Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Effectiveness of geogrid reinforcement in improvement of mechanical

behavior of sand-contaminated ballast
Javad Sadeghi (PhD)a,∗, Ali Reza Tolou Kian (PhD)a, Hossein Ghiasinejad (PhD)b,
Mosarreza Fallah Moqaddam (MS)a, Sepehr Motevalli (MS)a
a
School of Railway Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Vertical stiffness and shear strength of ballasts are significantly degraded when contaminated with sands. There
Ballast is a lack of solutions/studies related to strengthening ballast against sand contamination. Addressing this lim-
Geogrid itation, a comprehensive laboratory investigation was made on effectiveness of geogrid reinforcement for im-
Shear strength provement of mechanical properties of sand-contaminated ballast. To this end, large-scale direct shear tests as
Plate load test
well as plate load tests were conducted on geogrid-reinforced ballast samples prepared with different levels of
Sand contamination
sand contamination. The obtained results indicate that geogrid reinforcement considerably improves shear
Railway track
strength and vertical stiffness of contaminated ballast. A bandwidth was obtained for contamination levels in
which ballast reinforcement is effective. Through examining geogrid with different aperture sizes and locations
in the ballast layer, the best performance conditions of geogrid reinforcement were derived. The results were
used to propose an effective method of ballast reinforcement and an efficient ballast maintenance approach in
sandy areas.

1. Introduction sand contamination seriously endanger track stability and safety of

A ballast layer fails to perform its functions when it gets con-
taminated because of infiltration of fine and sand materials from the
surface (Selig and Waters, 1994; Paixao et al., 2015; Sadeghi et al.,
2016, 2018; Sayeed and Shahin, 2018; Bian et al., 2019; Zhang et al.,
2020). In desert/sandy areas, contamination of ballast layers because of
sand storms is inevitable. This phenomenon is a serious challenge of
railway industries in the Asian and Middle East countries, southern part
of the USA, and North African regions (Bruno et al., 2018). Some views
of sand contaminated tracks in the Iran railway network are shown in
Fig. 1.
A review of the available literature indicates that when ballast gets
contaminated with sand, its shear strength and vertical stiffness are
considerably reduced (Koohmishi and Palassi, 2018; Danesh et al.,
2018; Esmaeili et al., 2017, 2018; Sun et al., 2019). Tolou Kian et al.
(2018a, 2018b)‘s experimental studies elucidate that decreases in
stiffness and strength of sand-contaminated ballast largely depend on
the degree of contamination. Although results of researches made into
the influences of sand contamination on ballast properties reveal that
train running, no remedy or improvement strategy has been developed/
suggested to eradicate or reduce adverse effects of sand contamination
on ballast performance.
In order to improve soil behavior, geogrid has been widely used in
earthworks (Das, 2016; Qian et al., 2013; Jayalath et al., 2018; Lees and
Clausen, 2019; Chawla et al., 2019). The main role of geogrid is me-
chanical improvement of soil engineering properties (Parsons et al.,
2012; Chen et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2019; Morsy et al.,
2019; Roodi and Zornberg, 2020). Geogrid, which is used for re-
inforcement of soil and granular materials, has generally grid openings
(apertures) with rectangular shape (Das, 2016; Hussaini et al., 2016;
Hussein and Meguid, 2016, Saha Roy and Deb, 2018, 2020). Although
application of geogrid in subgrade and ballast layers for improvement
of mechanical behavior of clean or clay fouled ballasts has been in-
vestigated in the available literature (Indraratna et al., 2011a, b, 2012a,
2013), its application in sand-contaminated ballast has not been studied
yet. Since sand contamination has serious adverse effects on safety of
railways (Tolou Kian et al., 2020; Koohmishi and Palassi, 2018), and
mechanical behavior of sand-contaminated ballasts is largely different

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: javad_sadeghi@iust.ac.ir (J. Sadeghi), ar_tkian@alumni.iust.ac.ir (A.R. Tolou Kian), hghiasinejad@iust.ac.ir (H. Ghiasinejad),
mosarreza_fallah@alumni.iust.ac.ir (M. Fallah Moqaddam), sepehr.s313@gmail.com (S. Motevalli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.05.007
Received 14 August 2019; Received in revised form 6 May 2020; Accepted 15 May 2020
0266-1144/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Javad Sadeghi, et al., Geotextiles and Geomembranes, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.05.007
J. Sadeghi, et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. Contamination of ballasted track with sand in Iran eastern rail network.

