Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204–210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Laboratory performance of unpaved roads reinforced with

woven coir geotextiles
E.A. Subaida*, S. Chandrakaran, N. Sankar
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Calicut, 673 601, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The results of an experimental study conducted to investigate the beneficial use of woven coir geotextiles
Received 6 June 2008 as reinforcing material in a two-layer pavement section, are presented. Monotonic and repeated loads
Received in revised form were applied on reinforced and unreinforced laboratory pavement sections through a rigid circular plate.
5 November 2008
The effects of placement position and stiffness of geotextile on the performance of reinforced sections
Accepted 7 November 2008
were investigated using two base course thicknesses and two types of woven coir geotextiles. The test
Available online 22 January 2009
results indicate that the inclusion of coir geotextiles enhanced the bearing capacity of thin sections.
Placement of geotextile at the interface of the subgrade and base course increased the load carrying
Keywords:
Woven coir geotextile capacity significantly at large deformations. Considerable improvement in bearing capacity was observed
Unpaved road when coir geotextile was placed within the base course at all levels of deformations. The plastic surface
Bearing capacity deformation under repeated loading was greatly reduced by the inclusion of coir geotextiles within the
Plastic deformation base course irrespective of base course thickness. The optimum placement position of coir geotextile was
found to be within the base course at a depth of one-third of the plate diameter below the surface.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction protection requirements make it important to explore alternative

Unpaved roads are usually used for low volume traffic and serve
as access roads. Being basically an agricultural country low volume
roads play a very important role in the rural economy and resource
industries in India. When unpaved roads are built on soft founda-
tion soils, large deformations can occur, which increase mainte-
nance cost and lead to interruption of traffic service. The use of
geosynthetic products as an inclusion in flexible pavements for
reinforcement has been demonstrated to be a viable technology
through studies conducted over the last three decades (Cancelli and
Montanelli, 1999; Chan et al., 1989; Collin et al., 1996; Fannin and
Sigurdsson, 1996; Gopal and Anil, 1994; Hufenus et al., 2006; Leng,
2000; Love et al., 1987; Miura et al., 1990; Moghaddas-Nejad and
Small, 1996; Perkins, 1999; Som and Sahu, 1999) which results in
increased service life of the pavement or reduced base thickness to
carry the same number of load repetitions. Benefits of reducing base
course thickness are realized if the cost of the geosynthetic is less
than the cost of the reduced base course material. In developing
countries like India cost and availability of geosynthetics are the
major constraining factors for the construction of reinforced soil
structures. High cost of geosynthetics and stringent environmental
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 495 2286230 or þ91 9847854954; fax: þ91 495
2287250.
E-mail addresses: easubaida@yahoo.co.in (E.A. Subaida), chandra@nitc.ac.in
(S. Chandrakaran), sankar@nitc.ac.in (N. Sankar).
natural products to make the constructions cost efficient and eco-
friendly (Sarsby, 2007; Rawal and Anandjiwala, 2007; Chauhan
et al., 2008). But deterioration over time limits the use of natural
geotextiles to temporary applications only. One of such applications
can be in unpaved road over soft subgrade where the rate of plastic
deformation (rut development) due to repeated traffic loads is
faster during the initial stage and gets stabilized later (Fannin and
Sigurdsson, 1996). In this case, it is expected that consolidation of
the soft subgrade soil will make reinforcement unnecessary in the
long-term. Natural fibre geotextiles can be a feasible solution in
such applications where these products are meant to serve only
during the initial stage and final strength is attained by soil
consolidation due to passage of vehicles. These natural materials
include coir, which is the husk of coconut, a common waste material
where coconuts are grown and subsequently processed. Coir fibre is
strong and degrades slowly compared to other natural fibres due to
high lignin content (Rao and Balan, 2000). The degradation of coir
depends on the medium of embedment and climatic conditions and
is found to retain 80% of its tensile strength after 6 months of
embedment in clay (Rao and Balan, 2000). Coir geotextiles are
presently available with wide ranges of properties. Closely woven
coir geotextiles possess high tensile strength and pullout resistance
(Subaida et al., 2008) which can be economically utilized for
temporary reinforcement purposes.
In unpaved roads, major functions of geotextile materials
include filtration, separation, and reinforcement. Coir geotextiles

