Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68

Technical Note

A laboratory study on the tensile response

of unbound granular base road pavement
model using geosynthetics
N. Gurung*
School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT),
Gardens Point, Brisbane, Queensland 4001, Australia
Received 9 March 2002; received in revised form 28 July 2002; accepted 7 September 2002

Abstract

Traditional flexible pavement design emphasizes pavement layer fatigue under repeated
traffic loading, but the majority of Australian rural roads consist of bituminous surfaced
unbound granular base. The performance of such pavements depends upon complex
environmental factors including shrinkage and swelling of the subgrade. This paper briefly
explains the structural response of a pavement base layer under applied tensile forces in a
laboratory set-up. The research involves a 100 mm thick fine crushed rock pavement layer,
which has been stretched horizontally by the opening of a crack in the underlying subgrade
and the tensile force–displacement responses were observed in the laboratory. Experimental
results show higher tensile resistance of geosynthetics (geotextile, geogrid) inclusion in the
pavement base and such high tensile responses will significantly influence the behavior of the
pavement surfaces.
r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Deformation; Force; Geogrid; Geotextile; Tensile strength; Pavement model

Statement of the objectives

With the aims and objectives to investigate, quantify and improve the tensile
response of unbound granular road base, series of laboratory experiments were

*Present address: Civil Engineering Division, Queensland Rail (QR), Floor 7, RailCentre 2, 309 Edward
St., GPO Box 1429, Brisbane, Qld 4001, Australia, Tel.: +61-7-3235-2511; fax: +61-7-3235-1935.
E-mail address: netra.gurung@qr.com.au (N. Gurung).

0266-1144/03/$ - see front matter r 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 2 6 6 - 1 1 4 4 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - X
60 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68

conducted using geotextiles and geogrids in the pavement model box. This technical
note briefly reports the research findings. Further details will be provided after the
completion of full research.

1. Introduction

A life of a pavement is an important agenda for a national economy, as a large

proportion of Australia’s pavement maintenance budget is spent each year solely on
the repairs of pavement defects associated with cracking. A good pavement must
provide a smooth riding profile, withstand large traffic volumes and transmit the
stresses efficiently to the underlying subgrade support. But after a certain number of
service years, pavement defects (cracking) appear at the surface due to repeated
traffic loading, local environmental distress and aging. The traditional flexible
pavement rehabilitation using the overlay method is expensive and rarely provides a
durable solution as the cracks rapidly propagate through the new asphalt layer
forming the so-called ‘‘reflective cracks’’ (Rigo, 1993). Hence repeated overlaying has
to be used after only short periods of usage. In contrast, an interlayer of
geosynthetics placed below the asphalt top and/or compacted base fundamentally
helps to stress transfer and control crack propagation from underneath as a stress-
absorbing membrane (Rigo, 1993).
Flexible pavements are constructed of bituminous and granular materials. But
advent of modern synthetic polymers of increasing thermal resistance has created a
growing interest on their application in pavements. Geosynthetics have been used for
unpaved roads on subgrade to fulfill one or more of the basic functions of
reinforcement, separation, filtration and drainage. Research and development on the
use of geotextile and geogrid inclusions in pavement base layers are ongoing. These
inclusions have the potential to extend pavement life by reinforcing and inhibiting
reflection of cracks.
The design philosophy of a pavement system depends fundamentally on layers of
materials, its rigidity, thickness and resistance to stresses. A general methodology for
pavement design includes material properties, traffic volumes and climate informa-
tion. Climate models may include a heat transfer model for determining the
temperature, moisture, infiltration and drainage of subgrade. A method to predict
the degree of saturation of granular bases can be obtained in Huang (1993).
Consider a pavement base layer that restrains thermal shrinkage. It usually
develops tensile stress, st under a temperature change of DT; which may be
simplified by a relationship
st ¼ Ea DT; ð1Þ
where E is a modulus of elasticity of base and a is its coefficient of thermal
expansion.
If the tensile stress exceeds the tensile strength of the base material, a fracture will
develop and the fracture amount, dl; by such thermal change in the pavement base
length, L; can be estimated (for constant values of a and DT throughout the
 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68 61

pavement only) as
dl ¼ La DT: ð2Þ
Such changes will induce movements in the pavement subgrade. A crushed stone
granular base undergoing thermal changes may cause tensile stresses as a function of
its elastic modulus. In such base course, if the fine particulate materials have little or
no plasticity then there can be little or no real cohesion. Expansive subgrade soils,
of which Australia is blessed with, may develop cracks from moisture increase and
loss and would develop the conditions.
Although, the concept of layering of a pavement structure may look simple, a
number of uncertainties arise when inclusion (geosynthetics) is applied under
environmental distress. The designs are difficult, as there are no simple rules in the
codes for a reinforced flexible pavement. Thus, this paper investigates the tensile
response of pavements and examines the claim of improved performance by applying
geosynthetics inclusion in a pavement base.

