58
Numerical Simulation of Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Flexible Pavements
G. WIJE WATHUGALA, BAOSHAN HUANG, AND SURAJIT PAL
In traditional analyses of flexible pavements the linear elastic material
behavior is assumed for pavement materials. However, pavement mate-
rials do not behave as linear elastic materials. They can be better mod-
eled by using elasto-plastic constitutive relationships. The consequences
of the assumption of linear elasticity in the prediction of the behavior of
geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements are presented. The effect of
the stiffness of geosynthetic reinforcements on pavement behavior is
also studied. The behavior of a geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pave-
ment is analyzed by the finite-element method with different constitu-
tive models. The results of six analyses where E is Young’s modulus
[Case 1, linear elastic models with geosynthetics (Case 1a, E 5 1 GPa;
Case 1b, E 5 100 GPa); Case 2, linear elastic models without geosyn-
thetics; Case 3, elasto-plastic models with geosynthetics (Case 3a, E 5
1 GPa; Case 3b, E 5 100 GPa); and Case 4, elasto-plastic models with-
out geosynthetics on the same pavement under the same load cycle] are
presented and compared. Key observations and conclusions are as fol-
lows. The linear elastic analyses predicted tensile stresses in the crushed
limestone layer although in reality this material cannot withstand tensile
stresses. The vertical stresses directly under the load for all of the analy-
ses were very close and were little smaller than those predicted by
Boussinesq’s equations. The linear elastic analyses showed only a small
reduction in settlements when geosynthetics were added. In contrast,
elasto-plastic analyses showed a large reduction in settlements, espe-
cially with stiffer geosynthetics. Previously published field data indicate
an improvement in the pavement performance when geosynthetic rein-
forcements are introduced.
In traditional analyses of flexible pavements linear elastic material
properties are assumed for pavement materials. Plastic strains are
computed by using empirical relationships relating computed elas-
tic strains to plastic strains. Such empirical relationships are valid
only for the types of pavements from which data were used in devel-
oping these empirical relationships. These empirical relationships
that are developed for traditional pavements may not be valid
for pavements that use new technologies, such as geosynthetic-
reinforced flexible pavements. Therefore, it is necessary to develop
new methods to analyze these new types of pavements.
Most pavement materials do not behave as linear elastic materi-
als. They can be better modeled by using elasto-plastic constitutive
relationships. In the study described in this paper the importance of
using elasto-plastic constitutive models for pavement materials in
analyzing geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements was studied.
The effect of stiffness of the geosynthetic reinforcements on pave-
ment behavior was also studied. A single-wheel-load cycle on the
same flexible pavement is analyzed by Cases 1 to 4 [Case 1, linear
elastic models with geosynthetics (Case 1a, E 5 1 GPa; Case 1b,
E 5 100 GPa); Case 2, linear elastic models without geosynthetics;
Case 3, elasto-plastic models with geosynthetics (Case 3a: E 5 1
Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Department of Civil and Environ-
mental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 70803.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1534
GPa; Case 3b, E 5 100 GPa); and Case 4, elasto-plastic models
without geosynthetics]. Here, E denotes Young’s modulus.
Elastic analyses predicted tensile stresses in the crushed lime-
stone layer, even though this material cannot withstand tensile
stresses. Therefore, the stress distribution obtained from the elastic
analyses are not valid for this problem. In contrast, finite-element
analyses with realistic elasto-plastic constitutive models predicted
only compressive stresses in these layers.
GEOSYNTHETIC-REINFORCED
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Geosynthetics are being used in flexible pavements to improve the
performance of pavements. Different types of geosynthetics are
used in the construction of flexible pavements for different pur-
poses, such as improved drainage, separation of soil layers, rein-
forcement, and so forth. In the present study only the reinforcement
aspect of using geosynthetics in flexible pavements is studied.