0266-1144/$ – see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.009
 E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204–210 205

were reported to possess good filtration and drainage properties a laboratory two-layer pavement section and the present paper
(Ramanatha Ayyar et al., 2002; Lekha and Kavitha, 2006; Babu, describes the results so obtained. Two types of woven coir geo-
2007). The benefits of using reinforcements in flexible pavements textiles and two base course thicknesses were adopted in the study.
depend largely on the quality and thickness of the granular base The effectiveness of such applications was investigated through
and location of the geosynthetics within the pavement structure a series of monotonic and repeated loading tests conducted under
(Chan et al., 1989) along with other factors such as mechanical well-controlled testing conditions.
properties of reinforcement material (Perkins, 1999), subgrade
strength (Cancelli et al., 1997), nature of interaction between soil
2. Materials used for the study
and geosynthetics (Ghosh and Madhav, 1994) and applied load
magnitude. The reinforcement mechanisms in geosynthetic rein-
The subgrade of test sections consisted of clay having a liquid
forced pavement include base course lateral restraint, increase in
limit of 60% and plastic limit of 25%. The clay is classified as CH (as
stiffness of the base course aggregate layer (Bender and Barenberg,
per Indian Standards) and had a specific gravity of 2.47. Optimum
1978), reduction of shear stress in the subgrade soil (Love et al.,
moisture content and maximum dry density were obtained as 25%
1987), improved vertical stress distribution on the subgrade (Mil-
and 15 kN/m3 respectively in standard proctor test. To prepare the
ligan et al., 1989) and tensile membrane action (Giroud and Noiray,
test sections clay was compacted to a dry density of 12 kN/m3 at
1981). Significant rut depth and high stiffness of the geosynthetic
a water content of 46%, to simulate the natural condition of the clay
must be provided to initiate the membrane effect and thus to
deposit during the time of collection. The CBR value obtained at this
enhance the bearing capacity of the subgrade (Som and Sahu, 1999;
water content and density was 1.2%.
Gobel et al., 1994). The placement position of reinforcement is the
The base course aggregate was a crushed stone with the particle
main factor affecting the bearing capacity of reinforced granular
size distribution shown in Fig. 1. The material is classified as GW as
soil and higher bearing capacity has been observed when the depth
per Indian Standards and had a specific gravity of 2.67. Maximum
of placement of reinforcement is decreased (Akinmusuru and
dry density obtained was 20 kN/m3 at a water content of 5.5%. The
Akinbolade, 1981; Fragazy and Lawton, 1984; Sankariah and Nar-
material was compacted to 90% of maximum dry density at
ahari, 1988; Reymond, 1992). The optimal position was reported to
a moisture content of 5% to make the base course in all tests. Direct
lie at the base of the fill with a very soft subgrade and a fill thickness
shear tests performed at stress levels ranging from 100 to 300 kPa
less than 0.4 m (Cancelli and Montanelli, 1999; Haas et al., 1988;
resulted in a friction angle of 48.3 .
Miura et al., 1990). Babu (2007) reported increased bearing capacity
Two types of woven coir geotextiles designated as MMA2 and
when woven and non-woven coir geotextiles were used at the
MMA3 were used as reinforcements in the study. Woven coir
interface of silty clay subgrade and granular base course of 150 mm
geotextile is designated as mesh matting based on the type of warp
thickness. It has been found that the membrane effect of rein-
yarn. Fig. 2 shows photographs of these two types of geotextiles.
forcement diminishes with an increase in the thickness of the road
The properties of geotextiles used are presented in Table 1.
aggregate layer (Hufenus et al., 2006; Kinney et al., 1998). With
higher fills, the depth effect of a wheel load is generally too small to
mobilize a noticeable tensile force within the reinforcement when 3. Test set-up
placed just above the subgrade. At small deformations an efficient
mobilization of tensile strength of reinforcement is dependent on The experiments were conducted in a concrete tank of size 1.5 m
both interlock and stiffness (Fannin and Sigurdsson, 1996) in which length, 1 m width and 1 m depth. A reaction frame was fabricated
case the effective location appears to depend on both the quality using steel channels and plates to take up the loading and to hold
and thickness of the granular material in which the geotextile is the loading devices to be placed at the centre of the tank. Load was
installed and the magnitude of the applied loads. Also the role of applied through a circular plate, 200 mm in diameter and 25 mm
geotextile/geogrid used as aggregate reinforcement is purely thick. The vertical load was applied on the footing through a steel
structural, and no separation benefit should be expected. In this shaft using a mechanical device based on the principle of screw
case it is not placed directly at the interface, but rather at an motion that was measured using a proving ring of 50 kN capacity.
optimum depth within the granular base (Ashmawy and Bourdeau, Load was transferred to the plate through a steel ball kept in
1995). The interaction between soil and inclusion depends upon a groove which was made at the centre of the footing to ensure the
the limiting friction or adhesion at their interface (Ghosh and applied load to be vertical. The settlement of the plate was
Madhav, 1994). Reinforcement placed high up in the granular layer
hinders lateral movement of the aggregate due to frictional inter-
100
action and interlocking between the fill material and the rein-
forcement which raises the apparent load-spreading ability of the
aggregate and reduces the necessary fill thickness (Chan et al., 80
1989; Gobel et al., 1994; Miura et al., 1990; Moghaddas-Nejad and
Fraction passing (%)

