You are on page 1of 85

Geosynthetics in Flexible Pavements

and Carbon Foot Print Analysis


Prof. K. Rajagopal
Department of Civil Engineering
Engineering,
IIT Madras, Chennai, India 600036

This work was part off M.Tech. projects off Avinash


Unni, S. Chandramouli, K. Iniyan & Lt.Col. Tushar Vig
Thanks are also due
d e to Prof.
Prof A.
A Veeraragavan
Veeraraga an and Dr.
Dr
Sivakumar Palaniappan

Outline
Field and Laboratory tests performed to
assess the
th iinfluence
fl
off geocellll llayer
Equivalent
q
modulus of the g
geocell layer
y
evaluated
Influence on pavement thickness
evaluated through stress analysis
programs
Carbon foot print analysis of construction
activities

Background(GEOCELL)
g
(
)

3DCellularconfinementsystem
(GEOCELL)

Originally
O
iginall developed
de eloped by
b US
Army Corps of Engineers
(1979)

Expandable 3-d permeable,


h
honeycomb
b or web
b structure,
t t
made of strips of polymer
Invented
In ented by
b the US army
arm corps
of engineers in the 1970s to
construct temporary roads for
heavy military vehicles over
weak soils
Extensively used by US Army
during the Gulf war for effective
moving
off
military
vehicles/trucks over the desert
sand
sand.

SimultaneousMechanismsin3
Dimensions
a)Unreinforcedsoilsubjectedtoshear

a. Whenpressureisappliedonunreinforced
weaksoils,failureoccursimmediatelydue
tolateralflowofsoil
b. When
Whensurfacesoilisconfinedbygeocells,
surface soil is confined by geocells,
failuremechanismissuppressedfrom
formation.

b)Pushingdecreasebyconfinement

c)Lateralstressoncellduetostresswith
inthecell

c. SSurfacepressuresaretransferredto
f
t
f
dt
deeperstrataduetointeraction.

Ofer andRajagopal(2008)

SimultaneousMechanismsin3Dimensions
c) Hoop stress development
The three dimensional structure confines
the infill soil, limiting lateral deformation.
Lateral expansion of the infill is restricted by
high hoop stress.

d)) Passive resistance of neighbouring


g
g cells
e) Interface friction force developed along the cell walls.
Because of all the above phenomena, the pressure transmitted to the
foundation soil reduces.

TrialConstructiononanExpansiveClaysoil
Trial road section with
geocell reinforcement built
over a length of 200 m
Subgrade Soil at Site
CBR
Swell index
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Shrinkage limit

4%
150%
60%
25%
8%
Geocell Reinforced Flexible Pavements

GEOCELLReinforcedRoadconstructionatGovind DairyFactory

Stapling to join
Preparation of ground Stretching of the geocell layer
different geocells

Filling of stone aggregate in geocell

Compaction by vibro-roller

Observationsontheperformance

Unreinforced section

R i f
Reinforced
d section
ti
Reinforced section could maintain
good level surface
Unreinforced section showed
excessive surface depressions
Road surface was quite uneven
Frequent repairs by dumping large
stones

Set Up for Laboratory Model Tests


SetUpforLaboratoryModelTests

Soft clay bed prepared in the laboratory

PressureSettlement

PressureKPa
6

10

12

Setttlementcm

150GeocellSand

150GeocellGSB

100GeocellGSB

50GeocellGSB

100WMM

TheAvinashUnniProjectReview

50GeocellSand

50GeocellSand2

Measured Pressures below geocell layer

TheAvinashUnniProjectReview

TheAvinashUnniProjectReview

Laboratory Model Tests

650 mm thick GSB base

GSB + Geocell layer filled


with sand or GSB

LABORATORY Model TESTS

100 mm geocell with sand fill layer

100 mm geocell+GSB

100 mm geocell+sand
ll
d

150 mm geocell+GSB

Typical results from Plate Load Tests


pressure (kPa)
0

1000

2000

3000

10

settlem
ment (mm)

20

30

40

50

60

100 mm Geocell+GSB

70

80

90

100

100 mm geocellll + sand


d
GSB alone

Analysis of pressure-settlement data


1) KENPAVE (Elastic layer analysis):
Back calculation of modulus of geocell layer based on field
plate load test results
Calculation of modulus values of 50 mm,100 mm,150 mm
geocells layers with different in fills based on lab test results
Optimization done by calculating damage ratio and design
life
lif
2)

PLAXIS 2D Analyses

Back calculation of modulus of geocell layered pavement


section
Calculation of modulus values of 50 mm,100 mm,150 mm
geocells
ll llayers with
ith diff
differentt in
i fills
fill

