CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

1 INTRODUCTION & COURSE

OBJECTIVES

2 GEOGRIDS USED IN ROADWAY

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

3 APPLICATIONS & DESIGN

PRINCIPLES

4 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR

PERMANENT ROADS –

STABILIZATION - BASE

REINFORCEMENT –

MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL DESIGN –

LIFE CYCLE COST BENEFIT

5 DESIGN INPUT FOR SUBGRADE

SEPARATION
CONCLUSION

GEOGRIDS IN ROADWAY AND PAVEMENT

SYSTEMS

ABSTRACT

Geogrids have been used in pavement design for the past 25 yrs. Geogrid reinforcement
is used in permanent paved roadways in two major application areas – base
reinforcement and subgrade stabilization. In base reinforcement applications, the
geogrids are placed within or at the bottom of unbound layers of a flexible pavement
system and improve the load-carrying capacity of the pavement under repeated traffic.
In subgrade stabilization applications, the geogrids are used to build a construction
platform over weak subgrades to carry equipment and facilitate the construction of the
pavement system without excessive deformations of the subgrade.

The design of geogrids in paved and unpaved roads has been largely based on empirical
design methods with some theoretical support based on bearing capacity theory.
Geogrids are widely recognized for improvement of pavement support layers
(base/subbase and/or subgrade) through reinforcement of base/subbase course layers in
flexible pavements and unpaved roads. However, the implementation of these proven
technologies is limited by the lack of direct incorporation of materials in pavement
design. A major initiative in pavement design was the development and implementation
of the Mechanistic-Empirical (M-E) methods. While the M-E Pavement Design Guides
(MEPDG) have been officially adopted (e.g., Australia, 2004 and AASHTO, 2008),
these guides do not include the evaluation of pavement performance when geosynthetics
are used in the flexible pavements and unpaved roads for improved layer support through
either stabilization of soft subgrades or reinforcement of base/subbase course layers.

In this workshop, the current design practice and the recent developments for the use of
geogrids in stabilization and base reinforcement applications will be reviewed. Both
empirical and M-E design approaches will be presented. The development of a design
method within the framework of the mechanistic-empirical design method will address.
The implications of these design approaches in relation to long-term pavement
performance will be discussed. The life cycle cost benefit for each of these applications
will be examined.

1 INTRODUCTION

Geosynthetics provide significant improvement in pavement construction and

performance. Figure 1 illustrates a number of potential geosynthetic applications
in a layered pavement system to improve its performance. The reinforcement
applications shown in Figure 1 can be provided by geogrids through friction or
interlock developed between the aggregate and the geosynthetic. These
applications include subgrade stabilization, base reinforcement and asphalt
reinforcement. Subgrade stabilization refers to situations where geosynthetics are
placed on weak subgrade prior to the placement of an aggregate layer. The
reinforced unpaved road may be used as is or may serve as a construction
platform for a permanent paved road. Base reinforcement is used for permanent
paved roads and is typically applicable for low volume roads founded on weak
subgrade. Reinforcement placed within asphalt layers are used to reduce fatigue,
thermal and reflective cracking, control rutting and mitigate the effects of frost
heave. The geogrid can also be combined with a geotextile separation layer to
prevent fines from migrating into more open graded base layers and further
enhance the roadway performance through improved drainage as well as
reinforcement. This document provides specific design and construction
information for the use of geogrids in subgrade stabilization and in base
reinforcement, as covered in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Geosynthetics Design and Construction Guidelines Manual (Holtz et al., 2008).
The types of geogrid used in these roadway applications, the functions of the
geogrid, design, specification, and construction requirements will be reviewed in
detail in the following section. Information on geogrids in asphalt reinforcement
can be found in Chapter 6 of the FHWA manual.
 Figure 1. Potential applications of geosynthetics in a layered pavement system.

2 DEFINITIONS, MANUFACTURING PROCESSES, AND

IDENTIFICATION

ASTM (2006) D 4439 defines a geosynthetic as a planar product manufactured

from a polymeric material used with soil, rock, earth, or other geotechnical-
related material as an integral part of a civil engineering project, structure, or
system. A number of geosynthetics are available, including geotextiles, geogrids,
geomembranes, geonets, geomeshes, geowebs, and geocomposites.

Geogrids are formed by a regular network of tensile elements with apertures of

sufficient size to interlock with surrounding fill material. Geogrids are primarily
used for reinforcement.
Geogrids may be combined with geotextiles to provide the best attributes of each
material. These products are called geocomposites.
Geogrids are made from synthetic polymers, and of these, polypropylene,
polyester, and polyethylene are by far the most common. These polymers are
normally highly resistant to biological and chemical degradation. Less-
frequently-used polymers include fiber glass for the grid structure. Polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) is also used for coating some geogrids. Natural fibers such as
cotton, jute, etc., could also be used to make materials that are similar to geogrids.
Because these products are biodegradable, they are only for temporary
applications. Natural fiber geogrid type materials have not been widely utilized
in the U.S. For additional information about the polymeric composition of
geosynthetics, see Koerner (2006).
Geogrids can be manufactured with integral junctions are manufactured by
extruding and orienting sheets of polyolefins (polyethylene or polypropylene).
These types of geogrids are often called extruded or integral geogrids. Geogrids
may also be manufactured of multifilament polyester yarns, joined at the
crossover points by a knitting or weaving process, and then encased with a
polymer-based, plasticized coating. These types of geogrids are often called
woven or flexible geogrids. A third type, a welded geogrid manufactured, as the
name implies, by welding polymeric strips together at their cross over points. All
these manufacturing techniques allow geogrids to be oriented such that the
principal strength is in one direction, called uniaxial geogrids, or in both
directions (but not necessarily the same), called biaxial geogrids.
Geogrids, as with all geosynthetics, are generically identified by:
1. polymer (descriptive terms, e.g., high density, low density, etc. should be
included);
2. type of element (e.g., strand, rib, coated rib);
3. distinctive manufacturing process (e.g., woven, extruded, knitted, welded,
uniaxial, biaxial);
4. primary type of geosynthetic (i.e., geogrid);
5. mass per unit area ; and
6. any additional information or physical properties necessary to describe the
material in relation to specific applications (e.g., opening size). STEP
For example:
• polypropylene extruded biaxial geogrid, with 1 in. x 1 in. (25 mm x 25 mm)
openings;
• PVC coated polyester woven biaxial geogrid with 0.5 in. x 1 in. (12.5 mm x
25 mm)
• polypropylene welded biaxial geogrid/needlepunched nonwoven geotextile
geocomposite, with 1.2 in. x 1.2 in. (30 mm x 30 mm) openings and a 5
oz/yd2 (150 g/m2) geotextile mechanically bonded between the cross laid
reinforcement ribs.
 3 SPECIFICATIONS

When highway engineers first started using geosynthetics, their specifications

were very simple: use Brand X or equal. That approach was probably OK when
there were only a few products available, but today, with literally hundreds of
different geosynthetics on the market with a wide variety of properties,
specifications should be based on the specific geosynthetic properties required
for design, installation, and durability. The use of “standard” geosynthetics may
result in uneconomical or unsafe designs. Specifying a particular type of
geosynthetic or its equivalent can also be very misleading. What is equivalent?
A contractor may select a product that has completely different properties than
intended by the designer.