Small, 1996; Perkins, 1999). Coir geotextile develops good interface

friction with granular fill (Ajitha and Jayadeep, 1997; Subaida et al., 60
2008) which can induce tensile stress in the reinforcement when
embedded within the fill material. Such minor changes in hori-
zontal stress distribution can cause significant changes in system 40
performance. Hence, when used as reinforcement in unpaved
roads, laying of coir geotextile must be carried out so as to take full
advantage of this biodegradable material during the early period of 20
construction when much of the working of membrane action
cannot be expected.
0
No significant study has been reported on the use of coir geo- 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
textiles as aggregate reinforcement in unpaved road sections. Particle size (mm)
Hence a detailed experimental study has been planned to investi-
gate the reinforcing benefits of woven coir geotextiles in Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of base course material.
206 E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204–210

Fig. 2. Photographs of woven coir geotextiles used for the study.

measured using two dial gauges, fitted on the plate on either side of
the loading shaft. Three more dial gauges were placed at radial
distances of 200, 300 and 400 mm from the centre of the plate to
measure the surface deformations. Fig. 3 shows the schematic
diagram of the test set-up.

4. Test section construction

Table 2 provides information on the types of test sections con-

structed and the loading applied. Variables included geotextile Fig. 3. Experimental set-up. (a) Loading arrangement. (b) Arrangement of dial gauges.
type, geotextile placement position in the base layer, and base
Table 2
course thickness. Subgrade was prepared by compacting clay in Test-section variables.
layers of 50 mm thickness. Pulverized clay required for each layer
was weighed and mixed with the desired quantity of water. The Test Base Subgrade Type of Type of Position of Geotextile
section thickness soil Geotextile loading
layer was compacted to the required thickness using a hammer of (mm)
4.5 kg. Uniformity of water content and density were checked by
A 0 Clay – Monotonic N/A
taking samples using cylindrical tubes at different locations within B 167 Clay Control Monotonic N/A
C 167 Clay MMA2 Monotonic Base-subgrade interface
D 167 Clay MMA2 Monotonic Mid depth of base
Table 1 E 267 Clay Control Monotonic N/A
Properties of woven coir geotextiles used for the study. F 267 Clay MMA2 Monotonic Base-subgrade interface
G 267 Clay MMA2 Monotonic Mid depth of base
Particulars MMA2 MMA3
H 167 Clay Control Repeated N/A
Mass/unit area (g/m2) 1286.56 710.50 I 167 Clay MMA2 Repeated Base-subgrade interface
Thickness (mm) 8.39 8.47 J 167 Clay MMA2 Repeated Mid depth of base
Number of ends/decimeter 18.90 8.90 K 167 Clay MMA3 Repeated Base-subgrade interface
Number of picks/decimeter 10.90 6.50 L 167 Clay MMA3 Repeated Mid depth of base
M 267 Clay Control Repeated N/A
Tensile strength (kN/m)
N 267 Clay MMA2 Repeated Within base(U/D ¼ 0.2)
Warp 36.00 12.60
O 267 Clay MMA2 Repeated Within base(U/D ¼ 0.3)
Weft 20.70 9.12
P 267 Clay MMA2 Repeated Within base(U/D ¼ 0.6)
Failure strain (%) Q 267 Clay MMA2 Repeated Within base (U/D ¼ 1)
Warp 36.12 20.70 R 267 Clay MMA2 Repeated Base-subgrade interface
Weft 28.45 23.00 S 267 Clay MMA3 Repeated Within base(U/D ¼ 0.3)
 E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204–210 207

Table 3
Subgrade properties for different test sections.

