Improving Flexible Pavement Performance by Geosynthetics: Experimental

Investigations by the Means of Full Scale Trials

Nicola Moraci
Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria – Italy
moraci@ing.unirc.it
Filippo Giammaria Praticò
Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria – Italy
fpratico@ing.unirc.it
Filippo Montanelli
Tenax S.p.A., Lecco – Italy
filippo.montanelli@tenax.net

ABSTRACT: Geosynthetics are often used in road and airport constructions, both for unpaved and paved
solutions; despite this, it doesn’t exist (probably due to the complexity of layered pavement systems and
loading conditions) a generally accepted theoretical design method incorporating geosynthetics mechanical
and hydraulic properties as design parameters. So, this paper deals with an experimental in-ground
investigation, carried out in order to contribute to clarify some of these problems. The main target of the first-
phase-designed experiments was to establish the influence, for a given two-layered structure (base and
subgrade), of both geogrids reinforcement (number of layers and type) and geotextile functions. Obtained
results showed the importance of the considered test parameters; in particular, the analysis emphasized base or
sub-base compaction significance in optimizing reinforcement functions.

1 BACKGROUND

Several studies and researches have shown that stiff geogrids can provide load carrying improvement to
flexible paved and unpaved roads by reinforcement of the aggregate layer through the following main
mechanisms (Anderson et al., 1989; Barksdale et al., 1989; Miura et al., 1990; Al-Qadi et al., 1994; Al-Qadi et
al., 1997; Haas et al., 1988):

• Interlock of the aggregate particles of the base layer (under specific conditions, if based on a suitable
relation between aggregate grain size distribution and geogrid openings);
• Confinement of the aggregate base layers (lateral base course restraint);
• Tensioned membrane effect in terms of subgrade or/and sub-base confinement, especially for
significant deformations of the roadway surface under heavy traffic loads on weak soils;
• Separation of the aggregate base from the adjacent subgrade, preventing localized failures and
punching within the soft soil.

In addition, geogrid-geotextile composites may be capable of filtering the subgrade fines and thus preventing
mud pumping and clogging within the base layer. The use of a geotextile filter layer is recommended when the
base course aggregate is not a protective filter to prevent migration of subgrade fines or when subgrade soil is
very loose and saturated.
The approach used to quantify the improvement in pavement performance is typically based on empirical
results obtained in full-scale road section tests constructed using laboratory procedures (Perkins et al., 1997;
Montanelli et al., 1997). The resulting relationships are typically expressed in terms of Traffic Benefit Ratio
(TBR, which represents the increase in service life of the pavement due to geosynthetics effects) and Base
Course reduction Ratio (BCR, which represents the reduction in base aggregate thickness owing to the use of
geosynthetics), or in terms of increased subgrade and/or subbase moduli, of increased number of Equivalent

825
Standard Axle Loads, of performance equivalency between reinforced and un-reinforced sections having
different thickness or combinations of the above mentioned parameters.
As is well known, some European Agencies allow to employ geosynthetics, both in subgrades and in
pavement layers to increase the performances of road embankments and flexible pavements thus considering
the mechanical and functional properties of the geosynthetic used.
Actually, a lot of performance based tests (better if fully instrumented) should be carefully carried out to
evaluate the structural contribution of geogrid reinforcement, and the main parameters that design engineers
and researchers should consider concerning the following required functions (separation, filtration and
reinforcement):

• The number of geosynthetics layers and selected location (on the top of subgrade, on the top of
subbase, at the Hot-Mix Asphalt base course interface, in HMA overlays, etc.);
• the geosynthetics mechanical properties (tensile strength and stiffness, junction strength, etc.);
• the geosynthetics hydraulic properties (permeability, pore size characteristics, etc.);
• the durability (survivability, polymer type, chemical, physical and biological environment).

According to the above problems, some experimental pavement sections were constructed in Calabria
(Italy), in a specifically designed trial section, by installing both geotextiles and geogrids layers with different
layout configurations.
The main target of the first-phase-designed experiments was to establish the influence, for a given two-
layered structure (base and subgrade), of both geogrids reinforcement (number of layers and type) and
geotextile functions. The effected measurements were compared and discussed in order to outline a first
approach to the principal mechanisms for elaborating and rationalizing geosynthetics use in road applications.
The obtained results showed the importance of the considered test parameters; in particular, the analysis
emphasized base or subbase compaction significance in optimizing reinforcement functions.