Specifications can be classified as generic, performance, approved list, and

approved supplier. For most routine applications, generic specifications are
preferred because they are based on the geosynthetic properties required by the
design, installation and construction conditions, and durability requirements of
the project. Performance specifications require testing of the geosynthetic
together with soils from the project. (Recall that the engineer is responsible for
performance tests, not the contractor or manufacturer.) Thus the agency or owner
has to pre-select geosynthetics based on experience or index tests and then obtain
representative samples of soils from the project. In some situations, it may be
better to require the contractor to submit, in advance of construction, samples of
the proposed geosynthetics and soils from the project site or from a proposed
borrow area to the engineer for testing. Realistically, performance testing takes
time, often weeks, so the contract must clearly specify how far in advance of
product installation that the samples must be submitted to the engineer for testing
and approval.

All geosynthetic specifications should include:

• general requirements
• specific geosynthetic properties
• seams and overlaps
 • placement procedures
• repairs, and
• acceptance and rejection criteria

General requirements include the product type(s), acceptable polymeric

materials, mass per unit area, roll dimensions if relevant, etc. Geosynthetic
manufacturers and representatives are good sources of information on these
characteristics. Other items that should be specified in this section are
instructions on storage and handling so products can be protected from ultraviolet
exposure, dust, mud, or any other elements that may affect performance.
Guidelines concerning on-site storage and handling of geotextiles are contained
in ASTM D 4873, Standard Guide for Identification, Storage, and Handling of
Geotextiles. Finally, certification requirements also should be included in this
section.

Specific geosynthetic physical, index, and performance properties as required

by the design must be listed. Properties should be given in terms of minimum (or
maximum) average roll values (MARVs), along with the required test methods.
MARVs are simply the smallest (or largest) anticipated average value that would
be obtained for any roll tested (ASTM D 4439; Koerner, 2006). This average
property value must exceed the minimum (or be less than the maximum) value
specified for that property based on a particular standard test. Ordinarily it is
possible to obtain a manufacturer's certification for MARVs.

Seam and overlap requirements should be clearly specified. Geogrids may be

overlapped or connected by mechanical fasteners, though the connection may be
either structural or a construction aid (i.e., when strength perpendicular to the
seam length is not required). Minimum overlap must be specified and if
mechanical fasteners are used, the minimum strength required for the seam
should also be specified. For designs where wide width tests are used (e.g.,
reinforced embankments on soft foundations), the required seam strength is a
calculated design value required for stability. Therefore, seam strengths should
never be specified as a percent of the geosynthetic strength. Also, for structurally
connected geogrids, the seaming material (fastener) should consist of polymeric
materials that have the same or greater durability as the geosynthetic being
seamed.

Placement procedures should be given in detail in the specifications and on the

construction drawings. These procedures should include grading and ground-
clearing requirements, aggregate specifications, minimum aggregate lift
thickness, and equipment requirements. These requirements are especially
important if the geosynthetic was selected on the basis of survivability.
Orientation and direction of geosynthetic placement should also be clearly
specified on the construction drawings. Detailed placement procedures are
described in each application chapter.

Repair procedures for damaged sections of geosynthetics (i.e., failed ribs, rips
and tears) should be detailed. Included are requirements for seams or complete
replacement of the damaged product. For overlap repairs, the geosynthetic
should extend the minimum of the overlap length requirement from all edges of
the tear or rip (i.e., if a 1 foot (0.3 m) overlap is required, the patch should extend
at least 1 foot (0.3 m) from all edges of the tear). In reinforcement applications,
it is best that the specifications require complete replacement of a damaged
section. Finally, the contract documents should very clearly state that final
approval of the repairs is determined by the engineer, and that payment for repairs
is the responsibility of the contractor.

Acceptance and rejection criteria for the geosynthetic materials should be

clearly stated in the specifications. It is very important that all installations be
observed by a designer’s representative who is knowledgeable about geogrid
placement procedures and who is aware of design requirements. Sampling (e.g.,
ASTM D 4354, Standard Practice for Sampling of Geosynthetics for Testing) and
testing requirements for quality assurance that are required during construction
should also be specified. Guidelines for acceptance and rejection of geosynthetic
shipments are given in ASTM D 4759, Standard Practice for Determining the
Specification Conformance of Geosynthetics.

For small projects, the cost of ASTM acceptance/rejection criterion testing is

often a significant portion of the total project cost and may even exceed the cost
 of the geosynthetic itself. In such cases, a certification by the manufacturer
should be required. In this case, collect a few samples from the rolls for future
evaluation and confirmation, if required.

Example specifications for geogrids and geocomposites in roadway applications

will be covered later in Section 9.
4 APPLICABILTY AND BENEFITS OF GEOSYNTHETICS IN
ROADWAYS

Roads and highways are broadly classified into two categories: permanent and
temporary, depending on their service life, traffic applications, or desired
performance. Permanent roads include both paved and unpaved systems which
usually remain in service 10 years or more. Permanent roads may be subjected
to more than a million load applications during their design lives. On the other
hand, temporary roads are, in most cases, unpaved. They remain in service for
only short periods of time (often less than 1 year), and are usually subjected to
fewer than 10,000 load applications during their services lives. Temporary roads
include detours, haul and access roads, construction platforms, and stabilized
working tables required for the construction of permanent roads, as well as
embankments over soft foundations.

4-1 Temporary Roads and Working Platforms

Geosynthetics are used in temporary roads to reduce rutting of the gravel surface
and/or to decrease the amount of gravel required to support the anticipated traffic.
Furthermore, the geosynthetic helps to maintain the aggregate thickness over the
life of the temporary road.

Where the soils are normally too weak to support the initial construction work,
geosynthetics in combination with gravel provide a working platform to allow
construction equipment access to sites. This is one of the more important uses of
geosynthetics. Even if the finished roadway can be supported by the subgrade,
it may be virtually impossible to begin construction of the embankment or
roadway. Such sites require stabilization by dewatering, demucking, excavation
and replacement with select granular materials, utilization of stabilization
aggregate, chemical stabilization, etc. Geosynthetics can often be a costeffective
alternate to these expensive foundation treatment procedures.
4-2 Permanent Paved and Unpaved Roads
For permanent road construction, a temporary working platform can be
constructed to provide an improved roadbed using geogrid reinforcements with
an aggregate layer to provide a form of mechanical stabilization. This
mechanically stabilized aggregate layer enables contractors to meet minimum
compaction specifications for the first two or three aggregate lifts. This is
especially true on very soft, wet subgrades, where the use of ordinary compaction
equipment is very difficult or even impossible. Long term, a geogrid or, in some
cases, a geocomposite acts to maintain the roadway design section and the base
course material integrity. Thus, the geosynthetic will ultimately increase the life
of the roadway.

Another geogrid application in roadways is to place the geogrid or geocomposite

at the bottom of or within the base course to provide reinforcement through lateral
confinement of the aggregate layer. Lateral confinement arises from the
development of interface shear stresses between the aggregate and the
reinforcement and occurs during placement, compaction, and traffic loading. A
small residual restraint remains after each load application, thus increasing the
lateral confinement of the aggregate with increasing load applications. Base
reinforcement thus improves the long-term structural support for the base
materials and reduces permanent deformation in the roadway section and has
been found under certain conditions to provide significant improvement in
pavement performance. Increases in traffic volume up to a factor of 10 to reach
the same distress level (1 in. {25mm} rutting) have been observed for reinforced
sections versus unreinforced sections of the same design asphalt and base
thickness (Berg et al., 2000). This application is reviewed later in the permanent
roadway application section of this document (Section 7).