Test section Before test After test

Water content (%) Dry unit weight (kN/m3) Water content (%) Dry unit weight (kN/m3)

Top 200 Middle 200 Bottom 200 Top 200 Middle 200 Bottom 200 Top 200 Middle 200 Bottom 200 Top 200 Middle 200 Bottom 200
mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer mm layer
A 45.9 46.0 46.2 12.15 12.04 12.07 45 44..8 45.1 12.4 12..20 12.26
B 45.6 45..8 45.8 12.06 11.87 11.86 44.9 44.6 45.0 12.2 12.10 12.04
C 45.8 46.1 46.0 11.81 11.81 12.04 45.2 45.0 45.1 11.7 11.81 11.79
D 45.3 45.5 45.5 12.23 12.00 11.95 45.6 45.8 45.6 12.3 12.02 12.25
E 46.1 46.3 46.1 11.71 11.72 11.63 45.2 45.1 45.3 11.9 11.92 11.86
F 45.7 45.6 45.8 11.84 11.80 11.91 45.4 45.0 45.3 11.7 11.75 11.67
G 45.2 45.4 45.4 12.22 12.14 12.30 45.0 45.8 45.6 12.1 12.20 12.08
H 45.5 45.4 45.2 12.131 12.08 12.23 45.3 45.6 45.5 11.8 11.92 11.90
I 45.5 45.7 45.8 11.72 11.65 11.80 45.2 44.9 44.8 12.1 11.97 12.03
J 45.6 45.5 45.6 11.51 11.53 11.50 45.5 45.3 45.2 11.6 11.53 11.56
K 45.7 45.8 45.9 12.32 12.30 12.06 45.4 45.3 45.1 12.2 12.18 12.21
L 45.3 45.6 45.4 12.15 12.13 12.16 45.3 45.1 45.2 12.2 12.23 12.20
M 45.8 45.5 45.6 12.14 12.08 12.16 45.6 45.3 45.5 12.4 12.37 12.41
N 45.7 45.5 45.7 12.21 12.26 12.19 45.4 45.5 45.4 12.3 12.26 12.21
O 45.5 45.3 45.3 11.92 12.06 11.96 45.3 44.9 44.8 12.1 12.31 12.2
P 46.0 46.2 46.0 12.34 12.41 12.37 45.7 46.0 46.1 11.9 12.04 12.01
Q 45.9 45.8 45.7 12.12 12.15 12.14 45.6 45.2 44.9 11.7 11.69 11.67
R 45.9 46.1 46.1 12.23 12.20 12.22 45.5 45.4 45.2 12.1 12.16 12.09
S 46.1 46.3 46.1 12.3 12.17 12.28 45.4 45.1 45.5 11.8 11.85 11.78

the tank. To check the vertical uniformity of the bed, one sample
was taken from every 200 mm thickness of bed layer at the same
location. Table 3 shows the mean values of water content and dry
unit weight of subgrade measured at different locations for
different tests.
The base course aggregate was compacted using a hammer of
10 kg falling from a height of 200 mm. The plate diameter,
thickness of layers and load intensity were scaled to a factor of 2/3
with respect to a full scale wheel load size of 300 mm. Sections
were constructed with two base course thicknesses of 167 and
267 mm to represent thin and thick pavement sections of 250 and
400 mm respectively. The thicknesses of base course layers for
compaction were conveniently decided based on the location of
geotextile in each case. Uniformity in water content and density of
base course was achieved for the different tests. To prepare
reinforced sections geotextile was placed at the base/subgrade
interface or within the base at the desired location. Since the
width of the geotextile roll was equal to the internal width of the
test tank a single piece of geotextile was used to cover the entire
surface of the test section.
5. Test procedure
Monotonic load tests were conducted on reinforced and unre-
inforced sections as per Indian Standards (IS 1888, 1982). The test
bed was levelled and the footing was placed centrally over it. Load
was applied by rotating the wheel of the screw jack manually. A
seating pressure of 7 kPa was applied. Dial gauge readings were
1000 cycles of load intensity of 400 kPa (equivalent to a tyre
pressure of 600 kPa) was applied on pavement sections of 267 mm
thickness. Pressure on the footing is increased from zero to the
required level by rotating the wheel. The maximum desired pres-
sure is applied for 1 s and then load is released to zero. The period
of rest for the section was also maintained as 1 s in all the tests. Two
types of geotextiles MMA2 and MMA3 were used in these tests.
6. Results and discussion
6.1. Monotonic load tests
Monotonic load tests were conducted on sections of 167 and
267 mm base thicknesses. Fig. 4 shows the relationship between
the bearing stress and settlement of the footing with and without
coir geotextile reinforcement in a pavement of 167 mm base
thickness. The unreinforced pavement failed at strength of 247 kPa.
The ultimate bearing capacity increased to 366 kPa when the
geotextile MMA2 was placed at the interface of subgrade and base
course and to 433 kPa when the same geotextile was placed within
the base course at mid depth. In the reinforced pavement, defor-
mation is restrained because of the presence of geotextile. The
increases in bearing capacity observed are 45 and 75% respectively
Test A Test C
500 Test B Test D
Bearing preesure (kPa)