Smith et al. (1) performed both a detailed literature review of sev-
eral laboratory and field studies (2–7 ) of geosynthetic-reinforced
flexible pavements and a laboratory study to evaluate the effective-
ness of using geotextiles and geogrids in flexible pavements. Most
of the researchers agree that geosynthetics improve the performance
of flexible pavements. The abilities of geosynthetics to separate
coarse layers from fine layers and to provide reinforcement are two
possible reasons for this improved performance. In the present study
both a geotextile and a geogrid were installed at the bottom of the
crushed limestone base course of the test pavement. The geotextile
layer acted as a filter and a separator, whereas the geogrid layer pro-
vided reinforcement.
A pavement research facility with a device for accelerated load-
ing of pavements called ALF has been developed by the Louisiana
Transportation Research Center (LTRC). LTRC-ALF is similar to
the ALF at FHWA facilities in Virginia. Nine instrumented test
lanes are being constructed at the site to be loaded by ALF (8).
These pavements are built with full-scale construction equipment,
and the construction process closely simulates normal highway con-
struction. These pavements will be studied in three phases with three
different goals, and in each phase three lanes will be used and loaded
accordingly for the study (8). In the first phase Lanes 1 to 3 will be
loaded to study the effects of geosynthetic reinforcements on flexi-
ble pavements. In this paper numerical simulations of the loading of
Lane 2 of Phase I are presented.
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS OF
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Numerical simulations of flexible pavements are important for
understanding and extending laboratory and field studies. After ver-
Wathugala et al.
ifying the accuracy of the results with the experimental data, numer-
ical simulations can be used to perform parametric studies. These
studies help in formulating a reliable and economical design method
and in understanding the stress–deformation behavior of the pave-
ment system.
The development of a numerical procedure involves many ideal-
izations of the problem, including (a) geometry, (b) loads, (c) mate-
rial behavior or constitutive models of pavement materials, and (d)
selection of the numerical technique. In a numerical simulation the
constitutive model of the material plays an important role, and the
reliability of the numerical simulation largely depends on how
closely the constitutive model represents the real material behavior.
The main objective of the present research is to identify the effect of
the constitutive models for pavement materials on the prediction of
the performance of geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements.
Therefore, in the present study the other aspects of the numerical
procedure were kept constant, whereas the constitutive model was
changed.
Numerical simulations of flexible pavements are often performed
by assuming linear elastic material properties. Some researchers
have used nonlinear elastic material properties in the finite-element
analysis of the flexible pavement (9). Zaghloul and White (10) have
successfully used the general-purpose finite-element program
ABAQUS (11) to simulate traditional flexible pavements. In their
simulation the material models available in ABAQUS are used to
model the pavement base materials. In the present study the Hierar-
chical Single Surface (HiSS) models (12,13) were used for soils.
These models offer better capabilities in capturing the behavior of
granular soil layers than the models available in ABAQUS. HiSS
models have been implemented in ABAQUS, which was used for
all of the finite-element analyses presented here.
Test Lane 2 of Phase I of the ALF project (8) was selected for the
numerical simulation presented here. Figure 1 provides the type of
material being used for each layer and its thickness. In the present
study the wheel load was represented by a circular distributed load
of 725 kPa (105 lb/in.2), which is the tire pressure used in the ALF
test. The diameter of the circular load was assumed to be 0.133 m
(5.2 in.) to obtain a single wheel load of 40 kN (9 kips). The prob-
lem was idealized as an axisymmetric problem. Six finite-element
analyses were performed on this test pavement, as follows:
• Case 1a: Linear elastic material properties with geosynthetic
reinforcements; E for geosynthetics 5 1.0 GPa;
FIGURE 1 Pavement profile for Test Lane 2 of ALF project.
59
• Case 1b: Linear elastic material properties with geosynthetic
reinforcements; E for geosynthetics 5 1.000 GPa;
• Case 2: Linear elastic material properties without geosynthetic
reinforcements;
• Case 3a: Realistic elasto-plastic material models with geosyn-
thetic reinforcements; E for geosynthetics 5 1.0 GPa;
• Case 3b: Realistic elasto-plastic material models with geosyn-
thetic reinforcements; E for geosynthetics 5 1.000 GPa;
• Case 4: Realistic elasto-plastic material models without
geosynthetic reinforcements.