4-3 Subgrade Conditions in which Geogrids are Useful

Geosynthetics have a 30+ year history of successful use for the stabilization of
very soft wet subgrades. Based on experience and several case histories
summarized by Haliburton, Lawmaster, and McGuffey (1981) and Christopher
and Holtz (1985), the following subgrade conditions are considered optimum for
using geosynthetics in roadway construction:
• Poor soils
 (USCS: SC, CL, CH, ML, MH, OL, OH, and PT)
(AASHTO: A-5, A-6, A-7-5, and A-7-6)
• Low undrained shear strength τf = cu < 2000 psf (90 kPa)
CBR < 3 (Note: Soaked Saturated CBR as determined with ASTM D
4429)
R-value (California) ≈ < 20
MR ≈ < 4500 psi (30 MPa)
• High water table
• High sensitivity

Under these conditions, multiple functions are possible. Geosynthetics function

as separators to prevent intermixing of roadway aggregate and the subgrade.
Filtration is required because soils below a CBR of 3 are typically wet and
saturated. This water must be allowed to pass up through the geosynthetic into
the aggregate, such that destabilizing pore pressure in the subgrade generated
from wheel loads can rapidly dissipate. Pore pressure dissipation will also allow
for strength gains in the subgrade over time. Some level of reinforcement may
also be provided through lateral restraint of the roadway aggregate placed directly
above the geosynthetic, which in turn reduces the stresses on the subgrade and
improves bearing capacity. If large ruts develop during placement of the first
aggregate lift, then some membrane reinforcing effect is also present.

As the geosynthetic provides multiple functions, which both benefit construction

and allow for subgrade improvement with time, AASHTO M288 has identified
applications where the undrained shear strength is less than about 2000 psf (90
kPa) (CBR about 3) as a form of mechanical stabilization. From a foundation
engineering point of view, clay soils with undrained shear strengths of 2000 psf
(90 kPa), or higher, are considered to be stiff clays (Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
and are generally quite good foundation materials. Allowable footing pressures
on such soils can be around 3000 psf (150 kPa) or greater. Simple stress
distribution calculations show that for static loads, such soils will readily support
reasonable truckloads and tire pressures, even under relatively thin granular
bases.
Construction loads, dynamic loads and high tire pressures are another matter.
Some rutting will probably occur in such soils, especially after a few hundred
passes (Webster, 1993). If traffic is limited, as it is in many temporary roads, or
if shallow (< 3 in. {75 mm}) ruts are acceptable, as in most construction
operations, a maximum undrained shear strength of approximately 2000 psf (90
kPa) (CBR = 3) for geosynthetic use in highway construction seems reasonable.
However, for soils that are seasonally weak (e.g., from frost heave) or for high
fines content soils which are susceptible to pumping, a geotextile separator may
be of benefit in preventing migration of fines at a much higher subgrade
undrained shear strength. This is especially the case for permeable base
applications. Significant fines migration has been observed with a subgrade CBR
as high as 8 (e.g., Al-Qadi et al., 1998).

Base reinforcement in permanent roadway applications has also been found to be

effective at relatively high subgrade strengths, again with a subgrade CBR as
high as 8 (e.g., Berg et al., 2000). The application of a vehicular load to a flexible
pavement results in dynamic stresses within the various pavement components.
As vehicular loads are repeatedly applied, permanent strain is induced in the
aggregate and subgrade layers and accumulates as traffic passes grow, which
leads to rutting of the pavement surface. Fatigue cracking of the asphaltic
concrete layer also results from repeated cycles of tensile lateral strain in the
bottom of the layer. The lateral restraint provided by the geogrid increases the
confinement in the aggregate and thus creates a stiffer system, especially in thin
pavement sections. The influence of base reinforcement does diminish as the
pavement system itself becomes stiffer (i.e., thicker asphalt, thicker base and
stronger subgrade.) As discussed in Section 7, geogrids are most effective in
relatively thin base sections (12 in. {300 mm} or less) and weaker subgrade
conditions.

As a summary, the application areas and functions in Table 1 have been identified as
appropriate for the corresponding subgrade conditions.

5 ROADWAY DESIGN USING GEOGRIDS

Certain design principles are common to all types of roadways, regardless of the
design method or the type of geosynthetic (i.e., geotextile or geogrid). Basically,
the design of any roadway involves a study of each of the components of the
system, (surface, aggregate base courses and subgrade) detailing their behavior
under traffic load and their ability to carry that load under various climatic and
environmental conditions. All roadway systems, whether permanent or
temporary, derive their support from the underlying subgrade soils. Thus, when
placed at the subgrade interface, the geosynthetic functions are similar for either
temporary or permanent roadway applications. However, due to different
performance requirements, design methodologies for temporary roads should not
 be used to design permanent roads. Temporary roadway design usually allows
some rutting to occur over the design life, as ruts will not necessarily impair
service. Obviously, ruts are not acceptable in permanent roadways.

For temporary roads, our design basically uses geosynthetics for the construction
and traffic support of the roadway section allowing for a specific tolerable
amount of rutting. Recommended design procedures for temporary roads are
presented in Section 6 for geogrids. Approaches for using geogrids in permanent
roads for stabilization and base reinforcement are covered in Section 7. Design
for each application is based on the function(s) of the geosynthetic and the
properties required to perform the intended functions as covered in the following
sections.

5-1 Functions of Geogrids in Roadways and Pavements

As indicated in the introduction section, the geogrid improves the pavement

system performance through reinforcement, which may be provided through
three possible mechanisms.
1. Lateral restraint of the base and subgrade through friction (geotextiles) and
interlock (geogrids) between the aggregate, soil and the geosynthetic (Figure 2a).
2. Increase in the system bearing capacity by forcing the potential bearing capacity
failure surface to develop along alternate, higher shear strength surfaces (Figure
2b).
3. Membrane support of the wheel loads (Figure 2c).
Figure 2. Possible reinforcement
functions provided by
geosynthetics in roadways: (a)
lateral restraint, (b) bearing
capacity increase, and (c)
membrane tension support (after
Haliburton, et al., 1981).

When an aggregate layer is

loaded by a vehicle wheel or
dozer track, the aggregate
tends to move or shove
laterally, as shown in Figure
2a, unless it is restrained by
the subgrade or geosynthetic
reinforcement. Soft, weak
subgrade soils provide very
little lateral restraint, so when
the aggregate moves laterally,
ruts develop on the aggregate surface and also in the subgrade. A geogrid with
good interlocking capabilities or geocomposiste with good interlocking and
frictional capabilities can provide tensile resistance to lateral aggregate
movement.

Another possible geosynthetic reinforcement mechanism is illustrated in Figure

2b. Using the analogy of a wheel load to a footing, the geosynthetic
reinforcement forces the potential bearing capacity failure surface to follow an
alternate higher strength path. This tends to increase the bearing capacity of the
subgrade soil.