2. Laboratory testing

The approach involved the use of a series of laboratory experiments. A brief

description on the laboratory tensile testing programs is presented and the details on
test procedure, instrumentation and calibration can be obtained in Karagania
(1994), Pennisi (1994), and Wallace et al. (1998). In this research, the previous test
facility has been considerably modified to accommodate geosynthetics inclusion. The
experimental set-up consists of a pavement test box, a motor, and computerized data
logging components. A data acquisition program (LABTECH NOTEBOOK
Version 7.1) was used to record the force/displacement measurements in the
pavement model. The software has an advantage of providing graphical display in
real time. Fig. 1 shows longitudinal section of the pavement tensile test box. The test
box is 300 mm wide  225 mm deep  600 mm long which is spilt across the
middle. One half of the pavement box is fixed and the other half is movable. The
box is mounted on a rigid steel beam that is supported on a set of low-friction rollers
of a type used for commercial conveyors. The bottom of the box is fitted with

Fixed end 600 mm 20 mm thick wall

Pavement model with unclamped geosynthetics

Rigid steel support Movable box section

Constant rate of displacement

Fig. 1. Longitudinal section of the pavement tensile test box.

62 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68

changeable plates that can simulate subgrade, subbase and base course conditions.
In this case, it has been roughened by gluing 10–20 mm crushed rock particles to the
bottom plates.
The left-hand side of the box is fixed against movement, while the right-hand side
can be moved to the right at a constant rate by two synchronized, longitudinal
threaded shafts driven by a geared electric motor. The separation between the two
halves of the underlying support simulates the subgrade crack. The reinforcement is
not fixed at both ends but just lying as an interface. Instrumentation consists of load
cells and displacement transducers. Two LVDT displacement transducers and two
specially designed load cells (strain gauge and force transducers) are mounted on
either side of the box. While the subgrade crack is opened at a constant rate of
displacement, these transducers record the displacements and forces. The
transducers are monitored continuously by a microcomputer that has a data
acquisition program (LABTECH NOTEBOOK Version 7.1). A signal amplifier
supplies an input voltage of 6 V to the load cells and the LVDT displacement
transducers. Output from the instruments is fed via the amplifier to the converter of
the microcomputer. Direct measurement of output can be made from the
instruments by connecting an analog voltmeter to the amplifier. To record the
force/displacement measurements the load cells and displacement transducers
are calibrated and its scale factors are entered in the program. Despite efforts to
synchronize rotation of the two longitudinal drive shafts of the apparatus,
asymmetry of loading in the connecting gear and chain mechanism caused minor
electronic noises in the signal filtration process.
The procedure for the proposed experiment consisted of road base sample
preparation, setting up of test box, constructing pavement layer and testing of
pavement model. The road base material was oven dried, mixed, weighed and
prepared to achieve optimum moisture content (OMC) in the laboratory following
standard geotechnical practice. The test box was cleaned and the two halves were
clamped together using G-clamps. Lubricated PVC boards around four sides and
subgrade-like bottom plates were fixed. Road base material without and with
geotextile or geogrid interlayer were placed and compacted using electric Kango
hammer to achieve the required density, which was determined by marked level for
known volume of the box. Load cells and LVDTs were connected appropriately.

3. Pavement material

The pavement materials consist of a continuously graded, crushed rock with less
than 10% fines. Table 1 shows typical properties of crushed rock base course
material. The material has specific gravity (soil particle relative density) of 2.71. The
fine contents with plasticity index of 6 seems to possess good self-cementing
properties. The values of maximum dry density (MDD) and OMC are given in
Table 1.
Preliminary tests were conducted nearly at the compaction moisture content but
later, a dry back period of 24 h was adopted to account for field situation. Tests on
 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68 63

Table 1
Typical properties of crushed rock pavement material

Finer than sieve size Laboratory compaction

(mm) (%) Standard Modified

37.5 100 OMC ¼ 6:8% OMC ¼ 5:7%

19 99
9.5 73

4.75 56 MDD ¼ 2:37 t=m3 MDD ¼ 2:48 t=m3

2.36 42
0.425 18
0.075 9.3

Liquid limit ðofo2:36 mmÞ ¼ 19%: Plasticity index ðofo2:36 mmÞ ¼ 6%: Soil particle density ¼ 2:71 t=m3 :