AnalysisofthePlateLoadTestData
y
EE Value for subgrade (CBR 4%)
= 10*4 =40 MPa
E-Value for stabilized subgrade
g
((CBR 6%))
= 17.6*6^0.64 = 55.40 MPa
E-value for GSB (225 mm thick)
= 55400*0
55400*0.2*225^0.45=
2*225^0 45= 126
126.8
8 MPa
E-value for GSB (75mm thick)
= 55400*0.2*75^0.45 = 77.3 MPa
E-value for GSB (150 mm thick)
= 55400*0.2*150^0.45 = 105.63 MPa
EE value
l ffor GSB (400mm
(400
thi
thick)
k)
= 55400*0.2*400^0.45 = 164.2 MPa
Geocell Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Modulus Improvement Factors


ModulusImprovementFactors
Type of study

MIF

Field tests

2.75 (150 mm geocell)

Laboratory tests

2.92
2
92 (150 mm geocell)
2.84 (50 & 100 mm geocell)

Pavement sections were designed using this revised


modulus values and different subgrade CBR values

Geocell Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Pavement Thicknesses for 150 msa & 2% CBR


Combinations

IRCunreinforced

Geocell at
Subgrade

Geocell in base and


subgrade

BC

50 mm

50mm

50 mm

DBM

215 mm

185 mm

WMM

250 mm

170 mm
Geocell with GSB-200
mm

GSB

460 mm

sub-grade

500 mm

cost (Rs.) / m2

2,635

2,490

2,450

Total thickness
Design Life

975 mm
16 years

735 mm
20 years

520 mm
20 years

500 mm
100 mm
200mm Geocell
with soil infill on 200mm Geocell with soil
300mm
infill on 300mm
subgrade layer
subgrade layer

Geocell Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Geocell reinforced dirt track being constructed in a desert


area
GeocellReinforcedFlexiblePavements
21

Desert sand being filled in the geocell pockets

Mini-bucket wheel excavator for filling sand in geocell pockets

Heavy army trucks moving easily on the geocell track

Soildetails

(Ref:http://maps.google.co.in)
(
p // p g g
)
CBR

3%

Plasticity index

45%

Swell index

140

Shrinkage limit

8%

Section adopted at construction site


Sectionadoptedatconstructionsite

Max damage ratio 0.865

Field Plate Load Test


FieldPlateLoadTest
Thefollowingapparatuswererequiredforconductingthe
Th
f ll i
t
i df
d ti th
test:
Circular steel plate of 300 mm diameter and 30 mm
Circularsteelplateof300mmdiameterand30mm
thickness
Hydraulicjackofcapacity300kN
y
j
p y
Supportingsteelbeamoflength5m
Dialgaugeshavingaccuracyof0.01mm
Plumbbob
Spiritlevel
Shortsteelsupportingmembers
Loadedtruck

Compacted Subgrade
CompactedSubgrade

1 Test set up Over Subgrade


1.TestsetupOverSubgrade

TestResult(Subgrade)

Pressuresettlementcurvefor
subgrade data
Pressure (Kpa)
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Settlem
ment (mm)

10

Test 1
Test 2

15

20

25

2.PlateloadtestoverGranular
Subbase

3 Geogrid Reinforcement
3.Geogrid

Subbase

Installingflexibleandrigidgeogrid
oversubgrade

Compaction using roller


Compactionusingroller

SetupOverSubBase(Reinforced
withflexibleandrigidgeogrid)

Pressure Settlement Curve


PressureSettlementCurve
0

500

1000

Pressure
(Kpa)
1500
2000

2500

3000

0
2

Settlemeent (mm))

4
6
8

PLAIN GSB Test 1


PLAIN
A GS
GSB Test 2
GSB (with flexible GR) Test 1
GSB (with flexible GR) Test 2

10

GSB (with rigid GR) Test 1

12

GSB (with rigid GR) Test 2

14
16
18

Field Density Tests


FieldDensityTests

Field Density Tests


FieldDensityTests
Fi
Fielddensitytestswereconductedoverthe
ld d it t t
d t d
th
subgrade andovertheGSB(withandwithout
reinforcement)
Sand
Sandreplacementmethodwasperformedasper
replacement method was performed as per
IS2720 PART-28
Forthesamecompactionefforts,thesubbase
layer compacted over geogrid layerachieved
layercompactedovergeogrid
layer achieved
higherdrydensity

Data Analysis
DataAnalysis
KENPAVE(Elasticlayeredanalysissoftware):