2 DESIGN AND REALIZATIONS OF EXPERIMENTS

When using geosynthetics, the pavement mechanical performance depends both on single layer intrinsic
geometrical-mechanical properties (Huang, 1993) and geosynthetics ones (Figure 1).

Layers
mechanical
and hydraulic
properties
Geo-
synthetics Layers
mechanical thickness
and hydraulic
properties

Functional
and
Geo- mechanical
synthetics performance
Others
Location/
number

Compaction
and moisture
Traffic loads content
(unbound
materials)

Figure 1. Main parameters affecting pavement performance

826
 In order to evaluate the effect of geotextile presence, the importance of geogrid type and the effect of
geogrid presence in unpaved road, it was decided to realize the following unpaved road sections:
Section type 1 Section type 2 Section type 3 Section type 4 Section type 5 Section type 6

Base (A1a) Base (A1a) 25 cm Base (A1a)

25 cm 25 cm Base (A1a) 25 cm Base (A1a) 25 cm 25 cm Base (A1a)

GG2 GG1

25 cm Base (A1a) 25 cm Base (A1a) 25 cm Base (A1a) 25 cm 25 cm Base (A1a) 25 cm

Base (A1a) Base (A1a)

Geotextile GG2 GG2 GG1 GG1

Subgrade
Subgrade Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile
Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade Subgrade

Figure 2. Designed and built cross sections

The main steps planned in the design of the experiments were the following ones:

• Sections typology design (figure 2) and geosynthetics selection (table 1);

• Selection of a suitable area for the construction of a in-situ trials 18m wide and 48m long;
• Detailed topographical survey of the interested area, placed near the town of Reggio Calabria (Italy);
• Scarification of the vegetal surface layer and surface leveling;
• Subgrade characterization: plate load tests, according to CNR standard n.146/92 (see Figure 3 - calculus
stress range ∆σ= 0.15-0.25 MPa; Plate diameter D= 300 mm; Md= D⋅∆σ /∆fI (first cycle), MPa; M’d= D⋅∆σ /∆fII
(second cycle)), boring, DLPT (Dynamic Lightweight Penetration Test),;
• Soil classification tests (CNR UNI 10006 - AASHTO M145/91/00, USCS – ASTM D 2487);
• Granular base selection and characterization;
• Subgrade grading and compaction;
• Geosynthetics installation;
• First base layer backfilling and compaction;
• Mechanical characterization at the level of the first base layer surface, by the means of plate load tests
(according to CNR standard n.146/92 - Stress range: 0.15-0.25 MPa; Plate diameter: 300 mm);
• Geogrids installation and second base layer backfilling and compaction;
• Mechanical characterization at the level of the second base layer surface (as is cited above);
• Data analysis and interpretation.
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0

0
σ (10-1 MPa)

∆σ
1

2
∆ fI
3
∆ fII
4
f (mm)

Figure 3. Md and M’d calculus basics

For both the 1-st and the 2-nd base layers, the moduli (D⋅∆p/∆f) were calculated for each stress range too; so
they were called (when not referred to 0.15-0.25 MPa stress range) MR (MPa).
The main geosynthetic properties are listed in table 1.

827
 TENAX MS 500 (GG1) is a multi-layered (5 layers) geogrid; the structure is composed by bioriented
geogrids manufactured by polypropylene extrusion with longitudinal and transversal drawing of polypropylene
polymer stitched together without superimposing the meshes.
TENAX LBO 330 (GG2) geogrids is an integral, rigid geogrid manufactured from polypropylene polymer.
Both geogrids have the junctions between the longitudinal and the transversal ribs as an integral part of the
geogrid structure and they are inert to all chemicals naturally found in soils and haven’t solvents at ambient
temperature, not susceptible to hydrolysis, resistant to aqueous solutions of salts, acids and alkalis, non-
biodegradable and with a suitable content of carbon black to inhibit attack by ultra violet light.