Table 2
Properties of Geosynthetics used in the tests

Properties Units G1 G2 G3 G4

Thickness mm 3.5 5.2 1.9 4.1

Mass g=m2 310 500 NA 200
Tensile strength kN/m 25.2 40.1 NA 20

NA—not available.

dry back state with and without bituminous seal coat were conducted. In seal coat
tests, CRS emulsion as a primer @ 0:8 l=m2 ; C170 Bitumen @ 1:0 l=m2 as a binder,
and C170 Bitumen and 7 mm crushed rock chips were used. Other tests on dry state
(no seal coat) were performed with and without inclusion of geosynthetics.
Geosynthetics used were geotextiles G1 and G2 and geogrids G3 and G4. Typical
values for the tensile strength of G1, G2, and G4 inclusions are 25, 40 and 20 kN=m;
respectively. The geotextile properties of local grid, G3 was not available. The
properties of geotextiles and geogrids that were used in the tests are provided in
Table 2.

4. Results and discussion

A series of laboratory tests were conducted to determine the magnitude of the

tensile strength of the model pavements and the displacement required to develop
this strength in an arid climate. All tests were carried out on 100 mm thick, fine
crushed granular base material compacted at about modified OMC to about 93% of
MDD (modified Proctor’s compaction). Initial tests were conducted right after the
compaction (i.e. near OMC). Some later tests were dried back to about 50% of
modified OMC to simulate typical dry base conditions in arid regions (McInnes,
1970). The underlying crack was opened at a rate of 0.33–0:48 mm=min: The force
64 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68

150

120
Test-07
Force (N)
90
Crushed Granular Base
60

30

0
0 2 4
Deformation (mm)
Fig. 2. Typical force–deformation characteristics of moist pavement base.

250

200
Force (N)

150
Test-08
100
Crushed Granular Base+Geotextile
50

0
0 2 4 6
Deformation (mm)
Fig. 3. Force–deformation characteristics of moist pavement using geotextile (G1).

and deformation values were averaged from the transducers of both sides. Fig. 2
shows a typical tensile force–displacement relationship of a moist pavement base.
The curve is near vertical up to a force exceeding 60 N and the peak force at
about 147 N with corresponding 3:07 mm of deformation. For most of the tests, the
force–deformation characteristics tend to consist of two, three or four stages of rise
and fall as the crack progresses. It was noted, however, later, that to improve the
signal noises in the data acquisition system, separate power supplier to the computer
are recommended (Wallace et al., 1998).
The results of tests, undertaken just after compaction, on pavement models with
geosynthetic inclusion showed improved tensile resistance. Fig. 3 shows the results of
a test on a pavement with a geotextile (G1) layer placed 20 mm above the base: the
maximum tensile force was 211 N at a displacement of 3:94 mm: In contrast to the
unreinforced case, the crack on the top surface of the model due to the displacement
of the bottom was developed at a millimeter higher displacement, probably due to
the flexibility of the geotextile sheet. The geosynthetics were found to be undamaged
during the test. In all the tests, the geosynthetics did not fail in tension but the
failures were due to reinforcement pull-out.
 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68 65

Further tensile tests were conducted, after few hours of the drying process, with
and without geosynthetics. The tests on the pavement layers that were dried before
testing showed a much higher tensile strength. The drying process was done
artificially using two infra-red lamps mounted above the top surface. The lamps were
used to heat the top surface for about 6 h: It would have been interesting to know the
temperature distribution and energy dissipation in the process but no temperatures
or energy were recorded. The pavement surface was allowed to cool down to room
temperature for about 3 h before the start of the tensile test. The drying back after
compaction greatly increased the tensile strength of the pavement material. The
increase in peak tensile force may be attributed to moisture suction within finer
particles. The tests were carried out only up to the geosynthetic pullout failures. Test
on the pavement model using an interlayer of geotextile (G2) the maximum tensile
force was 752 N at a displacement of 5:59 mm: In contrast to the previous case, the
crack on the top surface from the bottom was developed at a much higher
displacement, probably due to the extensibility of the flexible geotextile layer.
Tests with geogrid as a base reinforcement showed much improvement in tensile
strength. Fig. 4 shows the result of a test on the pavement model using geogrid (G4).
The test was conducted after 6 h of dry back. The maximum tensile force was 1022 N
at a displacement of 3:68 mm: The force–deformation curve consists of 2–3 stages of
rise and fall as the crack progresses. In all these tests, only the soil failed but the
geosynthetic did not except for the pull-out modes.
The interface friction, aggregate interlock and the tensile strength of the
geosynthetics may be the phenomena responsible for this type of response. With a
geogrid, the peak strength is higher and seems to be developed at a lesser
displacement than with the geotextile. In most cases, the crack on the top surface due
to the bottom movement was reflected much later. Fig. 5 shows the side view
after the test (Dry base þ geogrid G4). Despite significant displacement, the width of
the crack on the top surface seems relatively small with geotextiles and geogrids.