taken at every load increments of 10 kN. Each load increment was 400
applied when the settlement became less than 0.025 mm/min.
Effect of reinforcement location on bearing capacity was studied by 300
keeping the geotextile at the base/subgrade interface and at mid
depth of base course. Tests were conducted on two types of test 200
sections with base thicknesses of 167 and 267 mm. Only MMA2 was
used as reinforcement in these tests. 100
To investigate the influence of coir geotextile reinforcement on
the behaviour of the pavement section under repeated loading, 100 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
cycles of load were applied on sections of 167 mm base thickness in
Settlement (mm)
tests H, I, J, K and L with a stress intensity of 260 kPa. The stress level
corresponded to 60% of the strength of reinforced pavement using Fig. 4. Bearing pressure-settlement of plate curves for 167 mm thick base under
MMA2 under monotonic load tests. In tests M, N, O, P, Q, R and S, monotonic load tests.
208 E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204–210

Table 4 7
Load capacity ratio at different settlements under monotonic loading (167 mm base). unreinforced

Settlement (mm) Load capacity ratio MMA2 at mid depth of base

MMA2 at interface MMA2 at mid depth of base 5 MMA2 at interface
20 1.23 1.87

Heave (mm)
50 1.47 1.86
3

when the geotextile is placed at the interface and within the base
respectively. Table 4 illustrates the ratio of load required to produce
the specified settlement (load capacity ratio) for reinforced and
unreinforced sections. Load capacity ratios corresponding to
settlements of 20 and 50 mm have been shown to represent rela-
tively smaller and higher settlements. When MMA2 is placed at the
base/subgrade interface, a significant increase in the load is
observed only at higher settlements which may be due to
membrane action. Whereas, placing the geotextile within the base
resulted in a considerable increase in load at small as well as large
settlements.
For pavement section with 267 mm base thickness ultimate
bearing capacity increased by 11.8% when the geotextile MMA2 is
placed at the interface of subgrade and base course (Fig. 5). Shifting
of the position of geotextile to the middle of the base course
resulted in an increase in the ultimate bearing capacity to 17.9% of
that of the unreinforced section. The results indicate that the
percentage increase in the bearing capacity due to coir geotextile
reinforcement is significant only for pavement sections with thin
base courses.
Fig. 6 shows the surface deformation at a distance of 300 mm
from the footing centre for reinforced and unreinforced sections of
167 mm base thickness. In the case of unreinforced section heaving
of surface takes place after a footing settlement of 5.41 mm. When
MMA2 is placed at the interface of base and subgrade, the fill
surface is found to undergo settlement in the initial stages of
loading up to a footing penetration of 22 mm followed by slight
heaving at relatively larger settlement of the footing. In the case of
reinforced section with MMA2 placed within the base course,
heaving starts at a footing settlement of 11.24 mm. The results show
that geotextile kept at the interface inhibits the development of
rupture planes in the soil bed by enhancing the subgrade
confinement which gives rise to reduction of surface heaving.
Geotextile placed within the base course is found to be less effective
in reducing the heaving due to lack of subgrade confinement.
In the case of 267 mm base thickness the heaving of the
surface was not considerable both for reinforced and unrein-
forced sections under monotonic loading due to lower footing
penetration.
`
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-1
Settlement of plate (mm)
Fig. 6. Heave at 300 mm from footing centre under monotonic loading (167 mm base).
6.2. Repeated load test
The relationship between number of load applications and
permanent surface deformation in sections of 167 mm thick bases
are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 respectively. Plastic deformation is found
to be reduced due to the introduction of coir geotextile reinforce-
ment. The performance of sections in which coir geotextile is placed
within the base is superior to the section with geotextile placed at
the interface. Lateral movement of the base allows for vertical
strains to develop leading to permanent surface deformation of the
loaded area. Placement of a geotextile layer in the base course
allows for shear interaction to develop between the aggregate and
the geotextile as the base attempts to spread laterally. Shear load is
transmitted from the base aggregate to the geotextile and places
the geotextile in tension which retards the development of lateral
tensile strain in the base adjacent to the geotextile. Lower lateral
strain in the base results in less vertical deformation of the surface.
Smooth interface between soft subgrade and geotextile placed at
the interface of base and subgrade results in a decrease in the
percentage reduction of plastic deformation. Reduction in perma-
nent deformation is more due to inclusion of MMA2, compared to
MMA3, because of higher stiffness which suggests that, with all
other factors being the same, an increase in reinforcement stiffness
and strength results in superior pavement performance. Rut depth
is 68 and 44% that of unreinforced section when MMA2 is placed at
the interface and mid depth of the base respectively. Use of MMA3
at the interface and mid depth of base resulted in respective plastic
surface deformations of 86 and 74% that of unreinforced section.
Improved performance with respect to bearing capacity and
resistance to plastic deformation is observed when coir geotextiles
are placed within the base course.