The finite-element mesh used in the present analyses is provided in
Figure 2. Eight-node isoparametric elements have been used
throughout the mesh. The number of elements used for each mater-
ial is as follows: hot-mix asphalt concrete, (HMAC), 168; crushed
limestone, 264; geosynthetics, 24; select soil, 144; embankment
soil, 240; and natural soil, 72. No special interface elements were
used.
ANALYSES WITH LINEAR ELASTIC
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
In the present study all of the pavement materials were assumed to
be linear elastic. The value of E for each layer is assumed to be equal
to the resilience modulus of the material as proposed by LTRC (8).
The material parameters used for each layer are given in Table 1.
The finite-element analyses were performed for one load cycle with
and without geosynthetic reinforcements. The same problem was
also analyzed by using Elastic System 5. The results obtained from
Elastic System 5 analyses are very similar to the results obtained
from the finite-element analyses by using linear elastic material
properties. The results from Elastic System 5 are not presented in
this paper for the sake of brevity.
ANALYSES WITH ELASTO-PLASTIC
MATERIAL MODELS
In the present study the HiSS constitutive models developed by
Desai and coworkers (12,13) were used to represent soil behavior.
This modeling approach allows for the progressive development of
models of higher grades corresponding to different levels of com-
plexities. The simplest model in this series is the isotropic harden-
ing, associative d0 model. This model is used for the select soil and
the embankment soil. The HiSS d0 model captures the behavior of
granular soils better than the linear elastic model. It allows for most
of the basic properties of granular soils that are not captured by the
linear elastic material model such as (a) nonlinear stress–strain
behavior, (b) no tensile strength, (c) compressive strength variation
with confining pressure, (d) shear dilation that depends on the
confining pressure, and (e) plastic strains when unloaded. Triaxial
tests with volume change measurements are necessary to determine
the material parameters for HiSS models. However, these tests are
rarely performed in pavement projects. Typical material parame-
ters have been assumed for these models, and they are given in
Table 2. Because the purpose of the present work was to study the
performance of different constitutive models qualitatively, the
exact material parameters are not absolutely necessary. The HiSS
d0* model (13), which was developed for cohesive soils, was used
60 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1534

FIGURE 2 Finite-element mesh used in analyses.

for the natural soil layer beneath the embankment. This is a volu- from the compressive strength (for the case of crushed limestone,
metric hardening model and captures the basic properties of the the tensile strength was set to a very small value), (b) the compres-
normally consolidated and overconsolidated soils. This model can sive strength increases with the confining pressure, and (c) shear
simulate nonlinear behavior during nonvirgin loadings. However, dilation. The material parameters assumed for this model are given
it was decided to assume linear elasticity during nonvirgin loadings in Table 2. The predicted responses of HMAC and crushed lime-
because test data to calibrate the model were not available. The stone under a triaxial test with a confining pressure equal to the in
assumed material parameters are given in Table 2. The predicted situ stress of the corresponding layer by using the Drucker-Prager
behavior of triaxial compression tests under three confining pres-
sures for the HiSS d0 and d0* with the selected material parameters TABLE 2 Material Parameters Used for Elasto-Plastic Analyses
are provided in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. The confining pres- (Cases 3a, 3b, and 4)
sures used in these plots cover the range of in situ stresses of the
soil layers in the pavement. The prediction from the linear elastic
model is also plotted in Figures 3 and 4 for comparison. The
Drucker-Prager Model (14) was used for the HMAC and crushed
limestone base. This model has the following advantages over the
linear elastic model: (a) the ability to set a tensile strength different

TABLE 1 Material Parameters Used for Elastic Analyses (Cases 1a,

1b, and 2)
Wathugala et al.
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 3 Predicted stress-strain behavior of soil used for
select soil layer and embankment under drained triaxial
compression test (compression positive): (a) deviatoric stress
versus axial strain; (b) volumetric behavior.
Model are provided in Figures 5 and 6, respectively. The linear
elastic behavior is also plotted in Figures 5 and 6 for comparison.
