Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173

11th Transportation Planning and Implementation Methodologies for Developing Countries,

TPMDC 2014, 10-12 December 2014, Mumbai, India

Studies on Engineering Performance of Geogrid Reinforced Soft

Subgrade
Unnam Rajesh*, Satish Sajja*, V K Chakravarthi**
a
Post Graduate student, Department of Civil Engineering, GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam, AP, India

b
Sr, Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, GMR Institute of Technology, Rajam, AP, India

Abstract

One of the preferred materials for construction of road embankments on soft subgrade soils being coarse grained soils. During the
recent past utilization of geosynthetics has been increased to improve bearing resistance of weaker subgrades. Previous
researches addressed the problems due to soft subgrade in several ways and provided solutions namely geosynthetics & coarse
fill for construction on these soils insitu. However considering scarcity of fill material and cost of project a viable alternative can
be bulk utilization of locally available weak soils. Neglecting construction difficulties etc., effective utilization is possible in
small scale projects if engineering performance is enhanced. These improved soils can be used as fill over soft subgrades and
adds benefit in the form of cost reduction.
In the present study an attempt has been made to study the engineering performance (CBR) for different types of soil subgrades
reinforced with geogrids. Tests are conducted on soil in lab and field and CBR value is determined. Studies are carried out and
influence of parameters soil plasticity, geogrid tensile capacity, soaking and unsoaking on CBR property is examined. Enforced
with geogrids and the performance of geogrids in soaked condition both lab & field are studied and the performance is quantified.
The results obtained have shown the influence of plasticity & fines (%) and possible usage of geogrid in improving soaked CBR
performance which in the absence of grid is very poor.
2015The
© 2016 TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.
Peer-review under responsibility of the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
Keywords: Soft soil; CBR value; geo-grids; reinforcement

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-9000277099;

E-mail address:unnam.rajesh.con@gmail.com,(Unnam Rajesh),
satish.sajja@gmail.com,(Satish Sajja),
chakravarthi.vk@gmrit.org(V K Chakravarthi).

2352-1465 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay
doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.072
 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173 165

1. Introduction

The design and construction of pavement is quite challengeable and problematic for engineers over weak soils.
Due to the presence of highly compressible clayey soils the life of the pavements often effected. In the available
literature Geo-grids are popular as inclusion/ reinforcement for improving engineering performance. Thus adoption
of alternative construction techniques through reinforcing enables increase in pavement life. . In the present study
performance of subgrade soil using geogrids is studied on different subgrades with different geosynthetic
reinforcement. CBR parameter is determined for unreinforced and reinforced subgrade beds in lab and field varying
of soil plasticity, soaking conditions and allowable tensile capacity of reinforcement.

1.1. Types and Applications of Geosynthetics

Geosynthetics include a large variety of products composed of polymers and are designed to solve many
geotechnical and transportation problems. Geosynthetics, as applied to flexible pavement systems, have been widely
used in recent years. Geosynthetic reinforcement is typically placed in the interface between the aggregate base
course and the subgrade. In general geosynthetics are classified into Geotextiles (woven and non woven), Geogrids
(Flexible and Rigid), Geonets, Geostrips, Geomembranes etc.
Many applications of geosynthetics namely, separation, reinforcement, filtration, drainage, and containment has
been reported in literature. One of the main applications being as reinforcement in improving weak soils. The
inclusion of reinforcement adds strength and increases CBR of composite soils (Sujatha et al. (2012), Pardeep Singh
et al. (2012), Amin Chegenizadeh et al. (2011) Choudhary et al. (2011), Senthil kumar (2012), Abdi (2011) and
Nejad (1996)).

1.2. Reinforcement-Soil interaction mechanism

One of the beneficial effects of geosynthetic reinforcement at the interface between base course and subgrade soil
is to carry the shear stresses induced by vehicular loads at the interface. The geogrids have an elastic-plastic
behavior so that they quickly react to applied loads with an increase in the elastic modulus; in the case of short term
impact loading, creep phenomenon does not occur, therefore the whole tensile resistance of the geogrid can be
mobilized. Further, geogrids allow an increase of the dynamic dumping characteristics of the reinforced soil
compared to unreinforced soil, both through the energy that is directly absorbed by the geogrid itself and due to
friction generated in the dynamic stage.

2. Experimental studies

Experimental studies are carried out for determination of index and engineering properties of subgrade. The
engineering properties are determined on subgrade samples in both lab and field. Details of materials used,
procedure of preparation & testing of geogrid reinforced specimen in lab and field are described in the headings 2.1
to 2.4. The test are carried out as per IS 2720 (part 4, 5, 7 and 16).