Unreinforced
1000 MMA2-subgrade/base interface Unreinforced
100 MMA3
MMA2-mid depth of base
Bearing pressure (kPa)

Plastic deformation (mm)

800 MMA2
80
600
60
400
40
200
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 0
Settlement (mm) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of load applications
Fig. 5. Bearing pressure-settlement of plate curves for 267 mm thick base under
monotonic load tests. Fig. 7. Plastic surface deformation of 167 mm thick base (Geotextile at interface).
 E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204–210 209

Un reinforced 80
100 Unreinforced
MMA3
MMA3
Plastic deformation (mm)

MMA2

Plastic deformation (mm)

80 MMA2
60

60

40
40

20 20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0
Number of load applications 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Number of load applications
Fig. 8. Plastic surface deformation of 167 mm thick base (Geotextile at mid depth of
base). Fig. 10. Plastic surface deformation of 267 mm thick base (U/D ¼ 0.3).

Repeated load tests were conducted on 267 mm thick sections
keeping the geotextile at different positions within the base to
locate the optimum placement depth of coir geotextile within the
base. The variation of rut depth with the number of load applica-
tions for different placement locations of reinforcement is illus-
trated in Fig. 9. All of the curves exhibit a transition to a stable
response at large numbers of load applications. The general
responses of reinforced sections are similar to that of unreinforced
section. However the curves indicate improvement in the perfor-
mances of reinforced sections over the unreinforced section. Test
results indicate that plastic surface deformation is a minimum
when the geotextile is placed at a depth of one-third of the diam-
eter of the plate (U/D ¼ 0.3, where U is the depth of placement of
coir geotextile below the surface and D is the diameter of plate)
among the different locations adopted in this study. A coir geo-
textile layer is able to mobilize stresses within the reinforced
sections due to high interface friction, preventing local shear failure
and deformations. When the placement depth of geotextile is much
less (U/D ¼ 0.2) the overburden is not sufficient to develop fric-
tional resistance at the interface of the reinforcement and the fill
resulting in lower reduction in plastic surface deformation. When
the placement location is increased beyond U/D ¼ 0.3, reductions in
plastic deformation continue to decrease. Complete restraining of
lateral spreading of base course material due to geotextile may not
take place when kept at higher depths because of increased fill
thickness and hence the reinforcement effect may be retarded.
These results indicate that the performance of the unpaved road
system can be improved by keeping coir geotextile at a depth
sufficient to mobilize the reinforcement within the base course. For
the load intensity adopted in the study the optimum location
appears to lie within the base at a depth of one-third of the plate
diameter below the surface. Fig. 10 shows the influence of geo-
textile strength in reducing the rut formation in 267 mm thick base.
Reinforcement using MMA2 resulted in better performance than
MMA3 in reducing the rut formation as in the case of 167 mm thick
section. When placed within the base course, both types of geo-
textile exhibited good performance with respect to plastic defor-
mation irrespective of base thickness.
The test results obtained in the present study regarding the
location of reinforcement may be comparable with the findings of
previous researchers using geosynthetics. Brown et al. (1985),
through wheel tracking of geogrid reinforced asphalt sections,
reported significant reductions in surface rutting for a U/D of 0.3,
while there was negligible benefit for a U/D of 1. Perkins (1999) also
reported enhanced performance of asphalt section under dynamic
loading by raising the position of geogrid above subgrade/base
interface. Raymond and Ismail (2003) based on experiments
carried out at one-tenth scale concluded that the geogrids should
be placed as close as possible to the underside of the sleeper within
the ballast. In contrast to these, test results by Brown et al. (2007)
indicated that geogrid placed at the mid depth of ballast showed no
better performance than that placed at the bottom of the ballast
layer.
7. Conclusions