The Von Mises model (14) was used for the geosynthetic rein-
forcements. This model allows for the yielding of the geosynthet-
ics, behavior that is not captured by the linear elastic model. The
responses of geosynthetics under a tensile test as predicted by the
von Mises model are provided in Figure 7.
The same loading cycle used for the linear elastic analysis was
used here. The E values of all of the nonlinear material models were
assumed to be equal to those used in the linear elastic analyses.
RESULTS
In this section the numerical results obtained from all six analyses
are compared. The capabilities and the shortcomings of the consti-
tutive models used in these analyses are identified.
Load Settlement Curves
The vertical displacements (settlement) of the surface at the middle
of the load during the load cycle for the six analyses are compared
in Figure 8. The highest peak and residual (plastic) settlements were
61
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 4 Predicted stress-strain behavior of natural clay
under drained triaxial compression test (compression positive):
(a) deviatoric stress versus axial strain; (b) volumetric behavior.
observed for Case 4 (elasto-plastic analysis without geosynthetics).
In the elasto-plastic analyses only a little improvement in the load
settlement curve was observed when the geosynthetics with an E of
1 GPa (Case 3a) were added. However, the addition of geosynthet-
ics with an E of 100 GPa (Case 3b) showed a marked improvement
in the load settlement curve.
For the linear elastic case, the load settlement curves were virtu-
ally the same for Cases 1a and 2. There was a little reduction in the
settlement when geosynthetics with an E of 100 GPa were added.
As expected, the linear elastic analyses did not predict any plas-
tic settlements (rutting). However, by using the elasto-plastic mate-
rial models, it was possible to predict plastic settlements (rutting).
Reductions of plastic settlements when geosynthetic reinforcements
are added have been observed by other researchers in the laboratory
and field tests (1,6).
Settlement Profiles
The settlement profiles at the peak load and residual state (at the end
of the loading cycle) are provided in Figure 9. The residual settle-
ment profiles for the elastic cases were horizontal, as expected from
the elasticity theory, and therefore are not plotted here. Both the
highest peak and highest residual settlement profiles were observed
62
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 5 Predicted stress-strain behavior of HMAC under
triaxial compression test with confining pressure of 0.84 kPa
(compression positive): (a) deviatoric stress versus axial strain;
(b) volumetric behavior.
for Case 4 (elasto-plastic without geosynthetics). As expected, the
lowest peak settlement profile was for linear elastic cases. For the
elasto-plastic analyses the addition of the geosynthetics with an E of
100 GPa reduced both peak and residual settlement profiles
markedly. The reduction in the settlements for the case with low-
stiffness geosynthetics (E 5 1 GPa) was very small.
From these observations it can be concluded that the linear
elastic analyses show only a small reduction in settlements
when geosynthetics are added. In contrast, elasto-plastic analyses
show a large reduction in settlements, especially with stiffer
geosynthetics.
Vertical Stress Distribution
The vertical stresses directly under the load are plotted in Figure 10,
which shows that all the six cases resulted in very similar stress dis-
tributions. The vertical stress distribution calculated on the basis of
Boussinesq’s solution is also plotted in Figure 10, which shows that
Boussinesq’s solution for the elastic half-space overestimates the
vertical stress distribution computed by assuming different material
models. However, the difference is small, and therefore, it can be
concluded that Boussinesq’s solution can be used to approximate the
vertical stress distribution under a circular load for many materials.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1534
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 6 Predicted stress-strain behavior of crushed
limestone under triaxial compression test with confining pressure
of 3 kPa (compression positive): (a) deviatoric stress versus axial
strain; (b) volumetric behavior.
Horizontal Stress Distribution
Figures 11(a) to 11(f) show the contours of the horizontal stress for
the six cases, respectively. The horizontal stresses directly under the
load for all the six cases are compared in Figure 12. From these fig-
ures the following observations and conclusions can be made. The
elastic analyses (Cases 1a, 1b, and 2) predicted tensile stresses in the
crushed limestone layer although this layer cannot withstand tensile
stresses in reality. Therefore, the stress distributions obtained from
the elastic analyses are not valid for this problem. This is one of the
main drawbacks of assuming the linear elastic model for soils and
crushed limestone. On the other hand the elasto-plastic analyses
(Cases 3a, 3b, and 4) resulted in compressive stresses for the crushed
limestone and the soil layers.
