The International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 4 (1) March 2003, pp.

3750

A Design Model for Geosynthetic-reinforced Pavements

S.W. PERKINS* and M.Q. EDENS

Department of Civil Engineering, 205 Cobleigh Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, 59717, USA

(Received 12 February 2002; In revised form 1 November 2002)

The first paper to this companion series of articles [Perkins, S.W and Edens, M.Q. (2003) Finite
elements and distress models for geosynthetic-reinforced pavements, International Journal of
Pavement Engineering, 3(4), 239 250] described a finite element response model and empirical
damage models that were combined to form a mechanistic empirical (M E) for geosynthetic-
reinforced flexible pavement systems. The model provides predictions of an extension of service life or
a reduction in unbound aggregate thickness for equivalent service life when the geosynthetic is placed
at the bottom of the aggregate layer. In this paper, the model is used in a parametric study involving the
analysis of over 465 cases to provide predictions of reinforcement benefit for a range of design
parameters. The parameters varied are those that are believed to be most influential on reinforcement
benefit and include thickness of the structural section, strength and/or stiffness of the subgrade, tensile
modulus in both principal directions of the geosynthetic and several other properties related to the type
and structure of the geosynthetic. Regression equations are used to relate reinforcement benefit results
from the parametric study to these pavement design parameters and form the basis of the design model
presented in this paper. This model is calibrated against the results of large-scale reinforced pavement
test sections. The design model allows for the design of geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements
using generic input parameters for the pavement system.

Keywords: Pavement; Geosynthetic; Reinforcement; Model; Design

INTRODUCTION The second represented the maximum amount of

The first paper of this companion paper series (Perkins and
Edens, 2003) described a finite element (FE) response
model and empirical damage models developed for
geosynthetic-reinforced pavements. Response parameters
extracted from the FE model were vertical compressive
strain in the top of the subgrade and bulk stress within the
base course aggregate layer. These response parameters
were used in empirical damage models to provide
predictions of long-term pavement performance and
definitions of reinforcement benefit. The damage models
provided a means of describing reinforcement benefit in
terms of a Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR), which defines the
increase in service life of a reinforced pavement as
compared to an equivalent unreinforced pavement.
Expressions for TBR from each of the two damage
models provided descriptions of reinforcement effects for
the aggregate layer and for the subgrade layer, and were
combined together to form a TBR for the total system.
Three types of FE response models were developed.
The first was for a conventional unreinforced pavement.
reinforcement benefit that could be expected with a
perfect reinforcement product and was accomplished
by restraining the lateral degree of freedom of the
element nodes along the interface between the aggregate
and subgrade layer. The third type of model used a
separate material layer for the geosynthetic inserted into
the finite element mesh of the unreinforced pavement
model.
The mechanistic empirical (M E) model resulting
from the combination of the FE response model and
damage models was developed for use in a parametric
study from which a design model is developed. The M E
model was used for the analysis of approximately 465
pavement design cases. The parameters varied for these
cases includes:
1. Asphalt concrete thickness.
2. Unbound aggregate thickness.
3. Material properties of the subgrade leading to different
subgrade strength and/or stiffness values.
4. Material properties of the geosynthetic.

*Corresponding author. Tel.: 1-406-994-6119. Fax: 1-406-994-6105. E-mail: stevep@ce.montana.edu