BackcalculationofmodulusofGeogrid
reinforcedpavementbasedonfieldplate
loadtestresults
Optimizationdonebycalculatingdamage
ratioanddesignlife

Data Inputs
DataInputs
Th f ll i
Thefollowingparametersrequiredforanalysis
t
i df
l i
Thicknessoflayers
ElasticModulus
Poisson'sratio
Stressandcontactarea

STEP 1
AsperIRC-37 thefollowingformulasusedfor
calculationofmodulusofpavementlayers
p
y

Calculation of Modulus
CalculationofModulus
The applied load in the field test = 150 kN
p
g settlement=10.47mm
corresponding
The
Th contact radius
di off the
h test plate
l = 150 mm
Modulus of the Sub base layer was obtained by
t i l andd error procedure
trial
d
by
b matching
t hi the
th
measured settlement of 10.47 mm

KENPAVE RESULT
KENPAVERESULT
SN
No

E V l off Unreinforced
E-Value
U i f
d

V ti l Displacement
Vertical
Di l
t

layer (MPa)

(mm)

65.11

12.49

100

10 78
10.78

105

10.55

107

10.47

110

10.35

Snapshot from KENPAVE


SnapshotfromKENPAVE

IMPROVEMENT FACTOR
IMPROVEMENTFACTOR
I
Improvement
F
Factor = EBC (reinforced)
( i f
d) / EBC (unreinforced)
(
i f
d)
Where EBC (reinforced) = the modulus
mod l s of the reinforced base and
EBC (unreinforced) = the modulus of the unreinforced base
The average value of the plate settlement at an applied load of
150 kN for the flexible reinforcement was 8.06 mm
Considered the contact radius = 150 mm
Contact pressure = load/area =150/area of plate = 2140 kPa

Flexible Geogrid Reinforcement


FlexibleGeogrid
Improvement
p

E-Value ((Flexible

Settlement ((mm))

Factor

Geogrid)

on surface under

MPa

150 kN load

107

10 47
10.47

1.1

117.7

10.06

1.25

133.75

9.55

1.5

160.5

8.88

1.75

187.25

8.37

1.9

203.3

8.11

1.95

208.65

8.05

Rigid Geogrid Reinforcement


RigidGeogrid
I
Improvement
t

E V l (Fl
E-Value
(Flexible
ibl Geogrid)
G
id)

S ttl
Settlement
t ((mm)) on

Factor

MPa

surface under 15T load

107

10 47
10.47

1.25

133.75

9.55

15
1.5

160 5
160.5

8 88
8.88

1.75

187.25

8.37

214 0
214.0

7 95
7.95

2.25

240.75

7.61

2.3

246.1

7.55

The average value of the plate settlement at an applied load of 150 kN for the
flexible reinforcement was 7.55 mm.

Layer Optimization
LayerOptimization
Geogrid
id reinforcedlayerswereconsideredand
i f
dl
id d d
thethicknessofthevariousalternatesections
wereanalysed
Damageratioshouldnotexceedthedesigned
unreinforced section @ site
unreinforcedsection@site
Mosteconomicandfeasiblesectionshouldbe
selected

Damage Ratio
DamageRatio
Where
Where,

ni
D f
Ni

g
,
Df isthedamagefactor,
ni istheactualnumberofvehiclemovementsoftheith load
groupand
d
Ni isthemaximum(allowable)numberofvehiclemovements
is the maximum(allowable) number of vehicle movements
thestructurecansupportfortheith loadgroup.

DataInputs

BC

DBM

WMM

GSB

Poissons ratio

0.35

0.35

0.4

0.4

Flexible GG

2500

2500

88.94

208.65

2500

2500

88.94

246.1

reinforced section
E value (MPa)
Rigid GG reinforced
section
E value (MPa)

Cracking Model
CrackingModel
The
Th failure
f il
criteria
it i for
f cracking
ki is
i given
i
by
b
Nf = f1 (r)-f2 (E1)-f3
Where,
Where
Nf = allowable number of load repetition to prevent
fatigue cracking
t =tensile
e s e strain
s
at thee bottom
bo o of
o asphalt
sp
layer
ye
E1=Elastic modulus of asphalt layer
f1, f 2, f3 are constants
Here f1 = 0.08060, f2 = 3.89, f3 = 0.854

Rutting Model
RuttingModel
Nd =ff4 (c)-ff5
Where,
Nd = allowable number of load repetition to limit
permanent deformation
c = compressive strain on top of sub grade
f4 and f5 are constants
Here, f4 = 4.1656x10-8, f5 = 4.5337