from that of the clean and clay-contaminated ballasts (Esmaeili et al., Table 1
2018), there is a need for an investigation on performance/effectiveness Properties of clean ballast and sand.
of geogrid reinforcement for improvement of ballast mechanical prop- Material Specific d50 mm Coefficient of Coefficient of
erties in sand contamination conditions. This research is a response to gravity uniformity curvature
this need. That is, the influences of geogrid reinforcement on the be-
havior of ballast contaminated with sands were investigated. To this Clean ballast 2.7 29 2.92 1.33
Sand 2.68 0.23 1.31 1.11
end, extensive tests (large-scale direct shear tests as well as plate load
tests) were conducted on geogrid-reinforced ballast samples prepared
with different dosages of sand. Various geogrid aperture sizes and dif- and characteristics of the sand and the ballast are presented in Fig. 2
ferent positions of geogrid within the contaminated ballast layer were and Table 1. In order to simulate the field condition, both ballast and
examined. The results obtained were used to elaborate the effectiveness sand samples were kept completely dry in the tests. To ensure the re-
and optimum conditions of geogrid reinforcement for improvement of peatability of the tests, the test procedure was kept the same (constant)
sand-contaminated ballast mechanical behavior. Through analysis of for all the samples.
the results, an effective approach for maintenance of railway tracks in The percentage of fouling (contamination) was used for quantifying
desert/sandy areas was obtained. contamination intensity. Selig and Waters (1994) defined percentage of
contamination as the ratio of the dry weight of contaminant particles
with size less than 9.5 mm to the total dry weight of the sample. In
2. Experimental program
addition to clean samples (i.e., zero percentage of contamination),
ballast samples with sand contamination of 6%, 12%, 18%, 24%, 30%
Shear strength and vertical stiffness of ballast are the main me-
and 36% were made for the tests. The fine portion of the clean ballast
chanical properties of railway ballast (Aursudkij et al., 2009; Tamim,
samples (crushed ballast material passing through sieve #4) was neg-
2017; Danesh et al., 2018). Therefore, in order to study the properties
ligible (less than 1%) when compared to sand dosages added to the
of ballast (with and without geogrid reinforcement), large-scale direct
samples.
shear tests and plate load tests (PLTs) were performed on several ballast
In order to examine the use of various types of geogrid in the tests,
samples prepared with various dosages of sand. The ballast samples
three different types of geogrid (commonly used in ballast) were used in
were made of dolomite limestone aggregates largely used in ballasted
the tests. That is, geogrids with square aperture size of 24 × 24 mm
railway tracks. The aggregate size distribution was in accordance with
(called hereafter 24 × 24 geogrid), 34 × 34 mm (called hereafter
Class 5 of the ballast gradation presented in Code 301 (2005). Sand
34 × 34 geogrid) and 46 × 46 mm (called hereafter 46 × 46 geogrid)
materials were sampled from Talle-Hamid railway block located in
were used. The properties of the geogrids are presented in Table 2. As
sandy areas of the Iranian eastern railway network. The size gradation

Fig. 2. Size distributions curve of clean ballast, sand and contaminated samples.

2
J. Sadeghi, et al.
Table 2
Technical properties of geogrid used in the present study (adapted from NAUE GmbH & Co. K.G., 2019 and Frag, 2008).
Property 24 × 24 geogrid
Material Polyester
Structure Extruded geogrid
Aperture shape Square
Mass per unit area (g/m2) 380
Maximum tensile strength (kN/m), md/cmda More than 30/More than 30
Elongation at nominal strength (%), md/cmda Less than 7/Less than 7
Tensile strength at 2% elongation (kN/m), md/ 13.5/13.5
cmda
Tensile strength at 5% elongation (kN/m), md/ 24/24
cmda
Aperture size (mm × mm), md × cmda 24 × 24
Some photos of geogrids used in the present
study
a
md and cmd denote machine longitudinal direction and machine cross direction respectively.
indicated in Table 2, the aperture shape of geogrids used in the tests is
square. Results of experimental tests conducted by Indraratna et al.
(2011a) have revealed that ballast samples reinforced with square
shape geogrid have exhibited higher shear strength than those re-
inforced with triangle shape one. This is because the triangular geogrids
have effective aperture relatively small in comparison to the mean
particle size of ballast. As indicated in Table 2, these types of geogrid
have approximately the same tensile strength. They have differences
mainly in their aperture size. Two different positions for geogrid were
considered in the ballast samples. In the first and second sets of the
tests, the geogrid was placed at 10 cm and 20 cm above the bottom of
the ballast samples, respectively. Placing geogrid at the bottom of the
ballast layer makes less interaction between ballast aggregates and the
geogrid as one side of geogrid is not in contact with the ballast. This has
been indicated by other researches too (including McDowell and
Stickley, 2006; Brown et al., 2007; Indraratna et al., 2013; Hussaini
et al., 2016; Das, 2016). The only problem of setting geogrid in a higher
level (within the ballast layer) is the possible disruption of tamping
(during maintenance). This can be avoided by placing the geogrid
above the bottom of the ballast, out of the tamping area. Two criteria
were considered in this research for the place of geogrid: (1) tamping
area (depth of tamping); and (2) the best possible performance of re-
inforced ballast.
For all the tests, the ballast was compacted in several layers. The dry
density of the ballast samples was obtained by dividing the weight of
the dried ballast samples by the volume of the samples. As a result,
1750 kg/m3 was obtained for the dry density of the clean ballast.
Altogether 49 samples were made/prepared. Seven samples without
reinforcement; fourteen samples with 24 × 24 geogrid; fourteen sam-
ples with 34 × 34 geogrid, and fourteen samples with 46 × 46 geogrid.
For easy recognition of each sample, a name was assigned to each
sample. Each name has three parts, making a dash sign between them.