Table 1. Geosynthetics properties

Geosynthetics GG1 GG2 GTX
Properties
Unit Weight 315 g/m² 420 g/m² 140 g/m² ISO 9864
Opening Size N/A N/A 70 um EN ISO 12956
Water Permeability N/A N/A 0.122 m/s EN ISO 11958
Mechanical properties in longitudinal and transverse directions (LD – TD)
Tensile Strength 22.0 - 35.0 kN/m 30.0 - 30.0 kN/m 6.0 - 6.0 kN/m ISO 10319
Peak Strain 15.0 - 12.0% 10.0 - 11.0% 50.0 - 70.0% ISO 10319
Tensile Strength at 2% strain 6.0 - 10.0 kN/m 10.5 - 10.5 kN/m N/A ISO 10319
Tensile Strength at 5% strain 13.5 - 19.6 kN/m 21.0 - 21.0 kN/m N/A ISO 10319
Junction Strength 19.8 - 31.5 kN/m N/A N/A GRI-GG2

By analyzing previously published field tests the following forecasted scenario was predicted (figure 4):

100 100 100

% % %

0
GTX+GG2

GTX+2GG2

GTX+GG1

GTX+2GG1

0
GTX
Control

GTX+GG2

GTX+2GG2

GTX+GG1

GTX+2GG1
GTX
Control
Control

GTX+2GG2

GTX+2GG1
GTX

GTX+GG2

GTX+GG1

Figure 4. Subgrade, first base layer and second base layer expected performance

3 DATA ANALISYS

3.1 Subgrade

As is well known, both in mechanicistic/empiric pavement modeling and in construction topics, subgrade
performance generally depends on some basic characteristics (all of which are interrelated):

• Load bearing capacity (affected by degree of compaction, moisture content, soil type, etc.);
• Moisture content (affecting mechanical properties, shrinkage and swelling), influenced by drainage
facilities, groundwater table elevation, infiltration, and pavement state (for example referred to PSI value
in terms of cracks, photoles, etc);
• Shrinkage, swelling, frost heave potential (sometimes affected by moisture content, fines content, etc.),
influencing resilient modulus values in AASHTO design guide approach.
In order to collect information about subgrade state, a series of DLPT tests were performed on the
experimental roadway.
The obtained Atterberg limits indicates that the soil can be classify as inorganic silt with plasticity ranging
from low to high (ML or MH).
Soil classifications, according to AASHTO M145/91/00, gave the following result: A7-5.

828
The results of plate load tests in terms of Md modulus are shown in Figure 5. It indicates that homogeneity
condition isn’t strictly obtained and that the chosen area presents low mechanical geotechnical properties.

125
Md (MPa)
100
75
50
25
0

GTX+GGT1
Control

GTX+GG2

GTX+2GG2

GTX+2GG1
GTX
1-st load cycle

Figure 5. Subgrade Md moduli (mean results)

3.2 First base layer obtained results

The granular material used for constructing the granular base indicated that it was an A1a type (AASHTO
M145/91/00) and, a SP type soil (USCS).
The results of the plate load tests on the 1st base layer, in terms of the above defined moduli, are given in
figure 6.
The results show that:

1. geotextiles do not significantly increase the mechanical properties of the road base;
2. the multi-layered geogrid GG1 has the best behavior both at the 1st and 2nd load cycle (Md and Md’
moduli);
3. geogrids are capable to increase the soil modulus; this fact becomes clear if one analyzes the results
at high stress levels, given by the MR modulus values (2nd cycle deformation modulus, measured
between 0.2 - 0.25 MPa).