ISSN 1029-8436 print/ISSN 1477-268X online q 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1029843031000097562
38 S.W. PERKINS AND M.Q. EDENS
The three FE response model types (unreinforced,
perfect-reinforced and geosynthetic-reinforced) were used
to provide a systematic means of identifying variations in
reinforcement benefit for the parametric study variables
used.
Regression equations were developed from the para-
metric study results to relate reinforcement benefit to the
variables used. The design model was then based on these
regression equations and was calibrated from the results of
large-scale pavement test sections.
PARAMETRIC STUDY
The M E model described in the companion paper was
used to analyze over 465 cases involving the variation of
seven parameters related to the geometry and materials in
unreinforced and reinforced pavement cross-sections. For
each case analyzed, the FE response model was used to
provide two response parameters, namely vertical
compressive strain in the top of the subgrade and bulk
stress in a representative volume of the base course
aggregate. These response parameters were then used in
the two damage models described in the companion paper
to determine values of reinforcement benefit, defined in
terms of TBR, for each damage model. This process
involved the comparison of response parameters between
reinforced and unreinforced pavement cross-sections.
The three types of FE models developed were used to
describe the effects of reinforcement in a systematic way
that isolates the effects of each variable or group of
variables on the system. The unreinforced models provide
response parameters for pavements without any type of
reinforcement. The perfect-reinforced models do not
contain parameters associated with the geosynthetic.
Benefit from the perfect-reinforcement model cases is
then a function of the remaining pavement system
variables, which include AC and aggregate thickness, and
subgrade stiffness. From these results, conclusions are
made regarding the combinations of structural section
thickness and subgrade stiffness for which perfect
reinforcement provides benefit. The third type of model
contains a reinforcement layer with corresponding material
properties. Variation of four basic geosynthetic properties
allows for conclusions to be made regarding how those
properties modify or reduce the maximum benefit seen
from the corresponding perfect reinforcement cases.
TABLE I Parameters varied for perfect-reinforcement cases
AC thickness case name AC1 AC2
AC thickness (mm) 50 75
Base thickness case name B1 B2
Base thickness (mm) 150 200
Subgrade case name S1 S2
Subgrade MR (MPa) 5.26 10.3
Subgrade CBR 0.5 1 2
Execution of models according to this approach minimizes
the number of cases that need to be analyzed and provides
for a systematic method for interpreting the results.
Variation of Parameters for Perfect Reinforced Models
Perfect-reinforced FE response models were created for
five values of asphalt concrete thickness, six values of
aggregate thickness and for six sets of subgrade properties,
resulting in 180 cases analyzed. For each perfect-
reinforced FE model, an identical unreinforced FE
model was created and analyzed. The comparison of
perfect-reinforced and unreinforced response parameters
through the two damage models resulted in definitions of
reinforcement effects in the base aggregate (TBRB) and
reinforcement effects in the subgrade layer (TBRS) for
each combination of asphalt concrete thickness, aggregate
thickness and subgrade stiffness.
The values of the parameters varied for this part of the
study are listed in Table I. The constitutive model used for
the subgrade contained six parameters that were most
responsible for the materials strength and stiffness
behavior. Each of these six parameters was varied for
each subgrade material parameter set. Resilient modulus
tests were simulated with each material parameter set,
as described in the companion paper, and produced
the values shown in Table I. The approximate subgrade
CBR strength for each of these resilient modulus values is
also listed in Table I.
As an example of the results obtained from the 360
cases analyzed, Fig. 1 shows the variation in the two
response parameters with aggregate thickness for the case
of AC3 and S4. Vertical strain in the top of the subgrade is
seen to decrease as aggregate thickness increases.
Subgrade strain is consistently less for the perfect-
reinforcement case as compared to the unreinforced case,
however, the differences become insignificant for an
aggregate thickness of 600 mm. Cases of perfect
reinforcement are seen to result in higher levels of bulk
stress in the aggregate layer.
Figure 2 shows variations of TBRS, as determined by
use of the damage model for subgrade rutting, as a
function of aggregate thickness and AC thickness for the
case of S4. The results show a nominal effect of
reinforcement at an aggregate thickness of 150 mm and for
lower values of AC thickness, indicating that reinforce-
ment is not significant for excessively thin pavement
AC3 AC4 AC5
100 125 150
B3 B4 B5 B6
250 300 400 600
S3 S4 S5 S6
20.4 42.1 83.6 154
4 8 15
 DESIGN MODEL FOR REINFORCED PAVEMENTS
FIGURE 1 Response parameters versus aggregate thickness for AC3
and S4 cases.
sections. This observation is supported by results from test
sections reported in the literature (Berg et al., 2000). For
an aggregate thickness of 150 mm, as the AC thickness
increases, TBRS increases. As the aggregate thickness
increases, TBRS increases to a point, where this point
appears to be a function of the AC thickness. For an
aggregate thickness of 600 mm, TBRS decreases and is not
appreciably influenced by AC thickness. These results
indicate a relatively complex relationship between TBRS,
aggregate thickness and AC thickness.
To reduce the number of variables in the system, a
structural number for each combination of AC and
aggregate thickness was computed from Eq. (1), which is
adopted from the AASHTO pavement design method
(AASHTO, 1993) and assumes layer coefficients of 0.4
and 0.14 for the AC and aggregate layers, respectively.
Material modeling and calibration work described in the
FIGURE 2 TBRS versus base thickness and AC thickness for S4 cases.
39
FIGURE 3 TBRS versus SN for S4 cases.
companion paper (Perkins and Edens, 2002) demonstrated
the correlation of these layer coefficients to mechanical
properties. Parameters D1 and D2 are the thickness of the
AC and aggregate layers, respectively.
SN 0:4 D1 0:14 D2 1
Figure 3 shows TBRS plotted against SN for the same
cases showed in Fig. 2. While some scatter exists, the
results suggest a relationship between TBRS and SN. This
relationship, and others for TBRB, are more closely
examined for all cases in later sections of the paper.
Results from the parametric study for the 180 perfect
reinforcement cases analyzed can also be used to assess
Base Course reduction Ratio (BCR), or more specifically
combinations of BCR and TBR for certain comparison
sets. For each unreinforced case where perfect-reinforced
runs were made for the same AC thickness, the same
subgrade condition and for reduced base thickness, a value
of BCR is calculated from the base thickness used in the
unreinforced and perfect-reinforced models. For instance,
if case AC1 B6 S1 for an unreinforced pavement is
compared to AC1 B5 S1 for a perfect-reinforced case, a
BCR of 33% is calculated from the two models. From the
360 model runs, 75 sets of unreinforced and reinforced
comparison runs are available for different values of BCR
and for each of 6 subgrade conditions, giving 450
comparisons. The response measures of vertical subgrade
strain and bulk stress in the base aggregate were compared
between these comparison runs to assess TBRS and TBRB.
Values greater than one indicate a remaining TBR for the
assumed BCR. Values less than one indicate that
the assumed BCR resulted in a reduction of life of the
reinforced pavement as compared to the reinforced section.
Variation of Parameters for Geosynthetic-reinforced
Models
The anisotropic linear-elastic model for the geosynthetic
permits the variation of parameters related to physical
material properties and material characteristics related to
the type and structure of the geosynthetic. These
parameters include the in-plane elastic modulus, the ratio
40 S.W. PERKINS AND M.Q. EDENS

TABLE II Parameters for geosynthetic material model to examine TABLE III Pavement sections used to evaluate effect of reinforcement
effect of reinforcement modulus modulus

Exm Em En vxm2m vxm2n Gxm2m Gxm2n Pavement section Subgrade cases Geosynthetic cases
Case name (MPa) vm2n =Gm2n (MPa)
AC1B1 S1, S2, S3, S4, GM1, GM2, GM3, GM4,
GM1 400 0.5 133 S5 GM5
GM2 1000 0.5 333 AC1B2
GM3 2000 0.5 667 AC2B1
GM4 4000 0.5 1333 AC3B4
GM5 8000 0.5 2667 AC4B4
AC1B5
m, machine direction; xm, cross-machine direction; n, direction normal to material AC2B5
plane. AC5B5
AC3B6
AC4B6
between the elastic modulus in the two principal directions
of the material, in-plane Poissons ratio and in-plane shear
modulus. Ten pavement sections were analyzed with the case
The effect of modulus was first examined by using the name for the AC and base thickness given in Table III.
geosynthetic-reinforced FE model with isotropic linear- These cases were analyzed for the subgrade cases and
elastic material properties for the geosynthetic. Compari- geosynthetic material property cases shown in Table III,
son of results to those from similar cases with perfect resulting in 250 additional model runs. The three groups of
reinforcement allowed for an assessment of the influence pavement sections distinguished in Table III correspond to
of modulus on reinforcement benefit. Additional cases relatively thin, medium and thick sections. These cases
were created where an anisotropic linear-elastic model were compared to identical cases with perfect reinforce-
was used to examine the effect of the ratio of elastic ment. As discussed in a later section, results were run in
modulus in the two principal directions of the material. these groups in order to provide a means of modifying
Further cases were created to examine the effect of general trends in the data seen from the model runs for
Poissons ratio and shear modulus. perfect reinforcement.