The format of the sample name is “Ssand percentage-Ggeogrid type-Dlocation of
geogrid”. “Sand percentage” can be any of 0, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36; “type
of geogrid” can be 46, 34, and 24 corresponding to geogrid with aper-
ture sizes of 46 × 46, 34 × 34, and 24 × 24, respectively. “Location of
geogrid” can be 10 and 20 which corresponds to the distance of geogrid
sheet in centimeters form the bottom of the ballast. For example, “S6-
G24-D20” indicates a sample with 6 percent sand contamination, re-
inforced with 24 × 24 geogrid which is located 20 cm from the bottom
of the ballast. Samples names without geogrid reinforcement have the
format of “Ssand percentage-NoGeo”.
3
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
34 × 34 geogrid 46 × 46 geogrid
Polyester Polypropylen
Welded geogrid Welded geogrid
Square Square
320 300
More than 30/More than 30 More than 30/More than 30
Less than 7/Less than 7 Less than 8/Less than 8
13.5/13.5 10.5/10.5
24/24 24/24
34 × 34 46 × 46
3. Large-scale direct shear test
ASTM D3080, (2003) procedure was adapted to obtain shear
strength characteristics of ballast from direct shear tests. Direct shear
tests were conducted, using a large-scale direct shear test machine de-
signed and constructed by the authors in the School of Railway En-
gineering at Iran University of Science and Technology. The machine
was designed specifically for tests on railway ballast materials. Accu-
racy of the shear test results obtained by the machine was examined by
Tolou Kian et al. (2018a). They have shown that the results obtained
from this machine are repeatable and reliable.
3.1. Test set up and procedure
In this study, the direct shear test machine has a top shear box with
inside length, width and depth of 440 mm, 440 mm and 180 mm, re-
spectively. Also the machine has a lower shear box with inside length,
width, and depth of 540, 440 and 180 mm, respectively. They are in-
dicated in Fig. 3. These authors have previously shown that the sizes of
the boxes are large enough to minimize/eliminate their boundary
conditions effects on the results.
Each box of the machine was poured with ballast in two layers. By a
hand tamper, each layer was compacted. Wind-blown sand which
contaminates the ballast skeleton is compacted because of vibrations
induced by train passage. Compaction of ballast samples was made such
that it simulates track in-situ condition. For the samples with low
percentage of contamination (i.e., samples with 6% sand dosages),
some dry sand might accumulate at the bottom of the lower shear box.
This condition is the same as that occurs in railway fields (simulating
track in-situ condition). Through measuring ballast mass and thickness
of each layer (and consequently the ballast volume), the density of
ballast in the boxes was controlled during sample preparation. To
contaminate the ballast in the boxes, sand was distributed on the top of
each layer. This method provides contamination condition as in track
fields (Huang et al., 2009; Indraratna et al., 2011b; Rahman, 2013). For
the reinforced samples, two series of direct shear tests were conducted.
For the first series of the tests, after compaction of the ballast, a sheet of
geogrid was laid on the top of the ballast first layer in the lower shear
box as shown in Fig. 4a. The distance of the geogrid sheet from the
bottom of the lower shear box was 10 cm. For the second set, geogrid
was laid on the top of the ballast in the top shear box after the com-
pletion of the ballast compaction (as shown in Fig. 4b). The distance of
J. Sadeghi, et al.
Fig. 3. Set up of large-scale direct shear test machine.
the geogrid sheet from the bottom of the lower shear box was 20 cm.
For the geogrid reinforced samples, the tests were made with 24 × 24
geogrid, 34 × 34 geogrid and 46 × 46 geogrid, independently.
To begin the test, the lower shear box was moved horizontally at a
constant speed of 2 mm/min while the top shear box was secured in
place. The normal stress was applied on a solid steel plate which was
laid on the top of the specimen. Three normal stresses of 50, 100 and
150 kPa were applied separately on the samples. The normal pressure
was held constant during each test. In accordance with ASTM D3080
(2003), the direct shear tests were ended when either the maximum
shear force was achieved or the relative horizontal displacement be-
came 15% of the longitudinal dimension of the shear box. If a clear
peak is not obtained in the test, the shear force corresponding to the
relative horizontal displacement of 15% is considered as the maximum
shear force (ASTM D3080, 2003). To minimize probable errors in the
measurement, each test was conducted twice and the results were
averaged. Comparison of the results obtained from repetition of the
Fig. 4. Placement of a sheet of geogrid on the ballast in the shear boxes.
4
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
tests reveals that there was negligible discrepancy (small differences)
between the results. Also, results derived from extensive experiments in
the preliminary laboratory tests were used as a database and a criterion
to evaluate correctness and accuracy of the obtained results.
3.2. Test results and discussions
Shear stress versus horizontal displacement for the clean and the
sand-contaminated ballast samples with and without geogrid are pre-
sented in Figs. 5a to 5f. The influences of geogrid reinforcement on
ballast behavior when samples were clean are illustrated in Fig. 5a. The
influence of geogrid aperture size on behavior of sand contaminated
ballast is presented in Fig. 5a and c in which the distance of geogrid
sheet from bottom of the lower shear box are 10 cm and 20 cm, re-
spectively. The influence of geogrid position on behavior of sand con-
taminated ballast is indicated in Fig. 5b and d in which geogrid aperture
sizes are 34 mm and 46 mm, respectively. Also, in Fig. 5e and f, the
J. Sadeghi, et al.
Fig. 5. The shear stress versus horizontal displacement for ballast samples.
influence of geogrid position on behavior of ballast is illustrated when
the 24 × 24 geogrid was used. In accordance with ASTM D3080
(2003), horizontal displacement of the lower shear box was limited to
7 cm.