A third possible geosynthetic reinforcement function is membrane-type support

of wheel loads, as shown conceptually in Figure 2c. In this case, the wheel load
stresses must be great enough to cause plastic deformation and ruts in the
subgrade. If the geosynthetic has a sufficiently high tensile modulus, tensile
stresses will develop in the reinforcement, and the vertical component of this
membrane stress will help support the applied wheel loads. As tensile stress
within the geosynthetic cannot be developed without some elongation, wheel
 path rutting (in excess of 4 in. {100 mm}) is required to develop membrane-type
support. Therefore, this mechanism is generally limited to temporary roads or
the first aggregate lift in permanent roadways.

A geosynthetic placed at the interface between the aggregate base course and the
subgrade also functions as a separator to prevent two dissimilar materials
(subgrade soils and aggregates) from intermixing. Geotextiles perform this
function by preventing penetration of the aggregate into the subgrade (localized
bearing failures) and prevent intrusion of subgrade soils up into the base course
aggregate (Figure 3). Geogrids can also prevent aggregate penetration into the
subgrade, depending on the ability of the geogrid to confine and prevent lateral
displacement of the base/sub-base. However, the geogrid does not prevent
intrusion of subgrade soils up into the base/sub-base course, which must have a
gradation that is compatible with the subgrade based on standard geotechnical
graded granular filer criteria when using geogrids alone. Subgrade intrusion can
also occur under long term dynamic loading due to pumping and migration of
fines, especially when open-graded base courses are used. It only takes a small
amount of fines to significantly affect the structural characteristics of select
granular aggregate (e.g., see Jornby and Hicks, 1986). Therefore, separation is
important to maintain the design thickness and the stability and load-carrying
capacity of the base course. Thus, when geogrids are used, the secondary
function of separation must also be considered.

Geosynthetic

Figure 3. Concept of separation in roadways (after Rankilor, 1981).

5-2 Design for Stabilization

In stabilization design, the geogrid and aggregate thickness required to stabilize
the subgrade and provide an adequate roadbed are evaluated. Recall that this
application is primarily for construction expedience. For design of permanent
roads, this stabilization lift also provides an improved roadbed (i.e., less subgrade
disturbance, a gravel layer that will not be contaminated due to intermixing with
the subgrade, and a potential for subgrade improvement of time). The base
course thickness required to adequately carry the design traffic loads for the
design life of the pavement may be reduced due to the improved roadbed
condition, provided an assessment is made of the improvement.

As indicated in Table 1, geosynthetics used in this application perform multiple

functions of separation, filtration and reinforcement. Separation design
requirements were discussed in previous section. Because the subgrade soils are
generally wet and saturated in this application, filtration design principles are also
applicable.

With respect to reinforcement requirements, there are two main approaches to

stabilization design. The first approach inherently includes the reinforcement
function through improved bearing capacity and there is no direct reinforcing
contribution (or input) for the strength characteristics of the geosynthetic. When
this approach is used for geogrids, a geotextile or graded granular soil separation
layer is also required to address these functional requirements. The second
approach considers a possible reinforcing effect due to the geosynthetic. It
appears that the separation function is more important for roadway sections with
relatively small live loads where ruts, approximating 2 in to 4 in. (50 to 100 mm)
are anticipated. In these cases, a design which assumes no reinforcing effect is
generally conservative. On the other hand, for large live loads on thin roadways
where deep ruts (> 4 in. {100 mm}) may occur, and for thicker roadways on
softer subgrades, the reinforcing function becomes increasingly more important
if stability is to be maintained. It is for these latter cases that reinforcing analyses
have been developed and are appropriate.
The reinforcing mechanisms mobilized in subgrade stabilization are different
between geogrids and geotextiles. Due to the open structure and large apertures,
the geogrids interlock with base course aggregate and change the stress and strain
conditions in the vicinity of the geogrid. The efficiency of the geogrid-aggregate
interlock depends on the relationship between aperture size and aggregate particle
size, and the in-plane stiffness of the geogrid ribs and junctions. A design method
that recognizes these distinctions is presented in Section 6 along with the
empirical method, which was originally developed for geotextiles, and later
modified for geogrids.
The separation function of geogrids, which is considered secondary in geogrid
reinforced stabilization applications, is less obvious mainly because of the
geogrids’ open structure. It is recommended that a geotextile be used as a
separator beneath a geogrid to prevent migration of fines into the aggregate layers
over time. However, it is possible to eliminate the geotextile by designing the
gradation of the base or a subbase layer to provide separation based on well
known graded granular filter design principals (e.g., see Cedegren, 1989).
Graded granular subbase layers are conventionally used in roadway design (e.g.,
see the FHWA Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements Manual, Christopher et al.,
2006). Geogrids provide a stable platform for the base aggregate, which may be
sized to adequately filter the subgrade fines to prevent pumping (see Figure 4 and
Anderson, 2006). The movement of fine grained soils into coarse aggregates can
be prevented if the pore spaces of the aggregates are small enough to hold the
particles in place. When a geogrid is present at the subgradebase course interface,
the relative movement of the soil particles is further constrained due to
confinement provided by the geogrid-aggregate interlock. As a result, the
possibility of soil migration is further reduced. The application of the graded
granular filter criteria is shown in the example for geogrid-reinforced unpaved
roads in Section 6.

Figure 4. Filtration at the interface of two dissimilar materials (without

geosynthetics) (after Cedegren, 1989).
5-3 Reinforced Base/Subbase Design
Geogrids have been used for reinforcement of aggregate layers within the
pavement system since their introduction in the early 1980s. The predominant
reinforcing mechanism associated with this application is base course lateral
restraint (Figure 2a). The base course lateral restraint develops through interlock
between the aggregate, soil and the geogrid because four reinforcement effects:
(1) prevention of lateral spreading of aggregate; (2) confinement of aggregate
resulting in increased strength/stiffness of aggregate in the vicinity of the
geogrid; (3) reduction of vertical stresses on top of the subgrade; and (4)
reduction of shear stress on the subgrade.

Despite many successful projects and research it is recognized that the use of
geogrid reinforcement in paved roadways is relatively limited compared to other
geosynthetics applications. Berg et al. (2000), Perkins et al. (2005c), and Gabr
et al. (2006) indicated the following major reasons for the relatively limited used
of geogrids in base reinforcement applications:
1. Lack of an accepted design method. Currently the use of base reinforcement
applications is based on prior experience and empirically based design
approaches which are limited to the conditions of the related experiments.
2. Existing numerical models for pavement design without geosynthetics are
complicated (NCHRP, 2002) and the perception is that the inclusion of
geosynthetics will complicate them further. A recent movement toward
adoption of a mechanistic-empirical design approach recognized that this will
allow quantification of the geogrid benefits in a rational and consistent way.
3. Few studies provide comparison for the full range of available geogrids (i.e.,
woven vs. extruded, different aperture stiffness/stability, etc.), and some types
of geogrids have been studied more often than others.
4. Geogrids (and geosynthetics in general) are perceived as special materials that
are considered only if problem areas need to be fixed (Gabr et al., 2006).
5. Lack of a uniform method for cost-benefit analysis.