2.1 Material used

Two types of locally available soil samples varying in fines (%) content and Plasticity and two types of Geo-grids
(STRATA brand) with varying aperture size, allowable tensile capacity are used in the present study. The geo-grids
were collected from the STRATA GEO SYSTEMS (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd, MUMBAI. The soil properties and details of
geogrid are presented in Table-1, Table-2. For convenience the following notations as given in Table-3 are adopted
for CBR value of composite soils.
166 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173

Table 1. Index and Engineering properties of soils.

Properties Soil- Soil-2

1(s-1)
Specific Gravity 2.65 2.7

Liquid limit (%) 45.50 36.9

Plastic limit (%) 22.15 18.14

Plasticity index (%) 23.35 18.76

Fines (%) 63.73 58.68

IS Classification CI CI

OMC (%) 16.1 13.21

Maximum dry density γd (kN/ m3 ) 17.9 17.36

CBR (%) {unsoaked} 3.37 4.83
CBR (%) {soaked} 1.82 1.91

Table 2. Details of Geogrids (Source STRATA Geosystems).

Geo Nomenc Tensile Creep Partial factor-installation

grids lature strength limit damage
type (kN/ m) Strength
MD and (kN/m)
CD
Clay, In In
sand sandy gravel
or silt gravel

SG SG1 40 27.4 1.05 1.10 1.20

40X40
SG SG2 30 20.5 1.05 1.10 1.20
30X30

Table 3. CBR notations adopted for various combination of soil, grid and testing conditions.

Soil type Soil-1 Soil-2

Testing condition Unsoaked(lab) Soaked( lab) Field Unsoaked(lab) Soaked( lab) Field
Unreinforced
Cs1 Css1 Cf1 Cs2 Css2 Cf2
Soil+ Geogrid-1
(SG-1) Cs1* Css1* Cf1* Cs2* Css2* Cf2*
Soil+ Geogrid-2
( SG-2) Cs1** Css1** Cf1** Cs2** Css2** Cf2**

2.2 Procedure for lab (CBR) test

CBR tests are conducted on soil sample in lab with and without geo-grid. Single layer of geogrid is placed at mid
height of soil in mould for all the tests on geo-grid reinforced specimens. Samples are compacted in CBR mould
maintaining moisture and density at optimum conditions determined in compaction test. To increase the interaction
between soil and geogrid the reinforcement material was embedded in thin layer of sand.
 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173 167

CBR tests are carried out on all the unreinforced soil and reinforced soil in both unsoaked and soaked
conditions. CBR test (soaked) is conducted on the samples after soaking for 96 hours (4 days). Prior to conduct of
test the bulk density, γ and moisture content, ω are determined. The test is repeated with varying geo-grids and
soil type. Typical specimen with geogrid reinforcement and test setup for CBR in lab is shown in fig. 1 and fig. 2
respectively.

Fig. 1. Position of the geogrid in CBR mould Fig. 2. Preparation of the reinforced soil sample for CBR test

2.3 Procedure for conduct of field CBR

Field CBR tests were conducted on soil fill reinforced with geogrid in test pits. Test pits of size
0.5m×0.5m×0.5m are excavated and filled with the soil maintaining moisture ω and density γ. In order to ensure
density and moisture after filling, core cutter tests are carried out on filled soil. The density and moisture content in
field γ0 and ω0 are recorded. CBR tests were conducted on soil fill with and without geogrid. A single layer of
geogrid is placed at mid height of soil in pit for all the tests on geo-grid reinforced soil beds. The test is repeated
with varying geo-grid and soil fill. The load is applied using reaction loading technique supported by truck is taken.
Typical test pit with geogrid reinforcement, test setup for CBR in Field is shown in below fig.3, 4 and fig.5.

Schematic diagram for field test

Fig. 3: Schematic diagram for field test

168 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173

Fig.4: Field CBR setup Fig. 5: Field CBR test

2.4 Determination of performance improvement

The improvement in CBR with reinforcement is measured in terms of performance ratios. The performance ratio
is a ratio of CBR value with reinforcement to that of original soil. These ratios are indicative of geogrid contribution
towards increasing CBR for a given unsoaked (& soaked) condition, soil type and type of grid. To quantify the
improvement different ratio’s of CBR values as detailed below are computed and compared to distinguish geogrid
role in improvement both in lab and field. These ratio’s will provide an indication for choosing a type of grid in
obtaining the desired improvement in CBR for a given soil.