Comparison of the shear test results (indicated in Fig. 5) elucidates
that the shear stress versus horizontal displacement increases to a cer-
tain amount (a peak) and then gradually reduces due to cracks and
breakage of the sharp edges of the ballast granular particles/stones. As
illustrated in Fig. 5a, reinforcement with geogrid causes ballast samples
5
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
to exhibit more shear strength when compared to the unreinforced
sample. According to the results presented in Fig. 5, with increases in
sand dosages, the peak value of shear stress lessens. The diagram of
shear stress versus horizontal displacement (Fig. 5) reveals that as the
ballast gets more contaminated, the strain-softening behavior of ballast
is more recognizable. This is due to the lubrication of ballast particles
made by sands so that the particles are displaced and rearranged more
easily when compared to the clean ballasts. Also, results (as shown in
Fig. 5) indicate that, for a certain amount of sand contamination,
J. Sadeghi, et al.
Fig. 6. Mohr-Coulomb envelope curves of the ballast samples.
samples reinforced with the geogrid placed 10 cm above the bottom of
the lower shear box have a greater maximum shear stress. Based on the
results presented in Figs. 5d and 5f, when sand percentages are in-
creased from a certain amount, sand behavior is dominant in the mix-
ture of sand and ballast; consequently, characteristics of the sand and
ballast mixture is more significantly different from those of the clean
ballast (Fig. 5a).
Mohr-Coulomb (MC) envelopes for the ballast samples (i.e., the
maximum shear stress against normal pressure for each test) were
drawn in Fig. 6. For the clarity and better illustration/comprehension of
the results, the comparisons were presented for some selected percen-
tages of contaminations. That is, the variations of shear stresses against
normal stresses for only clean samples and those with sand con-
tamination of 12%, 24% and 36% are presented in Fig. 6.
The cohesion and the friction angle of the ballast samples were
obtained from the MC envelope expression as indicated hereunder
(Huang et al., 2009):
τ = σn tan ϕ + c (1)
In which, τ, σn, ø and c are the shear stress, the normal stress, the
friction angle, and the cohesion intercept, respectively. The trend of
changes in the friction angle of ballast samples due to sand con-
tamination is presented in Fig. 7.
Results presented in Fig. 7 proves that with an increase in the
6
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
amount of sand, the friction angle of ballast samples reduces for all of
the ballast samples with and without geogrid reinforcement. The results
indicate that reinforced samples had more friction angle (1% to 13%)
compared with the unreinforced samples for the clean condition.
Samples with 34 × 34 geogrid have higher friction angle when com-
pared with the samples reinforced with 24 × 24 geogrid and 46 × 46
geogrid.
In this study, the peak value of the shear stress obtained during the
direct shear test was considered as the shear strength (Indraratna et al.,
2011b). In Fig. 8, the average of the shear strength for various per-
centages of contamination is illustrated. The average of the shear
strength for each contamination percentage was computed based on the
results obtained from the tests performed with three normal stresses
(i.e., 50, 100 and 150 kPa).
As illustrated in Fig. 8, variation trends of the average shear
strength versus sand contamination is similar to those obtained for the
friction angle. Since ballast is a cohesion-less material, its strength
originates from the contact, friction, and interlocking between the ag-
gregates. When sand contamination increases, the shear strength de-
creases in the ballast samples with and without geogrid reinforcement.
This reduction of shear strength is due to infiltration of sand material
between ballast aggregates which results in decreases in contact and
friction between ballast particles. Results presented in Fig. 8 indicate
that the average of the shear strength of ballast samples reinforced with
J. Sadeghi, et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 7. Variation of friction angle of ballast samples versus percentages of contamination.

geogrid is more when compared to unreinforced samples. That is,
geogrid reinforcement improves shear strength of ballast (i.e., 1% to
25% increase in the average of the shear strength) with all geogrid
aperture sizes and geogrid positions and for all percentages of con-
tamination. The increase in the shear strength of reinforced ballast is
due to particle-grid interlocking. That is, augmentation of the shear
strength because of geogrid reinforcement is due to the interlocking of
ballast particles with geogrid apertures at the ballast-geogrid interface.
In other words, the mechanical interlock between the ballast particles
and the geogrid causes a better ballast aggregates resistance against any
movement or rearrangement. Geogrid limits particles displacement,
and as a result, contacts between particles were less disturbed during
shear movement. As can be inferred from results indicated in Figs. 7
and 8, samples reinforced with 34 × 34 geogrid have higher shear
strength and friction angle compared with those reinforced with the
two other geogrids. It is due to a better interlocking of ballast stones
with 34 × 34 geogrid aperture. This is further elaborated in Section 5.