It is recognized that the development of a design method within the framework

of the mechanistic-empirical design method will address the limitations of the
current design approaches and lead to a broader use of geosynthetics in base
reinforcement applications. Two approaches are presented for base
reinforcement in Section 7. The first uses an empirical procedure based on
current AASHTO and the improved traffic benefit derived from using the
geosynthetic. The other method is based on the AASHTO mechanisticempirical
design approach (AASHTO, 2008).

5-6 Material Properties used in Design

As with any geosynthetic applications, the material properties required for design
are based on the properties required to perform the primary and secondary
function(s) for the specific application over the life of the system and the
properties required to survive installation. Some strength is, of course, required
for the reinforcing function, which is based on the requirements in the specific
design approach. The separation function is related to opening characteristics
and are determined based on the gradation of the adjacent layers (i.e., subgrade,
base and/or subbase layers). If the roadway system is designed correctly, then
the stress at the top of the subgrade due to the weight of the aggregate and the
traffic load should be less than the bearing capacity of the soil plus a safety factor,
which is generally a relatively low value compared to the strength of most
geosynthetics. However, the stresses applied to the subgrade and the
geosynthetic during construction may be much greater than those applied in-
service. Therefore, the strength of the geosynthetic in roadway applications is
usually governed by the anticipated construction stresses and the required level
of performance. This is the concept of geosynthetic survivability -- the
geosynthetic must survive the construction operations if it is to perform its
intended function.

Table 2 relates the elements of construction (i.e., equipment, aggregate

characteristics, subgrade preparation, and subgrade shear strength) to the severity
of the loading imposed on the geosynthetic. If one or more of these items falls
within a particular severity category (i.e., moderate or high), then geosynthetics
meeting those survivability requirements should be selected.

For the high category in Table 2, geosynthetics that can survive the most severe
conditions anticipated during construction should be used and are designated as
Class 1 geosynthetics in the following geosynthetic property requirements tables.
 Geosynthetics that can survive normal construction conditions are Class 2
geosynthetics and may be considered for the moderate category. Variable
combinations indicating a NOT RECOMMENDED rating suggests that one or
more variables should be modified to assure a successful installation.
Some judgment is required in using these criteria.

Table 3 lists the survivability requirements for geogrids in stabilization and base
reinforcement applications. A national guide of practice has not been established
for geogrids. Therefore the recommended requirements were developed
specifically for this manual and were based on a review of research on
construction survivability (e.g., GMA, 1999), a review of state and federal
agency specifications on geogrids (e.g., Christopher et al., 2001 and USCOE,
2003), and on the properties of geogrids which have performed satisfactorily in
these applications (e.g., Berg et al., 2000). The specific property requirements
were conservatively selected with consideration for high reliability required on
public sector projects. Field trials or construction survivability tests following
the recommendations in note 5 of Table 3 for both the material and junction
strength could be used to reduce this conservatism.
Survivability of geogrids for major projects should be verified by conducting
field tests under site-specific conditions. These field tests should involve trial
sections using several geosynthetics on typical subgrades at the project site and
implementing various types of construction equipment. After placement of the
geosynthetics and aggregate, the geosynthetics are exhumed to see how well or
how poorly they tolerated the imposed construction stresses. These tests could
be performed during design or after the contract was let. In the latter case, the
contractor is required to demonstrate that the proposed subgrade condition,
equipment, and aggregate placement will not significantly damage the geogrid.
If necessary, additional subgrade preparation, increased lift thickness, and/or
different construction equipment could be utilized. In rare cases, the contractor
may even have to supply a different geosynthetic.

6 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR USE OF GEOGRIDS IN TEMPORARY

AND UNPAVED ROADS

Geogrids are commonly used to facilitate the construction and improve the
performance of unpaved low-volume roads on weak subgrades. As previously
indicated in Section 5-1, the primary function of the geogrid in this application is
reinforcement leading to reduced amount of aggregate needed, less maintenance,
extended service life or a combination of these. A secondary function is
aggregate fill/subgrade separation.

The benefits of geogrids in unpaved low-volume roads have been shown in

numerous laboratory and full-scale experiments (e.g., Haas et al., 1988; Webster,
1993; Collin et al., 1996; Fannin and Sigurdsson, 1996; Knapton and Austin,
1996; Gabr et al., 2001; and, Leng and Gabr, 2002). Some experimental
programs investigated the performance of different geogrids (extruded, woven or
welded) and the results showed that the stiffer geogrids performed better
(Webster, 1993; Collin et al., 1996). These experiments served as a basis for the
development of the empirical design methods for geogrid-reinforced unpaved
lowvolume roads.

Historically the geogrids were introduced to the market in the early 1980s and by
that time geotextiles were used at the base-subgrade interface for separation,
filtration and some reinforcement. As a result, the first empirical design
procedures of Barenberg et al. (1975) and Steward et al. (1977) were developed
for geotextiles-reinforced unpaved roads using solutions based on the limit
equilibrium bearing capacity theory. The solution of Steward et al. (1977) was
modified by Tingle and Webster (2003) for geogrid reinforcement and the
proposed modification was adopted in the COE method for design of geotextile-
and geogridreinforced unpaved roads (USCOE, 2003). This approach is
described in Section 6-1.

Utilizing previous research, Giroud and Han (2004) developed a theoretically

based and experimentally calibrated design method for geogrid-reinforced
unpaved roads that reflects the improvements due to the geogrid-aggregate
interlock. The method can also be utilized for analysis of unreinforced and
geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads, or temporary platforms.
This approach will be presented in Section 6-2.

6-1 Empirical Design Method: Modified Steward et al. (1977)

Tingle and Webster (2003) used full-scale experiments to evaluate the
applicability of the design procedure for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads.
Their analysis concluded that the bearing capacity factor of 2.8, used in the
Steward et al. method for unreinforced roads was acceptable. For the geogrid-
reinforced case they suggested a bearing capacity factor of 5.8 and recommended
the use of geotextile as a separator. Application of the modified Steward et al.
(1977) design method to geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads is presented in this
section as follows.

The following design method was developed by Steward, Williamson, and Mohney
(1977) for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). It allows the designer to consider:
• vehicle passes;
• equivalent axle loads;
• axle configurations;
• tire pressures; • subgrade strengths; and
• rut depths.

The following limitations apply:

• the aggregate layer must be

a) high quality fill (e.g., laboratory CBR based on ASTM D 1883 ≥
80),
b) cohesionless (nonplastic);
 • vehicle passes less than 10,000;
• geogrid survivability criteria must be considered; and
• subgrade undrained shear strength less than about 2000 psf (90 kPa)
(CBR < 3).

As discussed in Section 4-3, for subgrades stronger than about 2000 psf (90 kPa)
(CBR > 3), geogrids are rarely required for stabilization, although some long-
term base reinforcement benefit may apply.

Based on both theoretical analysis and empirical (laboratory and full-scale field)
tests on geotextiles, Steward, Williamson and Mohney (1977) determined that a
certain amount of rutting would occur under various traffic conditions, both with
and without a geosynthetic and for a given stress level acting on the subgrade.
They present this stress level in terms of bearing capacity factors, similar to those
commonly used for the design of shallow foundations on cohesive soils. These
factors and conditions are given in Table 4. As previously noted, Tingle and
Webster (2003) suggested a bearing capacity factor of 5.8 for geogrids (also
shown in the Table 4).