Parameters to Examine Effect of Reinforcement

Parameters to Examine Effect of Reinforcement
Modulus
The geosynthetic-reinforced FE model was used to
examine the influence of the isotropic value of elastic
modulus of the geosynthetic on reinforcement benefit. The
material model for the geosynthetic was given linear-
elastic properties that represented an isotropic material.
In particular, the three elastic moduli were given the same
value, the three Poissons ratios were given the same value
and the shear modulus was computed from the elastic
modulus and Poissons ratio as for an isotropic material.
Five different values of geosynthetic isotropic elastic
modulus were used. Table II gives the values for each of
the nine elastic constants contained in the material model
for the geosynthetic.
Modulus Anisotropy
The geosynthetic-reinforced FE model was used to
examine the influence of direction dependent geosynthetic
elastic modulus values on reinforcement benefit. Different
values of elastic modulus were used in the machine and
cross-machine directions. Values in the direction normal
to the geosynthetic were also changed to provide stability
of the elastic matrix. Five different values of geosynthetic
modulus ratio, defined as the ratio of the minimum to
maximum elastic modulus for the two principal in-plane
directions of the material, were used. These ratios were
used for two different values of maximum elastic
modulus. Table IV gives the values for each of the nine
elastic constants contained in the material model for the
geosynthetic.

TABLE IV Parameters for geosynthetic material model to examine effect of reinforcement modulus anisotropy

Exm Geosynthetic modulus ratio Gxm2m Gxm2n Gm2n

Case name (MPa) Em(MPa) En(MPa) (GMR) vxm2m vxm2n vm2n (MPa)

GA1 400 400 400 1 0.5 133

GA2 400 300 300 0.75 0.5 133
GA3 400 200 200 0.5 0.5 133
GA4 400 100 100 0.25 0.5 133
GA5 400 40 40 0.1 0.5 133
GA6 8000 8000 8000 1 0.5 2667
GA7 8000 6000 6000 0.75 0.5 2667
GA8 8000 4000 4000 0.5 0.5 2667
GA9 8000 2000 2000 0.25 0.5 2667
GA10 8000 800 800 0.1 0.5 2667
 DESIGN MODEL FOR REINFORCED PAVEMENTS 41

TABLE V Pavement sections used to evaluate effect of reinforcement TABLE VII Pavement sections used to evaluate effect of reinforcement
modulus anisotropy Poissons ratio and shear modulus

Pavement section Geosynthetic cases Pavement section Geosynthetic cases

AC2 B5 S1 GA1GA10 AC2B5 S1 GvG1 2 GvG8
AC1 B2 S3 AC1B2 S3
AC5 B6 S5 AC5B6 S5

Three pavement sections were analyzed with the case described above, through which a design model is
name for the AC, base thickness and subgrade type given developed.
in Table V. These cases were analyzed for the geosynthetic
material property cases shown in Table IV, resulting in 30
Design Equations for Perfect Reinforcement
additional model runs.
Equations for TBR for Perfect Reinforcement
Parameters to Examine Effect of Poissons Ratio and The illustrative results presented earlier in Figs. 2 and 3 for
Shear Modulus perfect reinforced cases suggested a relationship between
TBRS and combinations of AC and base aggregate
All FE model cases previously examined used values for
thickness through the use of Eq. (1). Equation (1) was used
Poissons ratio and shear modulus that would produce
to compute SN for the 180 perfect-reinforced cases
optimal values of reinforcement benefit with respect to
specified in Table I and plotted against TBRS in Fig. 4 for
these two parameters. This was done such that the effects
different subgrade types. In Fig. 4, TBRS is labeled as
of reinforcement isotropic modulus and reinforcement
TBRS PR to denote values pertaining to the case of perfect
modulus anisotropy could be systematically accounted for.
reinforcement. While some scatter in the results is seen, a
Additional FE model cases were created to examine the
reasonable trend of TBRS with SN between different
effect of reducing Poissons ratio and shear modulus to
subgrade types is observed. The results indicate that
their lowest possible values. Table VI shows values of the
reinforcement benefit decreases as subgrade CBR
elastic properties used for the geosynthetic material model
increases, with very little improvement for a subgrade
to examine the effect of reducing Poissons ratio and shear
CBR of 8 and essentially no improvement for a subgrade
modulus. These properties were used for each of the three
CBR of 15. Reinforcement benefit is seen to increase from
pavement sections listed in Table VII, resulting in an
low values of SN and reaches a maximum around a SN of
additional 24 cases created to examine these effects.
3.3 and then decreases with no benefit seen after a SN of 6.
All geosynthetic-reinforced cases described above used
General agreement is seen between the trends shown in
equivalenced nodes between the geosynthetic and the
Fig. 4 and those observed from currently available
surrounding base aggregate and subgrade and thereby
experimental test sections as summarized in Berg et al.
simulates a tied contact interface. As such, the effect of
(2000). The high values of TBR noted in Fig. 4 are
interface properties is not addressed in the above cases.
expected since these cases represent a geosynthetic
The influence of interface properties is addressed by
material with an infinite modulus and an infinitely stiff
comparison of design model predictions to test section
shear interface between the geosynthetic and the base
results in a later section.
aggregate. Reductions for actual geosynthetic properties
are introduced later.
Straight-line equations in the semi-log plot of TBRS PR
DESIGN MODEL DEVELOPMENT versus SN were used to approximate the trend in the data
for each subgrade CBR. For a subgrade CBR of 15,
The purpose of this section is to summarize, interpret and TBRS PR was taken as equal to one for all values of SN.
synthesize results from the parametric study cases Equations (2) (7) describe the straight-line portion of

TABLE VI Parameters for geosynthetic material model to examine effect of reinforcement Poissons ratio and shear modulus

Case name Exm (MPa) Em (MPa) En (MPa) vxm2m vxm2n vm2n Gxm2m (MPa) Gxm2n (MPa) Gm2n (MPa)
GvG1 400 400 400 0.5 0.5 0.5 133 133 133
GvG2 8000 8000 8000 0.5 0.5 0.5 2667 2667 2667
GvG3 400 400 400 0 0 0 133 133 133
GvG4 8000 8000 8000 0 0 0 2667 2667 2667
GvG5 400 400 400 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0
GvG6 8000 8000 8000 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0
GvG7 400 400 400 0 0 0 0 0 0
GvG8 8000 8000 8000 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 S.W. PERKINS AND M.Q. EDENS

FIGURE 4 TBRS PR versus SN for all perfect reinforcement model cases.