The shear test results (as presented in Fig. 8) reveal that by raising
the amounts of sand content, the influences of geogrid on shear strength
noticeably decreases. However, as the sand dosage becomes higher than
24%, the difference between shear strength of unreinforced samples
and reinforced samples reduces. Void analysis of ballast samples used in
the tests indicates that when sand percentage of contamination reaches
around 24%, the total spaces between the ballast particles are thor-
oughly occupied with sand material. Due to highly sand coating of
ballast particles, the contact and friction between the ballast particles
are reduced, and in turn, the internal shear strength of the ballast
(provided by inter-particle interaction) decreases. Because of

Fig. 8. Variation of shear strength of ballast samples versus percentages of contamination.

7
J. Sadeghi, et al.
surrounding aggregates with sand, interlocking of the ballast and geo-
grid considerably decreases and the interlocked particles slip and slide
on the grids.
4. Plate load test
To study the vertical load-deformation behavior and stiffness of
ballasts (contaminated with sands and reinforced with geogrid), the
strain modulus (EV) of ballast samples was obtained. EV of ballast
samples in the first and second cycle of loading (i.e., EV1 and EV2) were
derived using repetitive PLT in accordance with DIN 18134 procedures
(2012). Clean samples and samples with sand contamination of 6%,
12%, 18%, 24%, 30% and 36% were prepared for the PLTs.
4.1. Test set up and procedure
Two sets of PLTs were conducted. In the first sets, PLTs were con-
ducted on the sand contaminated ballast samples without reinforce-
ment; and in the second sets, PLTs were made on the sand contaminated
ballast samples reinforced with geogrid. The geogrid used in the tests
are presented in Table 2.
To prepare the ballast samples for the PLTs, ballast materials were
placed in a large steel chamber. The length, width and depth of the
chamber were 120 cm, 120 cm and 100 cm, respectively (as shown in
Fig. 9. Set up of plate load test.
8
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 9c). The chamber was installed under the beam of a steel solid
reaction frame. The frame was clamped firmly to a strong large concrete
foundation. The overall views of the steel chamber and the rigid frame
are presented in Fig. 9a.
Ballast was placed in the chamber in three layers. Thickness of
compacted ballast in the chamber was 30 cm which is the same as the
ballast layer depth under sleepers in railway fields. Dry density of
compacted clean ballast was 17.5 kN/m3. To contaminate the ballast in
the chamber, the method used in the direct shear test was adapted. That
is, following compaction of one layer, certain amounts of sand were
distributed on the top of the layer. For samples with 6% sand con-
tamination, some dry sands might slide down to the bottom of the
chamber. This is similar to in-situ condition of railway track. For the
geogrid reinforced samples, a sheet of geogrid was placed on the top of
the first ballast compacted layer as shown in Fig. 9d (i.e., distance of
geogrid sheet above the ballast base was 10 cm). In the second set of
tests, the geogrid sheet was placed on the top of the second ballast
compacted layer (i.e., distance of geogrid sheet above the ballast base
was 20 cm). To apply the normal stress on the ballast surface, a steel
solid round plate which has diameter of 200 mm was used. The normal
pressure was applied through a hydraulic jack which was capable of
applying the pressure in several stages. The applied load was measured
by a load cell during the test. The jack and the underneath load cell
were fixed under the beam of the frame. Some steel solid plates and
J. Sadeghi, et al.
cylinders were used as a force transmission instrument between the
solid round plate (laid on the top of the sample) and the load cell (fixed
to the jack). The assembly of the jack, load cell, solid plates and cy-
linders and rigid round plate was restrained in order to prevent any
sliding, tilting or deviations during the test. The assemblage of the
equipment is presented in Fig. 9b.
The sizes of the chamber (120 × 120 cm2) are four times greater
than the diameter of the round rigid plate. In this condition, free dis-
tribution of the stress on the ballast was provided, and therefore, the
influence of the chamber boundary conditions on the test results was
negligible (Das and Sobhan, 2013; Kar et al., 2012).
A pre-pressure of 0.01 MPa was applied on the round rigid plate
followed by the first cycle of loading in six stages with the same in-
crement. It was continued until the highest amount of pressure was
obtained (DIN 18134, 2012). Unloading was made in 3 stages corre-
sponding to 50%, 25% and 2% of the maximum pressure. It was fol-
lowed by the second cycle of the loading. In the 2nd cycle, the pressure
was increased in five stages with the same increment. The tests were
terminated when either reaching 0.5 MPa of the normal stress beneath
the round plate, or obtaining 5 mm of vertical displacement. If the
settlement of 5 mm was obtained first, the normal stress obtained at this
stage was considered as the pressure peak value. According to the lit-
erature (Paderno, 2011), two important indicators of mechanical
properties of the railway ballast are EV1 and EV2 which can be obtained
by the first and second cycles of loading, respectively. As shown in
Fig. 12, EV2 were derived and used for investigation of ballast stiffness
in this research. EV1 is generally concerned with the in-situ density of
ballast and its very short term properties; whereas EV2 is more related to
the mid to approximately long time characteristics (Paderno, 2011). It
indicates that the considered number of loading cycles is appropriate
for railway application.
