These are all great comments regarding the accepted uses of PP and PET geogrids in MSE and roadway

applications. My experience has been that between the two polymer types, woven coated PET geogrids that are biaxial in nature performs the best overall in the reinforcement of base layers (getting back to Evgeniy's original question). There are several reasons that this statement has held true over the years. Since punched and drawn or extruded PP geogrids are flexurally stiff, or rigid, we have seen them rupture at the junctions and also along the ribs under heavy loading conditions (100 mm (4 in) of rutting). In this case, stiff equals brittleness. Woven coated PET geogrids are still very rigid when compared to most geotextiles, but not quite as rigid as the PP geogrids. During construction and traffic loading, they can deform into the rut bowl more easily without rupturing, providing continuity in base reinforcement applications over weaker subgrade soils.

Also, woven coated PET geogrids have much, much more friction along the ribs of the grid than do the punched and drawn or extruded PP geogrids. What does this really mean? It means that most of the load transfer is taken-up along the ribs of the geogrid and much less is transferred into the junctions. This is the reason that a woven coated PET geogrid with 178 N (40 lb) of ultimate junction strength per junction can maintain its integrity and out-perform a comparable PP geogrid that may potentially rupture under the loading conditions. The punched and drawn or extruded PP geogrids have very a low friction interface along the ribs, which means most of the load transfer takes place in the junctions. Think of passive resistance from the cross rib being translated to the longitudinal ribs This is why the PP geogrids require near 100% efficiency in their junctions to maintain their continuity in this application.

The primary factors to choose PP over PET for base layer reinforcement are cost, history and market share. The cost of PP resin is much lower than that of PET counting the addition of the coating, which makes it harder to justify the use of PET over PP geogrids for this application. Further, PP geogrids have been used internationally in this application for many years now and have been installed in the majority of successful (lower deformation) base reinforcement and subgrade stabilization projects. Traditionally, the industry does not consider polymer creep in design for this application as many have mentioned here already, so the beneficial creep behavior of PET compared to PP is not a design consideration. Since the aggregate thickness will generally be greater than 150 mm (6 in) above the geogrid, installation damage for each product type is comparable as well.

In my experience, most woven coated PET geogrids yield equal or better performance, if the project costs allow their use, compared the punched and drawn or extruded PP geogrids in base reinforcement applications. My first choice for any subgrade stabilization or separation application will always be a high tensile modulus woven geotextile with high permittivity and high soil interaction (Ci, Cds). If the subgrade soils are soft and wet, there will be drainage a filtration functions that the geosynthetic must perform and cannot be performed adequately using only a geogrid. Bruce L. Roadway Reinforcement Technical Manager at TenCate Geosynthetics