125 Md (MPa) 125 M'd (MPa) 125 MR (MPa)

100 100 100
75
75 75 50
50 50 25
25 25 0
GTX
Control

GTX+GG2

GTX+2GG2

GTX+GG1

GTX+2GG1
0 0
GTX
Control

GTX+GG2

GTX+2GG2

GTX+GG1

GTX+2GG1

GTX
Control

GTX+GG2

GTX+2GG2

GTX+GG1

GTX+2GG1

1-st load cycle 2-nd load cycle 2-nd load cycle − ∆σ : 0,2 - 0,25 MPa

Figure 6. First base layer Md,, M’d and MR moduli

3.3 Second base layer obtained results

The results of the plate load tests on the 2nd base layer for the six different sections are shown in figure 7.
The results indicate that in this case the effect of the number of geogrids was quite negligible. This can be
due to the meteorological events occurred during these last tests.
If one manages the obtained data, by calculating MR values, as above specified, it is possible to find some
confirmation to the rule played by geogrids in compelling the granular base to reduced vertical deformations
(figure 7). These results indicate that compaction action (also induced by the same test) may be probably
useful in amplifying geogrids rule.
Future evaluations will include more load cycles in order to validate this phenomenon.

829
 125 Md (MPa) 125 M'd (MPa) 1500 MR (MPa)
100 100 1000
75 75
500
50 50
25 0
25

GTX
Control

GTX+GG2

GTX+2GG2

GTX+GG1

GTX+2GG1
0
0
1 geogrid 2 geogrids
1 geogrid 2 geogrids
(average) (average)
(average) (average)
1-st load cycle 2-nd load cycle 2-nd cycle - ∆σ = 0,5 -1,0 MPa

Figure 7. Second base layer Md, M’d and MR moduli

4 CONCLUSIONS

The effected experimental investigations pointed out some difficulties in detecting geogrids improving effects
on unpaved roads by simple plate loading tests.
This fact can be due to both a few number of controlled parameters and to parasite effects concerning subgrade
heterogeneity, experimental facility construction, test execution.
In the light of the above cited circumstances, geogrid reinforcement effects, as in the hypotheses scenario, can
be detected after several load cycles, in order to produce a certain subgrade/subbase compaction and to
activate geogrids functions.
Experimental data can be seen as a first validation of this behavior; future applications will deal with cyclic
loads for both in-ground and in laboratory experiments.

REFERENCES

Al-Qadi I.L., Brandon T.L., Valentie R.J., Lacina B.A. and Smith T.E., “Laboratory Evaluation of
Geosynthetic Reinforced Pavement Sections”, Transportation Research Record 1439, pp. 25-31 (1994).
Al-Qadi I.L., Brandon T.L. and Bhutta A., “Geosynthetic Stabilized Flexible Pavements”, Proceedings of
Geosynthetics ’97, IFAI, Vol. 2, Long Beach, California, USA, March 1997, pp.647-662 (1997).
Anderson P. And Killeavy M., “Geotextiles and Geogrids: Cost Effective Alternate Materials for Pavement
Design and Construction”, Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’89, IFAI, Vol. 2, Long Beach, California, USA,
pp.353-360 (1989).
Barksdale R.D., Brown S.F. and Chan F.,“Potential Benefits of Geosynthetics in Flexible Pavement Systems”,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 315, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, DC,USA, 56 p (1989).
Haas R., Walls J. and Carrol R.G., “Geogrid Reinforcement of Granular Bases in Flexible Pavements”,
Transportation Research Record 1188, pp.19-27 (1988).
Huang, Y.H.,, “Pavement Analysis and Design”, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 805 p.
(1993).
Miura N., Sakai A., Taesiri Y., Yamanouchi T. and Yasuhara K., “Polymer Grid Reinforced Pavement on Soft
Clay Grounds”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.9, No.1, pp.99-123 (1990).
Montanelli, F., Zhao, A., and Rimoldi, P.,“Geosynthetics-reinforced pavement system: testing and design”
Proceeding of Geosynthetics ’97, pp. 619-632 (1997)
Perkins S.W. and Ismeik M., “A Synthesis and Evaluation of Geosynthetic Reinforced Base Layers in Flexible
Pavements: Part I”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, N° 6, pp. 549-604 (1997).
Perkins S.W. and Ismeik M.,“A Synthesis and Evaluation of Geosynthetic Reinforced Base Layers in Flexible
Pavements: Part II”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, N° 6, pp. 605-621 (1997).
CNR Standards, Consiglio nazionale delle Ricerche, Roma, 2003.

830