4.2. Test results and discussions
The ballast settlement against the normal pressure for the ballast
samples (i.e., unreinforced samples and samples reinforced with
34 × 34 geogrid at the distance of 10 cm from the bottom of the bal-
last) for sand contamination of 0%, 12%, 24% and 36%, obtained from
PLTs are presented in Figs. 10 and 11. In order to minimize possible
errors in the test results, each test was conducted twice and the ob-
tained results were averaged. Differences between the test results and
those of the test repetition for each sample were negligible. This in-
dicates that the test procedure is repeatable and valid.
As presented in Figs. 10 and 11, with increase of contamination, the
settlement and permanent displacement of ballast layer become more in
both reinforced and unreinforced ballast samples. Results presented in
Figs. 10 and 11 indicate that geogrid causes reductions (5% to 30%) in
the ballast settlement (vertical deformation). The decrease in ballast
settlement was made because the geogrid restrains and limits the
movement and rotation of the ballast aggregates.
Based on DIN 18134 (2012), strain modulus was computed based on
the parameters drawn from the best fitted curve on the variations of the
settlement versus the normal pressure. According to DIN 18134 (2012),
the fitted curve has the following format:
S = a0 + a1 σ0 + a2 σ02 (2)
In which, S, σ0 are the settlement of the ballast and the average
normal stress under the plate, respectively. a0, a1 and a2 are the con-
stant parameters of the fitted curve. Using the constants derived from
Equation (2), EV was computed based on the following expression (DIN
18134, 2012):
1.5r
EV =
a1 + a2 σmax (3)
In which, EV, and r are the strain modulus and the radius of the
round rigid plate, respectively. σmax is the peak value of the normal
9
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
pressure under the round rigid plate in the first cycle of loading. Using
Equation (3), the strain modulus in the 2nd cycle of loading for all
samples was computed. The results presented in Fig. 12 demonstrate
the effects of sand dosages on the strain modulus of the reinforced and
unreinforced samples.
Fig. 12 indicates that as sand contamination increases, EV2 of ballast
samples decreases. Trend of stiffness reduction for the reinforced and
unreinforced ballast samples due to sand contamination are similar to
that of the shear strength reduction for the ballast samples. That is,
when sand dosages exceed 24%, considerable decrease in strain mod-
ulus of contaminated ballast takes place. For instance, 57% and 48%
decreases in the EV2 took place for the unreinforced sample and the
sample reinforced with 34 × 34 geogrid when the percentage of sand
contamination is 36%. In other words, because of filling the ballast
voids and covering the ballast particle surfaces with sand, friction, in-
terlocking and contact points between ballast aggregates significantly
reduce and in turn, ballast stiffness lessens. Results presented in Fig. 12,
indicate that the strain modulus and stiffness of the clean ballast sam-
ples increase from 5% to 24% when geogrid reinforcement is used. In
fact, geogrid prevents lateral expansion of ballast particles, and con-
sequently limits ballast settlement. This helps ballast to sustain applied
vertical forces with less vertical displacement. As the ballast settlement
decreases (under the normal pressures), the stiffness (i.e. slope of load-
deformation curve) of the reinforced samples increases.
5. Geogrid performance and optimum condition
The results obtained prove that geogrid reinforcement significantly
reduces contaminated ballast settlement (i.e., increases ballast vertical
stiffness up to 24%) and increases ballast shear strength (up to 25%). In
other words, geogrid reinforcement considerably reduces the detri-
mental effects of sand contamination, particularly when the con-
tamination is less than 24%.
The results indicate that the method of using geogrid (its type and
position within the ballast) has considerable effect on its performance.
The optimum conditions (i.e., the best performance condition) of geo-
grid in sand-contaminated ballast were studied based on the results
obtained here. Analysis of the results presented in Figs. 8 and 12 shows
that geogrid with 34 × 34 mm aperture size causes more shear strength
and strain modulus compared to the geogrids with 24 × 24 mm and
46 × 46 mm aperture sizes, regardless of geogrid position in the bal-
last. Since d50 of ballast materials (i.e., diameter of particle which 50%
of ballast particles are finer) is 29 mm, a large amount of ballast ag-
gregates (aggregates with sizes larger than 29 mm) interact with
34 × 34 mm grids and in turn, the shear strength and stiffness of ballast
sample are significantly increased. On the other hand, size of 24 × 24
geogrid aperture is too small to completely trap the particles with the
sizes greater than 30 mm and consequently, the shear strength and
stiffness of ballast samples are less than those reinforced with 34 × 34
geogrid. Also, when 46 × 46 mm geogrid was used, less number of
ballast particles interlock with grids (i.e., ballast particles are too small
to completely interact with 46 × 46 geogrid), and as a result, the
46 × 46 geogrid is less effective compared to the 34 × 34 geogrid. In
other words, 34 × 34 geogrid has the most effectiveness in prevention
of movement and rotation of ballast particles when compared to the
geogrids with smaller or larger aperture sizes. This is in good agreement
with results obtained by Indraratna et al. (2012b) regarding the most
effective geogrid aperture size for improvement of ballast performance.