each curve, where the parameters used in these equations A similar assessment of the data from the 180 perfect
are identified in Fig. 5. reinforcement cases was made to relate TBRB for the case
of perfect-reinforcement to AC and base thickness and
1:6 # SN # 3:3 TBRS PR 10m1 SNlog yo1 2 subgrade CBR. In this case, changes in TBRB PR were
most appreciable for changes in subgrade CBR and AC
log yy21
m1 3 thickness. Changes in base thickness were not seen
1:7 to appreciably affect TBRB PR. Fig. 6 shows values of
y1 TBRB PR versus AC thickness for various subgrade CBR
yo1 1:6 m 4
10 1 values. Data from a given subgrade CBR and a given AC
thickness is plotted for each base thickness with the
3:3 # SN # 6:0 TBRS PR 10m2 SNlog yo2 5 exception of the base thickness of 600 mm, which
2log y2 produced comparatively high values of TBRB PR. Those
m2 6 results appear to be inconsistent with the other data and no
SNTBRS PR 1 2 3:3
experimental data is available in the literature that
y2 supports this observation. As will be seen below, the
yo2 7
103:3 m2 design equations formulated from the data in Fig. 6
excludes these results and thereby avoids what would most
With Eqs. (2) (7) used to describe the lines seen in likely be unconservative estimates of benefit. The lines in
Fig. 4, values of y1 and y2 were then related to the subgrade Fig. 6 have been extrapolated for values of AC thickness
CBR with the following expressions derived. The lines less than 50 mm. Since minimum AC thickness for paved
shown in Fig. 4 are plotted according to Eqs. (2) (9). roads are generally greater than 50 mm, most designs will
not utilize this portion of the curve.
y1 10log 82log CBR 8

y2 10log 10021:7 log CBR 9

FIGURE 6 TBRB PR versus AC thickness (D1) for perfect-

FIGURE 5 Identification of constants for Eqs. (2)(9). reinforcement model cases.
 DESIGN MODEL FOR REINFORCED PAVEMENTS
More scatter is observed in Fig. 6 for results of
TBRB PR as compared to those observed in Fig. 4 for
TBRS PR. The values of TBRB PR are, however, relatively
modest in comparison to TBRS PR. Due to this scatter,
relatively simple and conservative estimates of the data
were developed by straight-lines in an arithmetic plot of
TBRB PR versus AC thickness for various subgrade
CBRs. The equation of these lines is given by:
D1
TBRB PR 1 2 b b 10
160
where D1 is the AC thickness in units of mm and b is the
y-intercept of the lines. Values of b were related to
subgrade CBR through Eq. (11). The lines shown in Fig. 6
result from the use of Eqs. (10 and 11).
b 4:45 CBR20:522 11
The TBR for the total system (TBRT) is computed as the
product of TBRS and TBRB.
Equations for BCR and TBR/BCR Combinations for
Perfect Reinforcement
Use of the M E model for the definition of BCR or
combinations of TBR and BCR was illustrated in the
companion paper (Perkins and Edens, 2002) for a
particular perfect-reinforced case (i.e. case AC4 B5
S2). In this example, response measures from FE models
of an unreinforced pavement and several reinforced
pavements of reduced base course thickness could be used
to assess TBR. Reduction of base course thickness beyond
a certain limit produced TBR values less than 1. Such an
approach allowed for the generation of a curve describing
combinations of TBR and BCR between the limits of
1 # TBR # TBRBCR0 and 0 # BCR # BCRTBR1 for a
particular unreinforced pavement design configuration.
While this method appears to have merit, the introduction
of a new variable (reinforced base course thickness) made
it difficult to develop regression equations that reasonably
described the results obtained. A simple method was
therefore, developed for relating combinations of BCR and
TBR to pavement design parameters. The method is based
on existing pavement design principles and methodologies
and is validated by comparison to results obtained from the
perfect-reinforced parametric study cases for which
combined values of BCR and TBR are available.
The method relies upon the use of design equations
contained in the AASHTO93 pavement design guide
(AASHTO, 1993) and relies upon knowledge of a
TBR for equivalent unreinforced and reinforced sections
(i.e. TBR for BCR 0). The AASHTO93 pavement
design equation is then used to calculate an increased
structural layer coefficient for the base course aggregate
for the reinforced section that gives the increased
number of Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL) that
this section can carry for the case where no base course
43
thickness reduction is used. The new base layer
coefficient is then used to determine the base course
thickness reduction such that equal life or ESALs is
predicted for the reinforced and unreinforced pavement
(i.e. BCR when TBR 1). The method can also be
used to calculate the remaining BCR for an assumed
TBR, or to calculate the remaining TBR for an assumed
BCR.
An unreinforced pavement design cross section is first
assumed. The AC and base thickness and layer
coefficients, and the subgrade CBR or resilient modulus
is required. With these parameters, the 1993 AASHTO
pavement design equation is used to calculate the number
of ESALs for this unreinforced pavement (W182U). The
structural number used to determine W182U is determined
from Eq. (12), where a1 and a2 are the layer coefficients of
the asphalt concrete and base aggregate layers, respect-
ively, D1 and D2 are the thicknesses of the AC and base
layers, respectively, and m2 is the drainage coefficient of
the base layer.
SN a1 D1 a2 D2 m2 12
A known value of TBR when BCR 0 then allows W18
to be calculated from Eq. (13) for a reinforced pavement
having identical pavement layer thicknesses and proper-
ties. In Eq. (13), the TBR used may correspond to TBRB,
TBRS or TBRT, where TBRT is computed as the product
of TBRB and TBRS.
W 182R W 182U TBR 13
The value of W182R from Eq. (13) is then used in
the AASHTO pavement design equation to calculate a
value of SN for the reinforced pavement, with this
value used in Eq. (12) to determine a new value of a2
for the reinforced pavement, with all other parameters
being equal to those used for the unreinforced
pavement. This approach assumes that the TBR seen
for the comparative reinforced and unreinforced
pavements can be accounted for by an increased
structural base layer coefficient and requires an iterative
solution for SN in the AASHTO design equation. Once
a value of a2 for the reinforced pavement is obtained
(a22R), this value is used in Eq. (12) along with a
reduced base thickness for the reinforced pavement
(D22R) such that a SN identical to the unreinforced
pavement is obtained. The reduced base thickness is
calculated from
SNU 2 a1 D1
D22R : 14
a22R m2
This allows for the determination of a value of BCR
when TBR 1 from Eq. (15). Depending on the value of
TBR used in Eq. (13) (TBRB, TBRS or TBRT), the
computed BCR then pertains to reinforcement effects on
44 S.W. PERKINS AND M.Q. EDENS

