percentage) of mechanical strength over time. (Notation: T—tensile strength; FR—tearing strength; FP—puncture strength).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Mean curves head loss vs. v20 of GT500, before and after the field weathering tests.
Figure 4 Mean curves head loss vs. v20 of GT500, before and after the field weathering tests.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 PP fibres of GT500 before and after natural weathering: (a) unexposed (2000×); (b) 6 months (500×); (c) 6 months (2000×); (d) 12 months (500×); (e) 12 months (2000×); (f) 18 months (500×); (g) 18 months (1000×); (h) 24 months (500×); (i) 24 months (2000×). The magnifications correspond to original on-screen values.
Figure 5 PP fibres of GT500 before and after natural weathering: (a) unexposed (2000×); (b) 6 months (500×); (c) 6 months (2000×); (d) 12 months (500×); (e) 12 months (2000×); (f) 18 months (500×); (g) 18 months (1000×); (h) 24 months (500×); (i) 24 months (2000×). The magnifications correspond to original on-screen values.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Comparison of the residual tensile strength of GT500 after the field and modified laboratory weathering tests.
Figure 6 Comparison of the residual tensile strength of GT500 after the field and modified laboratory weathering tests.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Greenwood, J.H., Schroeder, H.F., and Voskamp, V. (2016). Durability of Geosynthetics, CRC Press. [2nd ed.].
  2. Valente, I.M., Carneiro, J.R., Almeida, P.J., and Lopes, M.L. (2010, January 23–27). Chemical studies about the durability of polypropylene geotextiles. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Guarujá, Brazil.
  3. Cazzuffi, D., Venesia, S., Rinaldi, M., and Zocca, A. (1986, January 7–11). The mechanical properties of geotextiles: Italian standards and interlaboratory test comparison. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Carneiro, J. R., & Lopes, M. D. L.
Affiliations
Universidade do Porto (PT)
Corresponding author
Carneiro, José Ricardo
ORCID
Venue
Materials
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-11-18
Volume
15
Issue
22
Pages
8216
ISSN
1996-1944 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/ma15228216
PMC
PMC9696573
OpenAlex
W4309701538
Cited by
12
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Materials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC) (UIDB/04708/2020)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Landfill Environmental Impact Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Geotechnical and construction materials studies
Keywords
weathering, accelerated degradation, tensile strength, water permeability, dirt accumulation, mechanical properties, hydraulic properties, scanning electron microscopy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review