In all of the analyses compressive stresses develop in the top of
the HMAC layer and tensile stresses develop at the bottom of the
HMAC layer. This indicates that HMAC carried some of the load in
bending, similar to a plate.
Vertical Strains
The vertical strains directly under the load are plotted in Figure 13.
All of the cases showed somewhat similar trends. The difference
Wathugala et al.
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 7 Predicted stress-strain behavior of geosynthetic
reinforcements under tensile test (tensile stresses positive): (a)
deviatoric stress versus axial strain; (b) volumetric behavior.
between the predicted vertical strain distributions from the linear
elastic analyses with and without geosynthetics was negligible.
However, the elasto-plastic analyses showed a reduction in the ver-
tical strains in the soil layers due to geosynthetics. More reduction
was observed for the case with stiffer (E 5 100 GPa) geosynthetics.
This is the reason for the lower vertical displacements observed for
Case 3b in Figures 8 and 9.
Horizontal Strains
Figure 14 provides a plot of the horizontal strain distribution directly
under the load. Similar trends were observed for all six cases ana-
lyzed. The strains are continuous between adjacent layers because
perfect bonding between them was assumed. Figure 14 shows
higher tensile strains near the bottom of the strong layers and the top
of the adjoining layers.
CONCLUSIONS
A geosynthetic-reinforced pavement to be tested at LTRC-ALF was
numerically simulated with different material models. Six analyses
were performed. The main purpose of the research was to study the
63
FIGURE 8 Load settlement curves.
consequences of the assumption of linear elasticity in the prediction
of the behaviors of geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements. The
secondary objective was to study the effect of the stiffness of the
geosynthetic reinforcement on pavement performance. The follow-
ing conclusions were made after comparing the results for the six
finite-element analyses.
1. The material model has a negligible effect on the vertical stress
distribution due to a circular load in this problem.
2. Boussinesq’s solution for the elastic half-space approximates
(conservatively) the vertical stress distribution under a circular load
for many materials.
3. Elastic solutions predict tensile stresses on the crushed lime-
stone base although, in reality, it cannot withstand tensile stresses.
Therefore, the stress distributions obtained by the elastic analyses
are not valid for this problem. In contrast, elasto-plastic analyses
predict only compressive stresses in the crushed limestone and other
soil layers, which is realistic.
4. Elastic analyses predict only little improvement in pavement
performance when geosynthetics are added. In contrast, the elasto-
plastic analyses predict large improvements in pavement behavior
(lower peak and residual settlements) under the load cycle when
geosynthetic reinforcements are introduced into the flexible pave-
ment. This improved performance is expected when geosynthetics
are introduced into flexible pavements (1).
FIGURE 9 Settlement profiles.
64 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD 1534

5. Stiffer geosynthetics provide less peak and residual settle-

ments.
6. As expected from the theory of elasticity, the linear elastic
analyses are not capable of predicting permanent settlements under
the load cycle. Empirical relationships relating elastic strains to
plastic strains are available for traditional pavements but not for
geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements. Elasto-plastic analyses
can predict permanent settlements and therefore rutting of
pavements, and they do not require one to resort to any empirical
relationships, which is required for the elastic case.

FIGURE 10 Vertical stress distribution directly
under load (tensile stresses positive).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH
The authors have found it very difficult to locate three-dimensional
(or triaxial) stress–strain data for pavement materials. The few avail-

FIGURE 11 Horizontal stress distribution at peak load.

Wathugala et al.
FIGURE 12 Horizontal stress distribution directly under
load (tensile stresses positive).
FIGURE 13 Vertical strain distribution directly under load
(tensile strains positive).