Note that Indraratna et al. (2012b) found that if the ratio of the geogrid
aperture size to d50 of ballast materials ranges from 0.95 to 1.20, the
most efficiency of geogrid will be obtained. It is important to note that,
regardless of the amounts of sand, unreinforced samples sustained less
shear stress compared with reinforced samples. Because D50 of ballast
aggregates was 29 mm, the geogrid with the smallest aperture size (i.e.,
24 × 24 geogrid) could make interlocking with some of ballast parti-
cles; in turn, displacement of ballast stones were confined. As a
J. Sadeghi, et al.
Fig. 10. Normal pressure versus settlement for unreinforced samples.
consequence, more shear force (and larger pressure in PLT) was needed
to displace the stones when compared to unreinforced samples. How-
ever, if geogrid aperture size is very small, the geogrid might act as a
sliding surface and reduce the shear strength of the ballast. Therefore, a
geogrid with apparatus size less than a certain amount not only improve
mechanical properties of ballast but also reduce shear strength of bal-
lasts.
Also, results obtained (Figs. 8 and 12) indicate that reinforced
samples with the geogrid located at 100 mm from the bottom of the
ballast layer have more shear strength and strain modulus when com-
pared to those with the geogrid at 200 mm from the bottom of the
ballast layer. When geogrid was located at the level of 100 mm from the
bottom, a large number of ballast aggregates were placed above the
geogrid, and therefore, more interlocking between grids and aggregates
takes place. In other words, due to the position of geogrid placement,
more ballast aggregates infiltrate into geogrid opening. Also, other
aggregates far from the geogrid position are confined because of the
angular properties of the stone particles. This has resulted in greater
shear strength and strain modulus of the reinforced ballasts. Moreover,
this position of the geogrid has fewer problems for regular tamping and
stabilizing of railway ballasts.
Taking into consideration the satisfactory effects of geogrid re-
inforcement on ballast mechanical characteristics (as illustrated in this
research), reinforcement of ballast layer by geogrid (i.e., placement of
34 × 34 geogrid at the distance of 10 cm from the bottom of ballast
layer) in sandy areas is suggested as it maintains/improves the ballast
quality conditions (performance) against frequent sand storms.
6. Conclusions
When ballast gets contaminated with sands, it fails to play its ex-
pected roles in the track and therefore, jeopardizes track safety. Despite
10
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
this important adverse effect of sand contamination, there is a lack of
sufficient studies into strengthening/reinforcing ballast layer against
this phenomenon. Addressing this limitation, a thorough experimental
study including direct shear tests and plate load tests were conducted to
investigate the effectiveness of geogrid reinforcement in improvement
of mechanical behavior of sand-contaminated ballast. Clean ballast
samples (i.e., without any contamination) and samples with various
percentages of sands were prepared for the tests. The results obtained
indicate that sand contamination makes substantial reductions in the
shear strength (up to 33% decrease), the friction angle (up to 23%
decrease) and the strain modulus (up to 57% decrease) of ballast layers.
The results obtained indicate that geogrid reinforcement sig-
nificantly reduces the adverse effects of ballast contamination. That is,
it reduces contaminated ballast settlement, increases ballast vertical
stiffness (up to 24%), and increases ballast shear strength (up to 25%).
Mechanical properties of contaminated ballasts were improved because
the rotation and rearrangement of the ballast stones/aggregates were
restrained by the geogrid. That is, the interaction between ballast stones
and geogrid aperture causes mechanical interlocking between ballast
particles and grid opening at geogrid-ballast interface, and as a result,
more force is required to displace and slide aggregates (i.e., improve-
ment of the shear strength and stiffness of ballast).
In order to derive the best performance condition of geogrid (op-
timum reinforcement), application of various geogrid aperture sizes and
its positions/locations within the ballast layer were studied. It was
concluded that 34 × 34 geogrid located at 10 cm above the ballast base
has the most positive effect on ballast shear strength and stiffness. This
is in good agreement with what reported in the literature regarding
aperture size of geogrid for ballast reinforcement. Also, the proposed
geogrid location in the ballast is more practical since it has less pro-
blems for regular railway tamping and stabilization compared to other
locations.
J. Sadeghi, et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 11. Normal pressure versus settlement for geogrid reinforced samples with 34 × 34 geogrid at the distance of 10 cm from the ballast base.

Taking into consideration the proven effectiveness of geogrid re- contamination of ballast exceeds 24%, the geogrid reinforcement does
inforcement (illustrated in this research), ballast reinforcement is sug- not have sufficient effectiveness and ballast cleaning is strongly sug-
gested for eradication (or large reduction) of the detrimental effects of gested.
sand contamination of railways. The best reinforcement performance is
achieved when using geogrid with the aperture size of 3 cm located at
10 cm from the bottom of the ballast layer. However, if sand

Fig. 12. Variation of the strain modulus against dosage of sand contamination in the second cycle of loading.

11
J. Sadeghi, et al.
References
ASTM D3080/D3080M, 2003. Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils under
Consolidated Drained Conditions. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Aursudkij, B., McDowell, G.R., Collop, A.C., 2009. Cyclic loading of railway ballast under
triaxial conditions and in a railway test facility. Granul. Matter 11 (6), 391–401.