100 Unreinforced
The following conclusions can be drawn from the test results of
U/D-0.2
the present investigation:
U/D-0.3
80
Plastic deformation (mm)

U/D-0.6  The bearing capacity of thin unpaved road section can be

U/D=1 increased by the inclusion of woven coir geotextile. Significant
60 Base-subgrade interface increases in ultimate bearing capacity and bearing capacity at
any settlement were obtained when coir geotextile was placed
at mid depth of the base course. For thicker sections the
40 improvement in bearing capacity due to inclusion of coir geo-
textile was only marginal. Coir geotextile placed at the base/
subgrade interface enhanced subgrade confinement and
20
reduced heaving considerably.
 Woven coir geotextile significantly decreased the permanent
vertical deformation over the loaded area of the pavement
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 under repeated loading by restraining the lateral spreading of
base material. Location and stiffness of geotextile greatly
Number of load applications
influenced the performance of reinforced sections. Enhanced
Fig. 9. Plastic surface deformations of 267 mm base for different positions of MMA2. performance was obtained by keeping the coir geotextile
210 E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204–210
within the base for thin as well as thick sections. The reduc-
tions in plastic deformation were of the order of 30 and 14%
when MMA2 and MMA3 were placed at the base/subgrade
interface of 167 mm section. Placing of geotextile at the mid
depth of base resulted in reductions in vertical deformations of
the order of 50 and 25% for MMA2 and MMA3 respectively.
 Placement location of coir geotextile within the base course
significantly affected the performance of thick sections. For the
test conditions adopted in the study the optimum depth of
placement of woven coir geotextile was obtained as one-third
of the plate diameter below the surface.
 To get satisfactory performance of reinforced systems, woven
coir geotextiles may be placed within the base course of
unpaved roads keeping sufficient fill thickness above the geo-
textile layer to mobilize frictional resistance at the interface of
reinforcement and fill which will avoid damage to geotextile
due to traffic also.
The results presented in this paper should be interpreted in the
light of the small plate diameter and lower pressure used. The small
scale model test results provide insight into the load deformation
behaviour of the coir geotextile reinforced unpaved sections.
Further study is required to interpret the performance of large scale
sections from small scale laboratory tests.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of DOCT, Government of Kerala, India for
conducting the experimental investigation is gratefully acknowl-
edged by the authors.
References
Ajitha, B., Jayadeep, T., 1997. Interfacial frictional properties of geotextiles and bio-
mats, in: Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Vadodara, India, Vol. 1,
pp. 287–290.
Akinmusuru, O., Akinbolade, J.A., 1981. Stability of loaded footing on reinforced soil.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 107 (6), 819–827.
Ashmawy, A.K., Bourdeau, P.L., 1995. Geosynthetic-reinforced soils under repeated
loading – a review and comparative design study. Geosynthetics International 2
(4), 643–668.
Babu, K.K., 2007. Utilisation of coir geotextiles for unpaved roads and embank-
ments. PhD thesis, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, India.
Bender, D.A., Barenberg, E.J., 1978. Design and behaviour of soil-fabric-aggregate
systems. Transportation Research Record 671, 64–75. Washington, DC.
Brown, S.F., Brunton, J.M., Hughes, D.A.B., Brodrick, B.V., 1985. Polymer grid rein-
forcement of asphalt. Asphalt Paving Technology 54, 18–41.
Brown, S.F., Kwan, J., Thom, N.H., 2007. Identifying the key parameters that influ-
ence geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
25 (6), 326–335.
Cancelli, A., Montanelli, F., Rimoldi, P., Zhao, A., 1997. Full scale laboratory testing on
geosynthetics reinforced paved roads, in: Ochiai, H., Yaufuku, N., Omine, K.,
(Eds.), Earth Reinforcement, Balkema, 1997, Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, Vol. 1, Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan, November,
1996, pp. 573–578.
Cancelli, A., Montanelli, F., 1999. In-ground test for geosynthetic reinforced flex-
ible paved roads. Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’99, Vol. 2, Boston, USA, pp.
863–879.
Chan, F., Barksdale, R.D., Brown, S.F., 1989. Aggregate base reinforcement of surfaced
pavements. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 8 (3), 165–189.
Collin, J.G., Kinney, T.C., Fu, X., 1996. Full scale highway load test of flexible pave-