the base, subgrade or total system.
D22U 2 D22R
BCR 100 15
D22U
With this approach, values of TBR when BCR 0
and BCR when TBR 1 are known. If a value of TBR
less than TBRBCR0 is used, it should be expected that
the remaining benefit can be expressed in terms of a
BCR. Conversely, if a value of BCR less than BCRTBR1
is used, remaining benefit can be expressed in terms of a
TBR.
The same general approach described above is used to
determine combinations of BCR and TBR. Each approach
uses the predetermined value of TBRBCR0 to determine
the increased structural base layer coefficient of the
reinforced pavement. Essentially, Eqs. (13 15) are
worked in reverse. Thus, in the case where a desired
BCR is specified, the reinforced base layer thickness is
determined from Eq. (16).
 
BCR
D22R 1 2 D22U 16
100
In this case the structural number of the reinforced
pavement is then determined from Eq. (17).
SNR a1 D1 a22R D22R m2 ; 17
where a22R is determined from the method described
above and by knowing the value of TBRBCR0 : A value of
W182R is then determined using the AASHTO design
equation using the value of SN from Eq. (17). A value of
remaining TBR is then computed by Eq. (18), where this
value should lie between 1 and TBRBCR0 ; provided the
desired value of BCR used was less than or equal to
BCRTBR1 :
the parametric study for the case of perfect reinforce-
ment where combinations of TBR and BCR could be
simply computed. For these cases, a BCR was known
from the thickness selected for the reinforced FE
response model. TBR was then determined from the
damage models using the stress and strain response
parameters from the reinforced and unreinforced
sections. The method described above, using the
AASHTO93 pavement design equation, was then
used to assess remaining TBR for the corresponding
BCR. The value of TBRBCR0 used in the method
corresponded to that which was obtained from the FE
model comparison cases of unreinforced and perfect
reinforced sections of equivalent thickness. In many
cases, both the M E model and the AASHTO
equations gave remaining TBRs less than one because
the BCR was too great. For cases where remaining
TBR was greater than one, values of remaining TBR
from the M E model were plotted against those from
the AASHTO equations given above and are shown in
Fig. 7 for all subgrade cases except case S1, which
plotted above the line of equality.
The results seen in Fig. 7 indicate that the use of the
AASHTO equations is conservative with respect to that
obtained from the M E model for all subgrade cases
except for the CBR 0:5 (S1) case. In this case, the
AASHTO equations gave unconservative estimates of
remaining TBR. Due to the apparent unconservative
nature of this method for CBR 0:5; and the decreased
margin of safety when designing for a BCR at low values
of subgrade CBR, it is recommended that the method
described above for calculating BCR or TBR/BCR
combinations be used only for designs with a subgrade
CBR $ 1:

W 182R
TBR 18
W 182U

For the case where a desired TBR is specified, Eq. (13)

is used to calculate the number of ESALs required of the
reinforced section. The AASHTO design equation is then
solved iteratively to give the required SN for the reinforced
section (SNR). Equation (19) is then used to determine the
base layer thickness necessary to produce this SN, where
the reinforced structural base layer coefficient is used in
this equation.
SNR 2 a1 D1
D22R 19
a22R m2

The remaining BCR is then determined from Eq. (15),

where the value obtained should lie between 0 and
BCRTBR1 ; provided the desired value of TBR was less
than TBRBCR0 :
To evaluate the reasonableness of this approach, the
above method was compared to the 450 cases from FIGURE 7 Remaining TBRs from ME model and AASHTO method.
 DESIGN MODEL FOR REINFORCED PAVEMENTS 45

Modification of TBRPR for Influence of Geosynthetic

Isotropic Elastic Modulus
The methods described above provide values of
reinforcement benefit (TBR, BCR or combinations of
the two) for the case of perfect reinforcement. The 250
analysis cases presented in Table III allow for modifi-
cations to be made to benefit values from the case of
perfect reinforcement to account for values of isotropic
elastic (tensile) modulus of the geosynthetic. In particular,
separate methods for modification of TBRS PR and
TBRB PR are provided.
FIGURE 9 Reduction factor for geosynthetic isotropic elastic modulus
for SN 1:6:
Modification of TBRS PR
The equations developed for TBRS PR Eqs. (2) (9)
describing the lines shown in Fig. 4 indicate three
show a strong dependency of RFGM on geosynthetic
critical values of SN for the breakpoints of these curves,
isotropic modulus but show little effect from variations in
namely SN values of 1.6, 3.3 and 6. The analysis cases
subgrade CBR. A regression equation fitting the data shown
given in Table III were chosen to provide values of
in Fig. 9 yields the following expression for RFGM, where
TBRS for values of SN approximately equal to 1.6, 3.3
EG is the isotropic elastic tensile modulus of the
and 6. Three to four pavement design cross-sections at
geosynthetic in units of kPa.
each value of SN were examined in order to provide
redundancy.
The results indicated that the curves presented in Fig. 4 RFGM 49:8 logEG 2 261 21
tended to shift as shown in Fig. 8, with the degree of
shift being dependent on the geosynthetic modulus and Equations (20 and (21) are then used to modify Eq. (8)
the subgrade CBR. For each case analyzed, a reduction by recognizing that y1 in Eq. (8) is equal to TBRS PR in
factor for geosynthetic isotropic elastic modulus (RFGM) Eq. (20) (see Fig. 5) and that the value of y1 when
was computed according to Eq. (20), which describes the geosynthetic isotropic modulus is accounted for ( y12GM)
reduction in TBRS for the case of a specific geosynthetic is equal to TBRS GM in Eq. (20).
isotropic modulus (TBRS GM) as compared to that
obtained for the case of perfect reinforcement (TBRS PR). 49:8logEG 2 261 log82logCBR
y12GM 10 2 1 1 22
100
TBRS GM 2 1
RFGM 100 20
TBRS PR 2 1 Cases in Table III with a SN of approximately 3.3 were
used to develop an expression for y2 that accounts for
Separate expressions were developed for RFGM for each geosynthetic isotropic elastic modulus (y22GM). Fig. 10
of the three values of SN. For case AC1 B1 with a SN of shows values of RFGM calculated from Eq. (20) for cases
1.61, Fig. 9 shows values of RFGM for all of the subgrade with a SN of approximately 3.3 for all of the subgrade and
and geosynthetic isotropic modulus values. The results geosynthetic isotropic modulus values, where it is seen