Following ratio’s are computed for both types of soils with geogrid as detailed below;

C s1 (or)C s 2
Performance ratio1 (PRs1 or PRs2) =
C ss 1 ( or ) C ss 2 (1)
* *
C s1 (or)C s 2
Performance ratio2 (PRs1* or PRs2*) =
C ss 1 ( or ) C ss 2 (2)
** **
C s1 (or)C s2
Performance ratio3 (PRs1** or PRs2**) =
C ss 1 ( or ) C ss 2 (3)

C ss1 (or)C ss 2
Performance ratio4 (PRss1 or PRss2) =
C ss 1 ( or ) C ss 2 (4)
* *
C ss1 (or)C ss2
Performance ratio5 (PRss1* or PRss2*) =
C ss 1 ( or ) C ss 2 (5)
 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173 169

** **
C ss1 (or)C ss2
Performance ratio6 (PRss1** or PRss2**) =
C ss 1 ( or ) C ss 2 (6)

* *
C f 1 (or)C f 2
Performance ratio in field7 (PRF1* or PRF2*) =
C f 1 ( or ) C f 2 (7)

** **
C f 1 (or)C f 2
Performance ratio in field8 (PRF1** or PRF2**) =
C f 1 ( or ) C f 2 (8)

3. Presentation of Results on test performed

In the present study, two types of soils and two types of geogrids are used for study. CBR Tests are carried out
on soil specimens with and without geogrid reinforcement. The results of tests are presented in section 3.1 to 3.4.

3.1 Presentation of Index and moisture absorption results

The results of index Properties of soil are presented in fig. 6 and moisture contents after soaking for both
unreinforced and reinforced specimens are presented in fig.7. From the fig.7. it is observed that the variation in
moisture content after soaking is same for both unreinforced and reinforced specimens. The variation of moisture
after soaking is same for all the specimens irrespective of presence of reinforcement

Fig. 6. Properties of soils with varying fines of soils Fig.7. Moisture after soaking (%) of soils
170 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173

3.2 Presentation of compaction curve and lab CBR results

The compaction curve is presented in fig. 8 and CBR values are given in fig. 9 for both the samples tested in lab.
The CBR is low for unreinforced specimen and the same is increased with reinforcement. The improvement is quite
good for soil-1 than soil-2.

Fig.8. OMC & MDD graph for soils Fig.9. Soaked CBR (%) of soils with varying fines of soils

Fig. 10. CBR Graph for Cs1, Cs1 * and Cs1 ** Fig.11.CBR Graph for Css1, C ss1 * and C ss1 **
 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173 171

Fig. 12. CBR Graph for Cs2, Cs2 * and Cs2 ** Fig. 13. CBR Graph for Css2, C ss2 * and C ss2 **

3.3 Presentation of Field CBR results and Discussion

Moisture content and density results of soaked sample in the Laboratory and that of field samples are presented
in Table.4. Results of Field CBR tests are presented in table-4 and in graphs fig 14 & 15. From the test results, the
lab CBR is less than field CBR.

Fig. 14. CBR Graph for Cf1, Cf1 * and Cf1 ** Fig. 15. CBR Graph for Cf2, Cf2 * and Cf2 **

The Field CBR value is found to increase from 1.82 to 2.06 for soil-1. The response of soil-2 is similar. For
soil-2 CBR value increased from 1.91 to 2.88 after soaking. From the table-4 it is also observed that the trend is
same using reinforcement. The Field CBR is found to increase from 3.92 to4.53 and 3.46 to 4.12 for soil-1 and
5.01 to 5.36 and 4.28 to 4.94 for soil-2 respectively when compared with laboratory conditions
172 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173

Table 4: Presentation of CBR results

Parameter Soil1 Soil2

γ0 (γ), kN/ cu.m 20.1(20) 21.1 (20.9)

ω0 (ω) (%) 20.48 (21.12) 17.82 (18.86)

γd0 (γd) kN/ cu.m 16.68(17.9) 17.9(17.36)
Cs 3.37 4.83
Cs* 6.11 8.76
Cs** 5.38 8.57
Css 1.82 1.91
Css* 3.92 5.01
Css** 3.46 4.28
Cf 2.06 2.88
Cf * 4.53 5.36
Cf ** 4.12 4.94