ment systems with geogrid reinforced base courses. Geosynthetics Interna-
tional 3 (4), 537–549.
Chauhan, M.S., Mittal, S., Mohanty, B., 2008. Performance evaluation of silty sand
subgrade reinforced with fly ash and fibre. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26
(5), 429–435.
Fannin, R.J., Sigurdsson, O., 1996. Field observations on stabilization of unpaved
roads with geotextiles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 26 (7),
544–553.
Fragazy, R.J., Lawton, E., 1984. Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades. Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 110 (10), 1500–1507.
Ghosh, C., Madhav, M.R., 1994. Reinforced granular fill-soft soil system: membrane
effect. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13, 743–759.
Giroud, J.P., Noiray, L., 1981. Geotextile reinforced unpaved road design. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 107 (9), 1233–1254.
Gobel, C.H., Weisemann, U.C., Kirschner, R.A., 1994. Effectiveness of a reinforcing
geogrid in a railway subbase under dynamic loads. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 13 (1), 91–99.
Gopal, S., Anil, D., 1994. Reinforced pavement behaviour under static and cyclic
loading, in: Proc.. of 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering. New Delhi, India, pp. 1819-1822.
Haas, R., Walls, J., Carroll, R.G., 1988. Geogrid reinforcement of granular bases
in flexible pavements. Transportation Research Record 1188, 19–27. Wash-
ington, DC.
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor, P., Springman, S.M., Bronnimann, R.,
2006. Full-scale field tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads on soft
subgrade. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (1), 21–37.
Kinney, T.C., Abbott, J., Schuler, J., 1998. Benefits of using geogrids for base rein-
forcement with regard to rutting. Transportation Research Record 1611, 86–96.
Washington, DC.
Lekha, K.R., Kavitha, V., 2006. Coir geotextile reinforced clay dykes for drainage of
low-lying areas. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (1), 38–51.
Leng, J., 2000. Characteristics and behaviour of geogrid-reinforced aggregate under
cyclic load. D.Phil thesis, North Carolina State University, USA.
Love, J.P., Burd, H.J., Milligan, G.W.E., Houlsby, G.T., 1987. Analytical and model
studies of reinforcement of a layer of granular fill on a soft clay subgrade.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 24, 611–622.
Milligan, G.W.E., Jewell, R.A., Houlsby, G.T., Burd, H.J., 1989. A new approach to
design of unpaved roads, Part I. Ground Engineering 22 (3), 25–29.
Miura, N., Sakai, A., Taesiri, Y., Yamanouchi, T., Yasuhara, K., 1990. Polymer grid
reinforced pavement on soft clay grounds. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 9
(2), 99–123.
Moghaddas-Nejad, F., Small, J.C., 1996. Effect of geogrid reinforcement in model
track tests on pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering 122 (6),
468–474.
Perkins, S.W., 1999. Mechanical response of geosynthetic reinforced flexible pave-
ments. Geosynthetics International 6 (5), 347–382.
Ramanatha Ayyar, T.S., Ramachandran Nair, C.G., Balakrishnan Nair, N. (Eds.), 2002.
Comprehensive reference book on coir geotextiles. Centre for Development of
Coir Technology (Publishers), Kerala.
Rao, G.V., Balan, K. (Eds.), 2000. Coir Geotextiles – Emerging Trends. The Kerala
State Coir Corporation Ltd (Publishers), Alappuzha, Kerala.
Rawal, A., Anandjiwala, R., 2007. Comparative study between needle punched non-
woven geotextile structures made from flax and polyester fibres. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes 25 (1), 61–65.
Reymond, G.P., 1992. Reinforced sand behaviour overlying compressible subgrades.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 118 (11), 1663–1680.
Raymond, G.P., Ismail, I., 2003. The effect of geogrid reinforcement on unbound
aggregates. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (6), 355–380.
Sankariah, B., Narahari, R., 1988. Bearing capacity of reinforced sand beds, in: Proc..
on First Indian Geotextile Conference on Reinforced soil and Geotextiles,
Bombay, India, pp. C11-C13.
Sarsby, R.W., 2007. Use of ‘Limited Life Geotextiles’ (LLGs) for basal reinforcement of
embankments built on soft clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (4-5),
302–310.
Som, N., Sahu, R.B., 1999. Bearing capacity of a geotextile-reinforced unpaved road
as a function of deformation – a model study. Geosynthetics International 6 (1),
1–17.
Subaida, E.A., Chandrakaran, S., Sankar, N., 2008. Experimental investigations on
tensile and pullout behaviour of woven coir geotextiles. Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes 26 (5), 384–392.