The following design procedure is recommended:

STEP 1. Determine soil subgrade strength.
Determine the subgrade soil strength in the field using the field CBR, cone
penetrometer, vane shear, resilent modulus, or any other appropriate test. The
undrained shear strength of the soil, c, can be obtained from the following
relationships:
• for field CBR, c in psi = 4.3 x CBR (c in kPa = 30 x CBR);
• for the WES cone penetrometer, c = cone index divided by 10 or 11,
depending on the soil type; and
• for the vane shear test, c is directly measured.

Other in-situ tests, such as the static cone penetrometer test (CPT) or
dilatometer (DMT), may be used, provided local correlations with undrained
shear strength exist. Use of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is not
recommended for soft clays.
Determine subgrade strength at several locations and at different times of the
year. Make strength determinations at several locations where the subgrade
appears to be the weakest. Strengths should be evaluated at depth of 0 in. to
8 in. (0 to 200 mm) and from 8 in. to 20 in. (200 - 500 mm); six to ten strength
measurements are recommended at each location to obtain a good average
value. Tests should also be performed when the soils are in their weakest
condition, when the water table is the highest, etc. Alternatively, a saturated
soaked laboratory CBR test (ASTM D1883) could be performed to model wet
conditions in the field (e.g., for compacted soils that will be exposed to wet
conditions).

STEP 2. Determine wheel loading.

Determine the maximum single wheel load, maximum dual wheel load, and
the maximum dual tandem wheel load anticipated for the roadway during the
design period. For example, a 10 yd3 (7.6 m3) dump truck with tandem axles
will have a dual wheel load of approximately 8,000 lbf (35 kN). A motor
grader has a wheel load of 5,000 to 10,000 lbf (22 to 44 kN).

STEP 3. Estimate amount of traffic.

Estimate the maximum amount of traffic anticipated for each design vehicle
class.

STEP 4. Establish tolerable rutting.

 Establish the amount of tolerable rutting during the design life of the roadway.
For example, a rut of 2 in. to 3 in. (50 to 75 mm) is generally acceptable during
construction.

STEP 5. Obtain bearing capacity factor(s).

Obtain appropriate subgrade stress level in terms of the bearing capacity
factors in Table 4. Values may be obtained for both the conditions with
geogrid and without geogrid for estimating the cost effectiveness of using a
geogrid.

Figure 5. U.S. Forest Service thickness design curve for single wheel load (Steward et
al., 1977).
Figure 6. U.S. Forest Service thickness design curve for tandem wheel load (Steward
et al., 1977).
 (a)

(b)
Figure 7. Thickness design curves with geosynthetics for a) single and b) dual
wheel loads
(after Steward et al., 1977 & FHWA NHI-95-038, 1998; modified for highway
applications).
STEP 8. Check separation requirements.
Check the gradation of the aggregate layer (i.e., base, subbase or working platform)
adjacent to the subgrade. The following filter criteria apply (Cedergren, 1989):
D D
15 aggregate fill 50 aggregate fill

D85 Subgrade ≤5 and D50 Subgrade ≤25

For a separation geotextile used with geogrid, check the geotextile drainage and
filtration requirements. Use the gradation and permeability of the subgrade,
the water table conditions, and the retention and permeability criteria (from
Holtz et al., 2008), which are:
 AOS < D85subgrade (Wovens) (Eq. 2-3) AOS < 1.8
D85subgrade (Nonwovens) (Eq. 2-4) kgeotextile > ksubgrade
(Eq. 2-7a) ψ < 0.1 sec-1 (Eq. 2-8c)

STEP 9. Determine geogrid survivability requirements.

Check the geogrid survivability strength requirements as discussed in Section
5-6, Tables 2 and 3.

STEP 10. Specify geogrid property requirements.

Specify geogrids that meet or exceed the survivability criteria from Step 9.

STEP 11. Specify construction requirements. (Follow the procedures in Section 8.)

6-2 Empirical Design Method of Giroud and Han (2004)

Giroud and Han (2004) developed a theoretically based and empirically
calibrated design method specifically designed for geogrid-reinforced unpaved
roads and areas. They built upon earlier design methods developed by Giroud
and Noiray (1981) and Giroud et al. (1985) using recent field and laboratory test
data. Giroud and Noiray (1981) developed an empirical solution for unreinforced
unpaved roads using field test data and quantified the benefits resulting from
geogrid reinforcement. The solution was based on the limit equilibrium bearing
capacity theory with a modification to consider the benefit of the tension
membrane effect. The Giroud-Han theoretical formulation takes into account the
distribution of stresses, strength of base course material, geogrid-aggregate
interlock, and geogrid inplane stiffness in addition to conditions considered in
earlier methods (traffic volume, wheel loads, tire pressure, subgrade strength, rut
depth and influence of reinforcing geosynthetics of the failure mode of unpaved
roads). The influence of different factors on the theoretical formulations, the
assumptions and the limitations of the Giroud-Han design method are briefly
presented below.
The properties of the base course material are considered in the solution which is
an advancement compared to previous methods. The base course material is
characterized by its CBR using the AASHTO chart for correlation with the
resilient modulus for subbase (AASHTO, 1993).
The subgrade soil is assumed to be saturated and exhibit undrained behavior
under traffic loading. The subgrade soil modulus is used based on correlation
between the field CBR and the field resilient modulus for fine grained soils
(Heukelom and Klomp, 1962). Other relationships can also be used to derive the
resilient modulus of the subgrade soil. In the formulation of the design equation,
the ratio of the resilient modulus of base course to subgrade soil is limited to 5.
Additional data are necessary to justify the use of higher values for stiff geogrids
which appear to improve the compaction of base course material even on very
soft subgrades.

Serviceability Criterion Based on Rut Depth. Failure of the unpaved roads is

assumed to be controlled by the shear failure or the excessive deformation of the
subgrade. The formulation of the design method is based on a typical surface rut
depth of 3 in. (75 mm) which is a serviceability criterion. It allows for rut depths
between 2 and 4 in. (50 and 100 mm) to be analyzed. Additional field data are
needed to support the use of the method beyond these limits.

Characterization of Geogrid Reinforcement. The properties of geogrids relate

to their ability to interlock with the base course material and provide confinement.
Based on research by Kinney (1995) and Collin et al. (1996), the aperture stability
modulus was the stiffness property selected, based on correlation with measured
performance in roads. The aperture stability modulus is obtained by measuring
the in-plane torsional behavior directly across the junction of a biaxial geogrid.
It is a direct measure of the in-plane stiffness and stability of the ribs and junctions
of the geogrid. The method was calibrated using data for stiff biaxial geogrids
with aperture stability modulus of 0.32 and 0.65 N-m/deg (Kinney, 2000). In the
design method the aperture stability modulus can vary from zero to a maximum
value based on the data used in the calibration (Giroud and Han, 2004b). A draft
test method for determining the aperture stability modulus of a geogrid has been
developed by Kinney (2000) and a standard method is currently under
development by ASTM.