3.4 Presentation of improvement with Geo-grid performance on soaked CBR

CBR results for soils reinforced with two types of geogrids in both lab and field as shown in the below Table 5.
To present the degree of improvement with reinforcement performance ratios as detailed in section 2.4 are computed
and presented in table-5. The performance is a measure of improvement when compared with normal values without
reinforcement in ideal test conditions (soaked).. As expected CBR of soil samples are affected due to soaking and
improved with reinforcement. It is observed that the performance ratio with reinforcement is more effective in soil-2
comparatively with soil-1. In over all soil-2 is exhibiting higher results when compared with soil-1due to higher
density.
As expected the CBR of soil samples is greatly affected due to soaking, however a notable improvement is
noticed due to reinforcement. As explained previously the improvement is indicated in terms of Performance ratio.
The presence of reinforcement is found to be advantageoue for CBR results. It is observed that the performance ratio
is increased from 1.85 to 3.35 and 2.95 for soil-1 and 2.5 to 4.56 and 4.46 for soil-2 respectively with geogrid-1 and
geogrid-2 for all the unsoaked specimens. Similar trend is similar for soaked specimens also. It is observed that
performance ratio is increased from 1 to 2.15 and 1.9 for soil-1 and 1 to 2.62 and 2.24 respectively for soil-2 with
geogrid-1 and geog grid-2 respectively.

Table 5: Presentation of performance ratio

Parameter Soil1 Soil2

PRs 1.85 2.52

PRs * 3.35 4.56

PRs ** 2.95 4.46

PRss 1 1

PRss * 2.15 2.62

PRss ** 1.90 2.24

PRF * 2.19 1.86

PRF ** 2 1.71
 Unnam Rajesh et al. / Transportation Research Procedia 17 (2016) 164 – 173 173

4. Conclusions

a) The soil plasticity and percent fines influences index properties and compaction characteristics. It is concluded
that the moisture absorbing by soil depends on the amount of fines.
b) The tensile capacity and interaction of reinforcement is responsible for soil’s resistance to penetration. Higher
CBR values are observed for higher grid capacities and lower fines content.
c) The performance of soils in soaking condition can be improved using geo-grid. The CBR (soaked) of S1
increased by 2.15, 1.90 times and S2 increased by 2.62, 2.24 times respectively using geo-grids SG-1 and SG-2.
d) It is concluded that, in-situ conditions have influence when compared with intact specimens. The field results
obtained is higher than that of lab. However the stress-strain response is similar in both the type of tests.

5. Acknowledgement

The suggestions and timely help provided by faculty and staff of Department of Civil Engineering, GMR
Institute of Technology, A.P. and to STRATA GEO SYSTEMS (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd, MUMBAI for providing
Geosynthetics material for my project work are greatly Acknowledged.

References

1. Abdi M.R., Arjomand M.A. “Pullout tests conducted on clay reinforced with geogrid encapsulated in thin layers
of sand” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 588-595.
2. A.K. Choudhary, K.S. Gill,” Improvement in CBR values of expansive soil subgrades using geosynthetics”
Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference. December 15-17, 2011, Kochi (Paper No. J-233).
3. Amin Chegenizadeh, Prof. Hamid Nikraz “CBR test on Reinforced clay” Curtin University of Technology, Perth,
Australia Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference (2011).
4. Georg Heerten et al.” Improving the Bearing Capacity of Soils with Geosynthetics” Improvement of Soil
Properties, Bratislava on June 4 – 5, 2007.
5. Nejad, F. M. and small, J.C. (1996), effect of geo-grid reinforcement in model track tests on pavements. Journal of
transportation engineering, ASCE, volume 122(6), pp 468-474.
6. Pardeep Singh, K.S.Gill “CBR Improvement of Clayey Soil with Geo-grid Reinforcement”, International Journal
of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering.(ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 6, June 2012).
7. Rudolf Hufenusa, Rudolf Rueeggerb, Robert Banjacc, Pierre Mayorc, Sarah M. Springmanc, “Full-scale field
tests on geo synthetic reinforced unpaved roads on soft sub grade” Geo textiles and Geo membranes 24 (2006)
21–37.
8. Senthil Kumar.P & Rajkumar.R, “Effect of Geotextile on CBR Strength of Unpaved Road with Soft Sub grade”,
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund EDJE.
9. Sujatha & Vignesh Balaji “Improving the Strength of Sub-grade using Geo-grids” International Journal of
Emerging trends in Engineering and Development, ISSN 2249-6149 Issue 2, Vol.2 (March-2012).