FIGURE 10 Reduction factor for geosynthetic isotropic elastic

FIGURE 8 Influence of geosynthetic isotropic modulus on TBRS PR. modulus for SN 3:3:
46 S.W. PERKINS AND M.Q. EDENS

that RFGM is dependent on both geosynthetic modulus and CBR and reinforcement isotropic elastic modulus.
subgrade CBR. Regression equations were developed to

describe the data seen in Fig. 10 where the lines drawn in 55:8logEG 2288
D1
this figure were according to Eq. (23). TBRBGM 124:45CBR20:522
100 160

4:45CBR20:522 21 1 27
RFGM 1:8 1026 logCBR 1:57 1026  EG 23

Equations (20)and (23) are then used to modify Eq. (9)

by recognizing that y2 in Eq. (9) is equal to TBRS PR in
Eq. (20) (see Fig. 5) and that the value of y2 when
geosynthetic isotropic modulus is accounted for ( y22GM)
is equal to TBRS GM in Eq. (20).
1:81026 logCBR1:571026
y22GM
100
EG 10log10021:7logCBR 211 24 reduction factor for geosynthetic modulus ratio (RFGMR)
The effect of reinforcement isotropic elastic modulus
on values of SNTBR1 were evaluated by first using
Eq. (24) to calculate the value of y22GM for each value
of isotropic elastic modulus and subgrade CBR given in
Table III. Each value of y22GM corresponds to TBRS2GM
for a SN 3:3: For the corresponding cases for
AC5 B5 where SN 4:57; a value of TBRS GM is
known. Based on these two points, a straight line in a
semi-log plot of TBRS GM versus SN is used to estimate
a value for SN when TBRS GM 1: Regression
equations between these values and EG and subgrade
CBR were then developed, with Eq. (25) being the
result.
SNTBRS GM 1 2:54CBR 2 0:280:028 EG 0:0504 25
Equations (22), (24) and (25) are then used in
Eqs. (2) (7) for values of y1, y2 and SNTBRS PR1 ;
respectively. Equations (2 7) then provide predictions of
TBR accounting for the influence of the structural section
thickness, subgrade strength and geosynthetic isotropic
elastic modulus.
Modification of TBRGM for Influence of Geosynthetic
Modulus Anisotropy
Effects of anisotropy of the elastic modulus of the
geosynthetic between the machine and cross-machine
directions were evaluated by comparison of values of TBR
obtained from the model cases listed in Tables IV and V to
corresponding cases with isotropic modulus values. A
was defined according to Eq. (28) and evaluated for the
finite element model cases listed in Table V. Reduction
factors were evaluated for corresponding TBR values for
subgrade and base reinforcement effects.
TBRGMR
RFGMR 28
TBRGM
For values of TBRS, values of RFGMR were found
to be approximated by straight-line relationships given by
Eq. (29), where m is the slope of the lines and was seen to
be a function of TBRS GM, as given by Eq. (30) and GMR
is the ratio of moduli and is given by Eq. (31).
RFGMR m GMR 1 2 m 29
m 0:62 log TBRS GM 30
EG2min
GMR 31
EG2max
Combination of Eqs. (28 30) yields Eq. (32).

TBRS GMR TBRS GM 0:62 log TBRS GM GMR

Modification of TBRB PR
Reduction factors were also developed to modify values of 1 2 0:62 log TBRS GM  32
TBRB PR to account for values of geosynthetic isotropic
elastic modulus. Evaluation of all cases contained in A similar analysis for values of TBRB showed that the
Table III indicated that the reduction factor was dependent reduction factor was dependent primarily on GMR, which
most strongly on the reinforcement isotropic modulus. allowed Eq. (33) to be developed.
The reduction factor developed, having the same
general definition as that given in Eq. (20), is given by TBRB GMR TBRB GM 0:2 GMR 0:8 33
Eq. (26).

RFGM 55:8 log EG 2 288 26 Evaluation of TBR S GM and TBR B GM from

Eqs. (2 7), (22), (24), (25) and 27) for the case of
Combination of Eqs. (10), (11), (20) and (26) yields isotropic geosynthetic modulus values allows these values
Eq. (27) for determination of TBRB GM accounting for to be reduced by the use of Eqs. (32) and (33) when GMR
the influences of structural section thickness, subgrade from Eq. (31) is evaluated.
 DESIGN MODEL FOR REINFORCED PAVEMENTS 47