1000

800
Force (N)

600
Crushed Granular Base + Geogrid (G4)
400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4. Force–deformation characteristics of pavement using Geogrid (G4).
66 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68

Fig. 5. Side view of the cracked pavement model after the test.

Tensile Tests on Crushed Granular Base

1200 Base + G4

Base + G3
1000
Base + G2

800 Base
Force (N)

600

400

200

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Deformation (mm)
Fig. 6. Comparison of tensile force–deformation characteristics for various cases.

Fig. 6 shows typical comparison of tensile force–deformation characteristics for

various cases.
The test results define the order of the peak tensile strength, and the magnitude of
the crack displacement for the moist as well as dried-back, normal and reinforced
pavements. Moist pavements develop reflective cracks at low strengths but the dry
up process increases their strength. The displacements required to develop the peak
 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68 67

Table 3
Main findings of pavement tensile experiments (100 mm base)

Pavement condition Maximum tensile Apparent peak Subgrade crack

force (N) stress (kPa) displacement (mm)

At compaction water content 147 4.9 3.1

At compaction water content 211 7.0 3.9
using Geotextile 2 (G2)
At compaction water content 374 12.5 4.6
Geogrid 4 (G4)
At dried-back state 405 13.5 2.7
Dried-back using Geotextile 3 (G3) 752 25.1 5.6
Dried-back using Geogrid 5 (G5) 1022 34.1 3.7

Note: seal coat had only marginal increase in the tensile strength.

tensile force are larger with geosynthetic reinforced pavements. The pavement model
incorporating the geogrid Tensar SS-20 had the highest tensile strength. These
insights can be useful in the design of unbound granular pavement base layers.
Typical peak tensile forces of the pavement tests are summarized in Table 3.
The response of a pavement under the combined traffic loads and environmental
distress has complex modes of tensile, shear, bending and torsion components. This
paper, however, studied only a simple tensile mode of failure by subgrade
movements. These laboratory tests may resemble interface pull-out tests (Gurung,
2001) but the composite tensile action of the pavement creates difficulties in the
theoretical analogy. Analytical and numerical approximations may be used to
estimate the number of traffic load repetitions required for developing a crack.

5. Conclusions

Crack propagation through a pavement base is one of the main causes of

pavement deterioration. The crack reflection can appear due to environmental
changes as a result of thermal expansion or shrinkage. The movement in a subgrade
may create a discontinuity in the base layer. To understand the basic mechanics of
crack formation and reflection process, it is necessary to characterize the structural
behavior of the pavement base under subgrade movements. Thus, an experimental
model of a pavement base has been used to measure the apparent tensile strength. By
a series of laboratory tests, the characteristic curves of tensile force and deformation
for moist as well as dried-back pavement bases, with and without using geosynthetics
were measured. The summary of typical peak tensile force and base crack width are
presented. The use of geosynthetics inclusions (in wet as well as dry conditions)
increased the tensile strength. The tensile peak strength of a pavement reinforced
with a geogrid was higher than pavement reinforced with geotextile. The high tensile
strength of a reinforced pavement will have significant influence on the behavior of
the pavement surface under traffic loading and environmental movements.
68 N. Gurung / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (2003) 59–68

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges research seed funding for a project titled
Structural Investigation of Geosynthetically Reinforced Pavement by School of Civil
Engineering, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and Pavement Rehabi-
litation Division of Queensland Department of Main Roads (QMR), Australia.

References

Gurung, N., 2001. 1D analytical solution for extensible and inextensible soil/rock reinforcement in pullout
tests. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19, 195–212.
Huang, Y.H., 1993. Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, London.
Karagania, R.M., 1994. Tensile behaviour of seal coat surfaced, unbound gravel pavements. CEB491
Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology.
McInnes, D.B., 1970. Strength criteria for pavement base materials. Proceedings of the Australian Road
Research Board 5 (4), 268–283.
Pennisi, S.R., 1994. An investigation of the tensile response of seal coats on cracking pavements. CEB491
Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Queensland University of Technology.
Rigo, J.M., 1993. General introduction, main conclusions of the 1989 Conference on reflective cracking in
pavements, and future prospectus. Proceedings of the Second International RILEM Conference, Liege,
Belgium, March 10–12, pp. 3–20.
Wallace, K., Karagania, R., Bullen, F., 1998. New apparatus for tensile testing of pavements. Research
Report 98-5, Physical Infrastructure Centre, Queensland University of Technology.