Optimisedsectionsfordifferent
damageratios(Flexiblegeogrid)

Optimisedsectionsfordifferent
damageratios(Rigidgeogrid)

Reinforced Pavement Section


ReinforcedPavementSection

EMISSIONCALCULATION

Sustainable Construction
SustainableConstruction
Key themes of sustainable construction practices
Keythemesofsustainableconstructionpractices
Minimisetheenergyuseintheallphases(production,construction,
operationandendoflifephases)
i
d d f lif h
)
Reduceenvironmentalimpactsduringthelifecycle
Preserveandenhancebiodiversity
Conservewaterandlandresources
Adoptinnovativematerials
Ad t i
ti
t i l
Reducethegenerationofwastesatalllevel

Green house gas emissions


Greenhousegasemissions
Theprimarygreenhousegasesarewater
h
i
h
vapour,carbondioxide,methane,nitrous
oxide,andozone
Greenhousegasesusuallyaffectthe
temperature of the earth
temperatureoftheearth
Anthropogenicactivitiesleadtotheincrease
ingreenhousegases

Need for Assessment


NeedforAssessment
M
Majority
j it off studies
t di mainly
i l focussed
f
d upon
improving the energy efficiency of structures
during the operational phase
The environmental performance of onsite
construction processes is not currently being
measured (Palaniappan et al. 2009)
Quantification of carbon emissions from road
projects is not followed yet

Site layout
Sitelayout

Ref:http://maps.google.co.in

Material Collection details


MaterialCollectiondetails

Logistics Assessment
LogisticsAssessment
Th
Thepavementlayersaredividedintosubgrade,
tl
di id d i t
b d
GranularSubbase(GSB),WetMixMacadam(WMM)
andHotMixAsphalt(HMA)
p
(
)
Studyincluded
y
1.
2.
3.
4
4.

Rawmaterialtransportationtotheyard,
Extraction
Processingofrawmaterials
Onsite operation
Onsiteoperation

Data Collection Strategy


DataCollectionStrategy
Totall length
T
l
h = 28 km
k
No of Chainages = 14
chainage
1
h i
= 2 km
k
Pilot Study @ Chainage 34
Data collected for
Material Processing
Transportation
Onsite Operations

1. Material Transportation

FuelConsumptiondetails
(Transportation)

Totalfuelconsumptionfor
transportation
T lf l
Totalfuelconsumption(Litres)
i (Li
)
F
Fuelusag
e(DieselinLitres)

1,80,000
1 60 000
1,60,000

152411

1,40,000

125980

Totalfuelconsumption(L)

1,20,000
1,00,000
72674

80,000
60,000

36526

40,000
20,000
20 000
0
Subgrade

GSB

WMM

HMA

2 Material Processing
2.
GSB

WMM Plant
Pl t (pug
(
mill
ill type)
t
)

Crushing of 50 m3 GSB
(litres)
Crushing of 1

m3

GSB

(Runs using DIESEL GENERATOR)

250

(litres)
Total quantity (m3)
Fuel consumption (litres)

28000
140000

Processing of 25 m3 WMM
( litres)

360

Processing of 1 m3 WMM
( litres)

14.4

Total quantity (m3)

56000

Fuel consumption (litres)

806400

HMA PLANT
Processing of 10 m3 HMA
( litres)

340

Processing of 1 m3 HMA
( litres)

34

Total quantity (m3)

19600

Fuel consumption (litres)

666400

Totalfuelconsumptionformaterial
processing
MaterialProcessing FuelConsumption
60
50 %

Fuelconsumption

50

41.3 %
40
30
20
10

8.6 %

0
GSB

WMM
PavementLayer

HMA

3. ON-SITE OPERATION
Theprocessedmaterialsaretransportedtothe
h
d
i l
d
h
requiredsitelocationandwillbedumped
Thematerialswillbespreadproperlyusing
p
p p y
g
machineriesorlaboursandcompactedwellto
reachthedesireddensity
Compaction
Compactionisoneofthecriticalprocessesinthe
is one of the critical processes in the
onsiteoperations(involvementofmachineries)

Onsite operation GSBLayer


Onsiteoperation
GSB Layer

Equipment
B k hhoe
Back
Tractor dozer
(D155A)
grader
d (GD623A1)
Roller (l&t CASE
459)

GSB placement and compaction


Duration
F l
Fuel
f
for
N off
No
efficiency chainage 34 chainage
(LPH)
(hrs)
s
5
660
27