FIGURE 14 Horizontal strain distribution directly under
load (tensile strains positive).
able data sets were valid only for the one-dimensional stress–strain
behavior. It is necessary to test these materials in triaxial tests with
volume change measurements or in true triaxial equipment so that
they can be used to calibrate advanced constitutive models or to
develop suitable ones. Then the proposed numerical procedure can
65
be used to simulate the complete behavior of geosynthetic-
reinforced flexible pavements. The quantitative as well as qualita-
tive results obtained from these numerical simulations can be vali-
dated against field or laboratory observations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support from LTRC for the study is gratefully
acknowledged. Special thanks are due to W. T. Temple, LTRC, for
encouraging the first author to undertake this study.
REFERENCES
1. Smith, T. E., T. L. Brandon, I. L. Al-Qadi, B. A. Lacina, S. A. Bhutta,
and S. E. Hoffman Laboratory Behavior of Geogrid and Geotextile
Reinforced Flexible Pavements. Final Report. Atlantic Construction
Fabrics, Inc., Amoco Fibers and Fabrics Company, and Virginia Center
for Innovative Technology, The Charles E. Via, Jr. Department of Civil
Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Feb. 1995.
2. Yang, C., and X. Yu. Mud-Pumping Prevention of Railway Subgrade
by Using Geotextiles. Proc., 12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Vol. 3,
1989, pp. 1693–1696.
3. Geotextiles and Geomembranes in Civil Engineering (R. V. van Zanten,
ed.), A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1986.
4. Barksdale, R. D., S. F. Brown, and F. Chan. NCHRP Report 315: Poten-
tial Benefits of Geosynthetics in Flexible Pavement Systems. TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989, 56 pp.
5. Carroll, R. G., Jr., J. C. Walls, and R. Haas. Granular Base Reinforce-
ment of Flexible Pavements Using Geogrids. Proc., Geosynthetics
Conference, New Orleans, La., 1987, pp. 46–57.
6. Webster, S. L. Geogrid Reinforced Base Courses for Flexible Pave-
ments for Light Aircraft: Test Section Construction, Behavior Under
Traffic, Laboratory Tests and Design Criteria. Report DOT/FAA/
RD-92/25 (WES Report GL-93-6). FAA, U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, 1994.
7. Austin, D. N., and D. M. Coleman. A Field Evaluation of Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Haul Roads over Soft Foundation Soils. Proc., Geosynthetic
Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Vol. 1, March
30–April 1, 1993, pp. 65–80.
8. Cumbaa, S. L., W. H. Temple, H. R. Paul, and P. M. Griffin. Construc-
tion and Comparison of Louisiana’s Conventional and Alternative Base
Courses Under Accelerated Loading. Research Proposal for LTRC
Project 93-1ALF, Louisiana HPR-0010(17). Louisiana Transportation
Research Center, Baton Rouge, 1993.
9. Harichandran, R. S., G. Y. Baladi, and M. S. Yeh. Development of a
Computer Program for Design of Pavement Systems Consisting of
Layers of Bound and Unbound Materials. Final Report. Report
No. FHWA-MI-RD-89-02. Michigan Department of Transportation,
Lansing, 1989.
10. Zaghloul, S., and T. White. Use of a Three-Dimensional, Dynamic
Finite Element Program for Analysis of Flexible Pavement. In Trans-
portation Research Record 1388, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 60–69.
11. Hibbit, Karlsson and Sorensen, Inc. ABAQUS/Standard Users Manual,
Version 5.4. 1994.
12. Desai, C. S., S. Somasundaram, and G. N. Frantziskonis. A Hierarchi-
cal Approach for Constitutive Modeling of Geologic Materials. Inter-
national Journal of Numerical and Analytical Methods and Geome-
chanics, Vol. 10, 1986, pp. 225–257.
13. Wathugala, G. W., and C. S. Desai. Constitutive Model for Cyclic
Behavior of Clay I: Theory. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 4, April 1993, pp. 714–729.
14. Desai, C. S., and H. J. Siriwardena. Constitutive Laws for Engineering
Materials. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1984.