Bearing Capacity Factors. The bearing capacity factors for unreinforced

unpaved roads as presented in Section 6.1 ranged from 2.8 to 3.3. Giroud and
Han (2004a) adopted a bearing capacity factor of 3.14 (i.e., π) which is the value
of the elastic limit for saturated undrained subgrade soil for plain-strain and
axisymmetric conditions and zero interface shear stress. As discussed earlier the
 strike through and the interlock at the geogrid-reinforced interface resists the
lateral movement at the top of the subgrade, and creates inward shear stresses on
the subgrade. The theoretical value of the ultimate bearing capacity factor for
axisymmetric conditions and maximum inward shear stress of 5.71 (i.e., 3π/2) is
adopted for the geogridreinforced unpaved roads. For the case when the base
course is separated by a geotextile and there is no interlock, Giroud and Han
adopted the value of 5.14 (i.e., π+2) initially proposed by Giroud and Noiray
(1981), which is the ultimate bearing capacity factor for plain-strain conditions
and zero shear stress at the base-subgrade interface.

Equation for Required Thickness of Base Course. The thickness of the base
course material was determined on the basis of the bearing capacity theory to
prevent the development of rut depths exceeding the predetermined serviceability
criterion. The deformation of the subgrade depends on the stresses applied at the
base-subgrade interface and the development of the rut depth as a function of the
stresses at the base-subgrade interface and the bearing capacity of the subgrade.
The influence of traffic, properties of base course material, and geogrid properties
are expressed through two important parameters – the Bearing Capacity
Mobilization Coefficient (m), and the Stress Distribution Angle (α). The Bearing
Capacity Mobilization Coefficient defines the level of mobilized bearing
capacity, which depends on the deflection at the top of subgrade when the surface
rutting reaches the allowable rut depth. The Stress Distribution Angle defines
the capability of the base course material to transfer traffic loads to the subgrade.
The effect of traffic and geogrid on the rate of change of stress distribution angle
as the unpaved roads deteriorate under repeated loading is considered in the
formulation.

The following design equation for base course thickness was developed through
calibration and verification with laboratory and field data (Giroud and Han, 2004b):
⎛ ⎞
r
1. 5
⎜ P ⎟
0.868 + (0.661 −1.006 J )⎛⎜ ⎞⎟ log N ⎜ ⎟
2

⎝ h⎠ ⎜ πr ⎟ (1)
2
h= −1⎟ r
⎜
[1 + 0.204(RE −1)]
2

⎜ s ⎡ ⎧ r⎫
−⎨ h ⎬ ⎤
⎟
⎢1 0.9e ⎩ ⎭
⎥ N c f c CBR sg
⎜ fs ⎢ − ⎥ ⎟
⎜ ⎣ ⎦ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
where:
(0.661-1.006 J2) > 0
h = required base course thickness (in. or m)
J = aperture stability modulus in metric units (N-m/degree)
P = wheel load (lbs or kN) r
= radius of tire print (in. or
m) N = number of axle
passes

RE = modulus ratio = Ebc/Esg = 3.28 CBRbc0.3 / CBRsg ≤ 5

Ebc = base course resilient modulus (psi or MPa})
Esg = subgrade soil resilient modulus (psi or MPa)
CBRbc = aggregate
CBR CBRsg =
subgrade CBR fs =
rut depth factor
s = maximum rut depth (in. or m)
Nc = bearing capacity factor
= 3.14 for unreinforced roads
= 5.14 for geotextile reinforced roads = 5.71 for geogrid
reinforced roads fc = factor relating subgrade CBR to undrained
cohesion, cu = 4.3 psi (30 kPa)

Limitations of the Design Method. The validity of the Giroud and Han method is
limited by the following conditions:
− Rut depth from 2 to 4 in. (50 to 100 mm);
− Field subgrade CBR less than 5;
− Maximum ratio of base course modulus Ebc to subgrade soil modulus Esg of 5;
− Maximum number of passes – Based on the current state of practice, the
trafficking for unpaved roads is limited to 10,000 ESALs.
− The tension membrane effect was not taken into account since it is negligible for
rut depths less than 4 in. (100 mm);
 − The influence of geogrid reinforcement is considered through a bearing capacity
factor of Nc = 5.71, and the aperture stability module (J) of geogrid;
− The influence of geotextile reinforcement is considered through a bearing
capacity factor of Nc = 5.14, and aperture stability module equal to zero;
− For the unreinforced unpaved roads, the solution is valid for bearing capacity
factor of Nc = 3.14, and aperture stability module equal to zero;
− Minimum thickness of 4 in. (100 mm) of base course aggregate.
Giroud and Han (2004b) suggest that these limitations may change as additional
empirical data become available.

Design Procedure. The design steps from the previous Section 6-1 should be
followed.
Steps 4 – 6 are replaced for a geogrid-reinforced alternative using the Giroud and
Han (2004) procedure as follows:

STEP 4: Preliminary calculations

− Select allowable rut depth depending on the road use
− Calculate the radius of the equivalent rut depth
P
r= πp
where: P = wheel load (lb or kN)
r = radius of tire contact (in. or
m)
p = tire pressure (psi or
kN/m2)
− If necessary determine the undrained shear strength of the subgrade soil from
available data or correlations.

STEP 5: Check capacity of subgrade soil to support wheel load without reinforcement

⎛s⎞ 2Nccu
 Ph = 0 ,unreinf = ⎜⎜⎝ f s

⎟⎟⎠πr where:

Ph = support capacity of subgrade (lb

or kN) s = the allowable rut depth (in.
or mm) fs = 3 in. (75 mm) r = radius
of tire contact (in. or m)
Nc = 3.14 bearing capacity factor for unreinforced
case cu = subgrade undrained shear strength (psi
or kN/m2)

If P < Ph=0, unreinf the subgrade soil can support the wheel load and a minimum
thickness of 4 in. (100 mm) base course is recommended to prevent disturbance
of the subgrade. If P >
Ph=0, unreinf the use of reinforcement is required and the solution continues to
the next step.

STEP 6: Determine the required base course thickness for reinforced or unreinforced
roads using Equation (1). The calculation of the base course thickness
requires iteration.
The minimum thickness of the base course is 4 in. (100 mm).

The Giroud and Han method will be illustrated in the example presented in the next
section.

6-3 Design Examples for Geogrid Reinforced Unpaved Road

The design of geogrid-reinforced unpaved road will be illustrated with two
examples. The first example is based on the Giroud and Han method (2004a,b),
where the geogrid reinforcement benefits are considered through the bearing
capacity factor (Nc) and the aperture stability of the geogrid (J). An important
feature of the Giroud and Han is that it can differentiate the benefits of different
types of geogrids.
The second example is based on the Modified Steward et al., 1977 method
(USCOE, 2003), where the geogrid reinforcement benefits are considered only
through the bearing capacity factor, Nc = 5.8, derived from empirical studies for
extruded biaxial geogrids under laid with a geotextile separator.

DESIGN EXAMPLE 1: GIROUD AND HAN METHOD (2004 a, b)

PART I: GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT

Determine an appropriate aggregate thickness for a haul road over weak subgrade
that is required for a highway construction project. Investigate a conventional
unreinforced solution and a geogridreinforced alternative, using the Giroud and
Han method (2004 a, b) for the given set of design parameters.