770

11

880

4.5

530

14

Total
working
ki
time
(hrs)
9240

Fuell use
F
(diesel in
litres)
46200

10780

291060

12320

135520

7420

33390

Total

506170

Total fuel Consumption- Onsite


operations
O it operation
Onsite
ti
6,00,000
506170

5,00,000
4,00,000

382620

382620

Fuel
consumption 3,00,000
(Litres)
2,00,000

261870

299530

1,00,000
0
Subgrade

GSB

WMM
HMA
Pavement Layer

Excavation

Total fuel consumption


Totalfuelconsumption
T t l fuel
Total
f l consumption
ti
Transportation
12%

Onsite activities
43%

Raw material
processing
45%

CO2 Emissionsforunreinforcedsection
Emissions for unreinforced section
Total consumption from transportation (L)
Total consumption from processing(L)

393597.95
1612800

Total consumption from onsite activities(L)


Emission factor (US EPA)(kg of CO2)
One litre diesel = 2.664 kg CO2

1557330.32
2.664
CO2
emission
(Kg)

CO2
emission
(MT)

Transportation

1048544.9

1048.54

Processing

4296499.2

4296.50

Onsite

4148728.16
Total (for 28
km)
Total (per
k )
km)

4148.73
9493.77
339 0
339.0

Emission for Reinforced Section


EmissionforReinforcedSection
Theoptimisedsectiondesignedusingthe
g g g reinforcement
flexibleandtherigidgeogrid
hasbeentaken

Theemissionswerecalculatedforboth
flexible geogrid reinforcedandrigidgeogrid
flexiblegeogrid
reinforced and rigid geogrid
reinforcedpavementsection

CO2 Emissionsforreinforcedsection
Emissions for reinforced section

Emissions Comparison
EmissionsComparison
CO2 emission
i i per lane
l
Km
K (MT)
400
350

339

300

266

263

Flexible Geogrid
reinforcement

Rigid Geogrid
reinforcement

250
50
CO2 emission
200
(MT)
150
100
50
0
Unreinforced section

Economic Analysis
EconomicAnalysis
Thelayerwisecosthasbeencalculatedforthe
h l
i
h b
l l df h
designedsectionwithoutincludingtheprofit
margin
Thesamehasbeenextendedtoreinforced
section
section
Reductioninconstructiondurationincaseof
reinforcedsectionisassessed

Costofdifferentsections
Flexible Geogrid

Actual section
Layer

Quantity per
sq.m (m3)

Unit rate
(Rs.)

Cost
(Rs. per sq.m)

Subgrade

0.5

375

187.5

GSB

0.2

1170

234

WMM

0.4

1445

578

HMA

0.14

9498

1329.72

Quantityy per
Q
p sq.m
q

Unit rate
((Rs.))

Cost
(
(Rs.
per sq.m.)
p
q )

Subgrade

0.5 m3

375

187.5

GSB

0.15 m3

1170

175.5

WMM

0 2 m3
0.2

1445

289

m3

9498

1329.72

130

130

Layer
y

HMA
Geogrid

0.14

1 No

Sum

2329.22

Sum

2111.72

Miscellaneous

116.4

Miscellaneous

105.5

Total

2445.7

Total

2217.3

Rigid Geogrid
Layer

Quantity per sq.m (m3)

Subgrade
GSB
WMM
HMA
Geogrid

0.5 m3
0.15 m3
0.2 m3
0.14 m3
1 No
Sum

Unit
i
rate
(Rs.)
375
1170
1445
9498
160

Cost
(Rs. per sq.m.)
187.5
140.4
289
1329.72
160
2106.62

Miscellaneous

105.3

Total

2211.9

Schedule analysis
Scheduleanalysis
The
h bbaseline
li schedule
h d l off this
hi project
j is
i
analysed and the time duration for completing
each activity is taken for the study (reinforced
and unreinforced)
Duration of the roadwork activities has been
reduced drastically from the original 883 days
to 669 days in case of geogrid reinforced
pavements

Summaryy of Results

NATIONAL HIGHWAY
NATIONALHIGHWAY
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT

Conclusions
The geocell layer increases the structural stiffness
Thickness of granular layers reduces by as much as
50%.
50%
Total cost of the pavement system per unit area is lower
even with the use of expensive geocell layer
layer.
The long term performance and service life are
increased
Geocell layer near the surface leads to be best
performance.
f
In case of extremely soft subgrades, additional geocell
l
layer
could
ld b
be placed
l
d att subgrade
b d llevel.
l
The reduction in thickness of the base layers leads to
f t construction
faster
t ti and
d llower carbon
b ffoott print.
i t
Geocell Reinforced Flexible Pavements