TABLE VIII Reduction factors for reinforcement Poissons ratio and
shear modulus
RFGv RFGG
TBRS 0.83 0.92
TBRB 0.96 0.99
Modification of TBRGM for Geosynthetic Poissons
Ratio and Shear Modulus
The finite element model cases presented in Tables VI
and VII were used to examine the effect of reducing
Poissons ratio and shear modulus to zero from the values
used for the case of isotropic material properties.
A reduction factor was computed for the effect of
reducing each variable according to Eqs. (34) and (35),
where TBRv and TBRG were values of TBR obtained
directly from the cases examined where either v or G was
reduced to zero and TBRGM was the TBR for the
corresponding model case where isotropic elastic values
were used for the geosynthetic material. A reduction
factor was also computed for the combined effect of
reducing both v and G according to Eq. (36). Reduction
factors for both values of TBRS and TBRB were evaluated.
TBRv
RFGv
TBRGM
TBRG
RFGG
TBRGM
TBRvG
RFGvG
TBRGM
Table VIII summarizes average values of reduc-
tion factors obtained for each reinforcement effect
(i.e. base and subgrade). From these results, it appears
that the combined effect of reducing both Poissons ratio
and shear modulus to zero corresponds to the product of
the two reduction factors for each individual effect. Based
on these results, reduction factors can be used either
individually or in series and applied to TBRS GM and
TBRB GM for reduction of these TBRs according to
Eqs. (34) (36).
Modification of TBRGM for Influence of Interface
Properties
RFGvG The computation of TBR accounting for all the effects
0.75 described above implicitly assumes optimal interface
0.95 properties. A reduction factor for interface properties is
introduced to account for the influence of interface shear
properties as given in Eq. (37), where TBRI is the TBR
when interface reduction effects are accounted for.
Empirical calibration of this reduction factor is accom-
plished for two different types of geosynthetics by
comparison of predictions of the method to results from
large scale test sections reported by Perkins (1999) and is
described in the next section.
TBRI
RFGI 37
TBRGM
Application of Reduction Factors
The reduction factors developed to describe the reduction
of reinforcement benefit for actual geosynthetic properties
from the case of perfect reinforcement are designed to
be applied in series. Benefit values for TBRS GM and
TBRB GM are determined from Eqs. (2 7,22,24,25
and 27) and account for geosynthetic isotropic
elastic modulus. These benefit values are then used in
34 Eqs. (32 and 33) to account for geosynthetic modulus
anisotropy. Values of TBRS GMR and TBRB GMR from
Eqs. (32 and 33) are then multiplied by RFGv, RFGG and
35
RFGI as appropriate for the geosynthetic material used.
Values of TBR for the total system (TBRT) are still
36 computed as the product of the final values of TBRS and
TBRB and are used in the method described above for
evaluation of BCR or TBR/BCR combinations.
Calibration of Design Model
The model described above was calibrated by compari-
son to results from four large-scale reinforced pavement
test sections reported by Perkins (1999). Pertinent design
model input properties for these sections are listed in
Table IX and include AC and base aggregate thickness
and subgrade CBR. Three geosynthetics were used in

TABLE IX Summary input parameters for design model and test section comparisons (Perkins, 1999)