DESIGN INPUT
Traffic Load:
Axle load = 18 kip (80 kN)
Tire pressure = 80 psi (550 kPa)
Number of axle passes = 5000
Failure Criteria:
Maximum rut depth = 3 in. (75 mm)
Aggregate and Subgrade Soil Strength:
Aggregate fill CBR = 15
Field subgrade CBR = 1
Geosynthetic Reinforcement:
Extruded Biaxial Geogrid with Aperture Stability Modulus, J = 0.32
N-m/degree Bearing capacity factors:
Nc = 3.14 for unreinforced road section
Nc = 5.71 for geogrid-reinforced road section

DESIGN CALCULATIONS
 STEP 4: PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS
Wheel load, P = 9,000 lbs (40 kN)
Allowable rut depth, s = 3 in. (75 mm)

Radius of tire contact: r = 40 = 0.152 m = 6 in.

3.14 x 550
Ratio of base course modulus to subgrade modulus:
Ebc3.48CBRbc0.3(3.48)(15)0.3
= = = 7.8 > 5
Esg CBRsg (1.0)
The ratio of base course modulus to subgrade modulus of 5 is used in the
calculations.
STEP 5: CHECK CAPACITY OF SUBGRADE SOIL TO SUPPORT WHEEL
LOAD WITHOUT REINFORCEMENT

Ph = 0 , unreinf= ⎛⎜ 75 ⎞⎟π(0 .152 ) (2 3 .14 )(30 * 1 .0 )= 6 .83 kN

⎝ 75 ⎠
P = 40 kN > 6.83 kN = Ph, unreinf

The subgrade soil cannot support the wheel load and use of reinforcement is
required.

STEP 6: CALCULATION OF THE REQUIRED BASE COURSE THICKNESS.

Giroud and Han design equation (1) is used to determine the required
aggregate thickness (h) for each of the unreinforced and reinforced cases.
In order to calculate a required thickness using the iterative Giroud-Han
equation, it is necessary to substitute for the thickness, h, until both sides
of the equation are numerically the same.

Case 1: Unreinforced Unpaved Road

Using Equation (1) for J = 0, and Nc=3.14, and after two or three iteration
cycles the right side of the equation is approximately the same as the left side
for h = 20 in. (505 mm).

⎛ ⎞
1.5
⎜ ⎟
⎛ 0.152 ⎞ ⎜ ⎟
0.868 + 0.661⎜ ⎟ log 5000 ⎜ ⎟
h= ⎝ 0 . 5045 ⎠ ⎜ 550 ⎟ 0.152 = 0.5045 m
−1
[ ( 1)] ⎜ ⎟
2
1 + 0 . 204 5 − ⎡ −
⎧ 0.152 ⎫ ⎤
⎜ 75 ⎢ e
⎨ 0.5045 ⎬
⎩ ⎭ ⎥ x x ⎟
⎜ 1 − 0.9 3.14 30 1 ⎟
75 ⎢ ⎥
⎜ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎟
⎝ ⎠

Therefore the calculated thickness for the unreinforced case is 20 in. (510 mm).

Case 2: Unpaved Road Reinforced with Stiff Biaxial Geogrid

Using Equation (1) for J = 0.32 N-m/degree, and Nc = 5.71, and after two or
three iteration cycles the right side of the equation is approximately the same as
the left side for h = 12 in.
(300 mm).
⎛⎜ ⎞⎟
1 .5
⎜ ⎟
x 0 .32 2 ⎛⎜ 0 . 152 ⎞⎟
( )
⎝ 0 .3054 ⎠
log 5000 ⎜
⎜ 550
⎟
h= −1 ⎟ 0 .152 = 0 .3054 m
[ ( 1)] ⎜ ⎟
2
1 + 0 . 204 5 − ⎡ ⎧ 0 .152 ⎫ ⎤
−⎨
⎜ 75 ⎢ 0 . 3054 ⎬⎭ ⎥ ⎟
⎜ 1 − 0 .9e ⎩ 5 . 71 x 30 x 1 ⎟
75 ⎢ ⎥
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎣⎢ ⎦⎥ ⎠

0.868 + 0.661 − 1.006

The calculated thickness for the geogrid reinforced unpaved road is 12 in. (300
mm).

For J = 0, and Nc = 5.14, Equation (1) can be used to calculate the required
base course thickness for the case of geotextile-reinforced unpaved road.
In this case the required thickness will be 14 in. (360 mm).
STEP 7: SELECT BASE COURSE THICKNESS.

The geogrid-reinforced option for the unpaved road has been selected for:
Aggregate thickness = 12 in. (300 mm)

STEP 8: SUBGRADE SEPARATION

Use of a geotextile separator is recommended unless the aggregate meets the

natural filter criteria for the subgrade. For the geotextile requirements, see
Step 8 in Section 6-1.

The application of the aggregate filter criteria for subgrade separation in

step 8, Section 6-1 for the case of geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads is
illustrated in the following calculation (Cedergren, 1989, Berg et al.,
2000). It was discussed in Section 5.2 that the geogridaggregate interlock
prevents the relative movement of the soil particles and therefore further
reduces the possibility of migration of fine particles into the coarser
material. In addition to the effect of proper gradations, there is an effect
of reduced pressures and deflections in the subgrade that results of the
mechanical interlock and lateral confinement of the aggregate provided by
the geogrid. However, the separation function of the geogrid has not been
quantified, and if the natural filter gradation requirements are not met, a
geotextile separator should be specified.

DESIGN INPUT FOR SUBGRADE SEPARATION

The proposed unpaved road will be built on fine-grained subgrade, and

aggregate material from two different sources has been considered. In
order to prevent contamination of the base aggregate, for each of the
aggregate sources, check the potential for migration of the subgrade soil
particles under the mechanical action of construction and operating traffic.

The following information has been provided by the geotechnical engineer

for the existing subgrade soil and the two aggregate materials that are being
considered:
 CONCLUSION

This is a comprehensive study including laboratory and field experiments plus

numerical studies to evaluate the benefits of geosynthetic reinforcement of flexible
pavement. This research fills gaps in research performed by previous researchers
and has a strong literature review in the field of research. Researchers have found
that the main appreciable improvement of geosynthetics reinforcement depends on
various factors such as subgrade stiffness, base aggregate thickness and quality, hot
mix asphalt thickness and quality, geogrid stiffness/location, and so on. In this
research, an IMAS, experimental APLTs, and finite element simulations were used
to evaluate the reinforcement effects of geogrids. A total of eight test
configurations constructed by varying geogrid types (i.e., light-duty biaxial, heavy-
duty biaxial, light-duty triaxial, and heavy-duty triaxial geogrids), geogrid
locations in base course (i.e., at the interface between base and subgrade or in the
base course), and base aggregate thicknesses were used in the laboratory and field
experimental tests to evaluate the reinforced base course behavior using different
types of geogrids at different locations. The FEM models were calibrated based on
the results of the laboratory and field tests and were used to determine GE values
of an additional nine sections. The results of cyclic deformation, permanent
deformation, elastic modulus, stiffness, resilient modulus, cyclic stresses, and the
number of cycles calculated in real-time were presented. The GE factor was
determined based on the results of the geosynthetic reinforced, and the
unreinforced section was compared to obtain the GE factors based on the
mentioned factors of reinforcements. The results of this report can be used by the
designers to evaluate the geosynthetic reinforcement of flexible pavements in their
designs.