Test section CS5 CS6 CS10 CS11

AC thickness, D1 (mm) 75 75 75 75
Base thickness, D2 (mm) 300 300 375 300
Subgrade CBR 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Geosynthetic Geogrid B Geotextile A Geogrid A Geogrid A
2% secant modulus, GSM22% (kN/m) 595 680 425 425
Geosynthetic modulus ratio, GMR 0.615 0.313 0.595 0.595
Reduction factor for interface shear, RFI 1 0.765 1 1
RF for Poissons ratio, RFGv, on TBRS 1 0.83 1 1
RF for Poissons ratio, RFGv, on TBRB 1 0.96 1 1
RF for shear modulus, RFGG, on TBRS 1 0.92 1 1
RF for shear modulus, RFGG, on TBRB 1 0.99 1 1
48 S.W. PERKINS AND M.Q. EDENS
TABLE X Summary output for design model and test section comparisons (Perkins, 1999)
Test section
TBRBCR=0 Test section values Subgrade
Base
Total
Design model predictions Subgrade
Base
Total
these sections. Geogrid A and B were punched and
drawn biaxial products. Geotextile A was a woven slit
film product. Values of secant tensile modulus at 2%
axial strain from wide-width tension tests per ASTM
4595 (ASTM, 2001) were provided by the manufac-
turers (AMOCO, 2001; Tensar, 2001) for both
the machine and cross-machine directions of the
material. The maximum of the two values for each
product is reported in Table IX as GSM22%. The ratio
between the minimum and maximum values is reported
in Table IX as GMR. Values of TBRB, TBRS and TBRT
are available for each reinforced test section and are
listed in Table X.
Since suitable test methods for the definition of
geosynthetic Poissons ratio and shear modulus are not
currently available, selection of reduction factors for
these two properties corresponded to either no reduction
(i.e. reduction factors of 1.0) or the full values given in
Table VIII. For geogrid A and B, available experimental
results indicate that geosynthetic reinforcement products
of this type tend to provide benefit values at the higher
range of those available for test sections reported in the
literature (Berg et al., 2000), while benefit values for
geosynthetics similar to geotextile A tend to be at the
lower range. Reduction factors of 1.0 for Poissons ratio
and shear modulus were therefore used for geogrid A
and B while the full values given in Table VIII were
used for geotextile A, as displayed in Table IX. In
addition, the reduction factor for interface shear was set
a priori to 1.0 for geogrid A and B. The value used for
geotextile A arises from the calibration process
described below.
The geosynthetic elastic modulus (EG) used in the
development of the design method is a true elastic
modulus with units of kPa. The 2% secant tensile modulus
(GSM22%) differs from EG in that it has units of kN/m,
meaning that a material thickness must be assumed to
convert GSM22% to EG. In addition, GSM22% is a wide-
width secant modulus calculated at a relatively high strain
of 2%, whereas, EG is strictly a low-strain initial elastic
modulus. Calibration of a conversion factor between
GSM22% and EG was, therefore, necessary. This was
accomplished by the use of test sections CS5 and CS11,
which used geogrid B and A, respectively. To match as
closely as possible the values of TBR for the subgrade for
test sections CS5 and CS11, a factor of 4400 was applied
to GSM22% according to Eq. (38). Resulting values of TBR
CS5 CS6 CS10 CS11
2.95 1.66 2.23 2.61
7.74 1.43 2.63 3.01
29.7 2.90 9.82 13.5
3.02 1.66 2.45 2.54
1.82 1.27 1.71 1.71
5.51 2.10 4.19 4.34
are listed in Table X.
EG 4400 GSM22% 38
Results from test section CS10 were then compared to
model predictions. Test section CS10 also used geogrid A
and therefore the same values for this material were used
as those used for test section CS11. The thickness of the
base layer was increased to 375 mm. The model predicted
a value of TBRS of 2.45 while a value from the test section
of 2.23 was observed.
Results from test section CS6 were then used to
calibrate a reduction factor for interface shear resistance.
Equation (38) was used to calculate EG for use in the
design model. The reduction factor for interface shear was
reduced from 1.0 until a value for TBRS of 1.66 was
obtained. This resulted in a value for RFI of 0.765, which
is taken as also being applicable to values of TBRB.
Table X lists test section and design model values of
TBRB, TBRS and TBRT for the four sections used for
calibration of the design model. The method used for
calibration of the design model results in good predictions
of TBRS. The predicted values of TBRB are considerably
less and conservative in comparison to those seen from the
test sections. This is due to the inability of the material
model for the base aggregate to properly show the effects
of increases in bulk stress on base layer behavior and the
conservative steps taken in development of expressions for
TBRB. The comparatively low and conservative predic-
tions of TBRT are due to the conservative values predicted
for TBRB and the conservative procedure for multipli-
cation of TBRB and TBRS to produce TBRT. This
multiplication procedure appears to be conservative based
on the values from test sections where it is seen that
multiplication of TBRB and TBRS produce values less
than TBRT determined experimentally.
SUMMARY AND MODEL LIMITATIONS
A M E model for reinforced pavements has been
developed and used in a parametric study to develop a
design model expressed in terms of generic input
parameters describing the geometry and properties of the
reinforced pavement cross section. The model is expressed
solely in terms of equations relating reinforcement benefit
to pavement and geosynthetic input design parameters.
 DESIGN MODEL FOR REINFORCED PAVEMENTS
These equations are based on the results of predictions of
reinforcement benefit from a finite element based M E
model from over 465 analyzed cases. The M E model and
the design model were calibrated from reinforced test
section results.
The design model has been shown to be sensitive to
pavement design variables that have previously been
identified as having a significant impact on reinforced
pavement performance. In particular, the model is
capable of showing that reinforcement benefit increases
with decreasing subgrade strength/stiffness, increasing
geosynthetic tensile modulus and is sensitive to the
pavement structural thickness. Furthermore, the model is
shown to be sensitive to the ratio of geosynthetic tensile
modulus in the weak to strong directions of the material.
The model is calibrated from the use of geosynthetic
secant tensile modulus values determined at 2% axial
strain according to ASTM 4595 (ASTM, 2001).
The design model accounts for geosynthetic properties
pertinent to the type and structure of the material through
the assignment of reduction factors for geosynthetic
material Poissons ratio, shear modulus and geosynthe-
tic/aggregate shear interaction. Geosynthetic material
Poissons ratio and shear modulus are parameters existing
in the anisotropic elastic material model used for the
geosynthetic and were shown to have a moderate
influence on reinforcement benefit. Reduction factors
for Poissons ratio and shear modulus correspond to one
of two value sets and were calibrated for the two types of
geosynthetics used in test sections to which the model
was compared. Similarly, the reduction factor for
interface shearing resistance was calibrated from these
test section results.
The design model appears to yield mostly conservative
predictions of reinforcement benefit when compared to
results available in the literature. Conservatism in the
model results from several sources. The method used to
calculate reinforcement benefit for the base aggregate
layer was shown to yield values of benefit that are
consistently less than those determined for test sections.
The equation used to calculate total TBR from the partial
values for the base and subgrade layers was shown to be
conservative as compared to test section results. Finally
the method used to calculate BCR and TBR/BCR
combinations was shown to be conservative with respect
to that predicted by the finite element model. In spite of
this inherent conservatism, use of the model has been
shown to offer significant life-cycle cost benefits for
several pavement design examples (Perkins, 2001).
The design model is based on certain conditions to
which the model should be limited. The model is based on
results from a finite element model where pavement load
has been simulated by the application of a 40 kN load
applied over a 300 mm diameter circular plate. Experi-
mental test section results from which the model has been
validated used a similar load. The design model is,
therefore, designed to describe reinforcement benefit for
conventional roadway applications where the pavement
49
load can be approximated in terms of a standard axle wheel
load. The model may not be appropriate for either
lightly loaded traffic or for excessive heavily loaded traffic.
The design model is calibrated largely from results
based on a permanent pavement surface deformation of
12.5 mm. It is anticipated that roadways that can be
designed for a rut depth greater than 12.5 mm will realize
reinforcement benefits greater than those predicted from
this model, meaning that this model should be
conservative for roadways designed for a rut depth in
excess of 12.5 mm.
The model is based on asphalt concrete and base
aggregate properties that correspond to structural layer
coefficients of approximately 0.4 and 0.14, respectively.
Recommendations are provided in Perkins (2001) for
pavement designs with different materials yielding
different layer coefficients.
All cases of reinforcement were modeled by placement
of the geosynthetic at the bottom of the base aggregate
layer. As such, the design model cannot account for
situations where it might be desirable to place the
geosynthetic further up in the base aggregate layer.
Further work for improvement of the design model
should focus on a better description of reinforcement
benefit for reinforcement effects in the base aggregate
layer. The design model as presented in this paper yields
conservative predictions of this reinforcement component.
Improvements in the material model used for the base
aggregate layer would be required to improve upon
predictions of this component of benefit. These improve-
ments would then also warrant examining the model for
predictions of benefit for cases where the geosynthetic is
moved up into the base aggregate layer. Further work
should also be performed to allow assignment of reduction
factors for geosynthetic Poissons ratio, shear modulus and
geosynthetic/aggregate shear interaction for various
geosynthetics types. Finally, future results from new test
sections should be used to further refine and update the
model.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully recognize the financial support
and technical review provided by the Montana, Idaho,
Kansas, Minnesota, New York, Texas, Wisconsin and
Wyoming Departments of Transportation and the Western
Transportation Institute at Montana State University.
The Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Company and Tensar Earth
Technologies, Incorporated graciously donated geo-
synthetic materials for preceding projects leading up to
this work and also provided geosynthetic product
information used in the development of the design model.
References
AASHTO (1993) AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures
(American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC).
50 S.W. PERKINS AND M.Q. EDENS
AMOCO (2001) Personal email communication, 4-23-2001.
ASTM (2001) Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Soil and Rock (II):
D4943-Latest; Geosynthetics, 04.09, Section 4 (American Society of
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocen, PA).
Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R. and Perkins, S.W. (2000) Geosynthetic
Reinforcement of the Aggregate Base Course of Flexible Pavement
Structures, GMA White Paper II (Geosynthetic Materials Associa-
tion, Roseville, MN), p 130.
Perkins, S.W. (1999) Geosynthetic Reinforcement of Flexible
Pavements: Laboratory Based Pavement Test Sections
(Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT), Report No.
FHWA/MT-99/8106-1, p 140.
Perkins, S.W. (2001) Mechanistic-Empirical Modeling and Design
Model Development of Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements:
Final Report (Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MT),
Report No. FHWA/MT-01/002/99160-1A, p 156.
Perkins, S.W. and Edens, M.Q. (2003) Finite element and distress
models for geosynthetic-reinforced pavements, International
Journal of Pavement Engineering 3(4), 239 250.
Tensar (2001) Personal fax communication, 4-23-2001, p 37.
Copyright of International Journal of Pavement Engineering is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.