Bian, X., Li, W., Qian, Y., Tutumluer, E., 2019. Analysing the effect of principal stress
rotation on railway track settlement by discrete element method. Geotechnique 1–19
(Ahead of print).
Brown, S.F., Kwan, J., Thom, N.H., 2007. Identifying the key parameters that influence
geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast. Geotext. Geomembranes 25 (6), 326–335.
Bruno, L., Horvat, M., Raffaele, L., 2018. Windblown sand along railway infrastructures: a
review of challenges and mitigation measures. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerod. 177,
340–365.
Chawla, S., Shahu, J.T., Gupta, R.K., 2019. Design methodology for reinforced railway
tracks based on threshold stress approach. Geosynth. Int. 26 (2), 111–120.
Chen, C., McDowell, G.R., Thom, N.H., 2013. A study of geogrid-reinforced ballast using
laboratory pull-out tests and discrete element modelling. Geomechanics Geoengin. 8
(4), 244–253.
Code 301, 2005. Iranian National Code 301: General Technical Specification of
Superstructure of Ballasted Railway Track. Vice-Presidency for Strategic Planning
and Supervision. Islamic Republic of Iran, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
Danesh, A., Palassi, M., Mirghasemi, A.A., 2018. Effect of sand and clay fouling on the
shear strength of railway ballast for different ballast gradations. Granul. Matter 20
(3), 1–14.
Das, B.M., 2016. Use of geogrid in the construction of railroads. Innovative Infra.
Solutions 1 (1), 1–15.
Das, B.M., Sobhan, K., 2013. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, eighth ed. Cengage
Learning, Stamford, USA, pp. 726.
Din 18134, 2012. Soil-Testing Procedures and Testing Equipment-Plate Load Test.
English Translation of DIN 18134:2012-04, Translation by DIN-Sprachendienst.
Esmaeili, M., Aela, P., Hosseini, A., 2017. Experimental assessment of cyclic behavior of
sand-fouled ballast mixed with tire derived aggregates. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 98,
1–11.
Esmaeili, M., Aela, P., Hosseini, A., 2018. Effect of moisture on performance of mixture of
sand-fouled ballast and tire-derived aggregates under cyclic loading. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 31 (2), 04018377.
Farag, G.S.F., 2008. Lateral Spreading in Basal Reinforced Embankments Supported by
Pile-like Elements. Kassel University Press GmbH, pp. 182.
Huang, H., Tutumluer, E., Dombrow, W., 2009. Laboratory characterization of fouled
railroad ballast behavior. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Research Board 2117,
93–101.
Hussaini, S.K.K., Indraratna, B., Vinod, J.S., 2016. A laboratory investigation to assess the
functioning of railway ballast with and without geogrids. Transport. Geotech. 6,
45–54.
Hussein, M.G., Meguid, M.A., 2016. A three-dimensional finite element approach for
modeling biaxial geogrid with application to geogrid-reinforced soils. Geotext.
Geomembranes 44 (3), 295–307.
Indraratna, B., Hussaini, S.K.K., Vinod, J.S., 2011a. On the shear behavior of ballast-
geosynthetic interfaces. Geotech. Test J. 35 (2), 305–312.
Indraratna, B., Ngo, N.T., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., 2011b. Behavior of geogrid-reinforced
ballast under various levels of fouling. Geotext. Geomembranes 29 (3), 313–322.
Indraratna, B., Ngo, N.T., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., 2012a. Deformation of coal fouled ballast
stabilized with geogrid under cyclic load. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (8),
1275–1289.
Indraratna, B., Hussaini, S.K.K., Vinod, J.S., 2012b. On the shear behavior of ballast-
geosynthetic interfaces. Geotech. Test J. 35 (2), 305–312.
Indraratna, B., Hussaini, S.K.K., Vinod, J.S., 2013. The lateral displacement response of
geogrid-reinforced ballast under cyclic loading. Geotext. Geomembranes 39, 20–29.
Jayalath, G., Prasad, C., Gallage, C., Dhanasekar, M., Dareeju, B.S., Ramanujam, J., Lee,
J., 2018. Pavement model tests to investigate the effects of geogrid as subgrage re-
inforcement. In: Liu, H., Mills, P., Ruxton, N., Mazengarb, C. (Eds.), 12th Australian
and New Zealand Young Geotechnical Professionals Conference. Australian
12
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Geomechanics Society, Australia, pp. 1–8 6-9 November 2018, Hobart, Tasmania.
Kar, R.K., Pradhan, P.K., Naik, A., 2012. Plate load test on fiber-reinforced cohesive soil.
Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 17, 633–649.
Koohmishi, M., Palassi, M., 2018. Effect of gradation of aggregate and size of fouling
materials on hydraulic conductivity of sand-fouled railway ballast. Construct. Build.
Mater. 167, 514–523.
Lees, A.S., Clausen, J., 2019. Strength envelope of granular soil stabilized by multi-axial
geogrid in large triaxial tests. Can. Geotech. J. 999, 1–5.
Liu, S., Huang, H., Qiu, T., Kwon, J., 2016. Effect of geogrid on railroad ballast particle
movement. Transport. Geotech. 9, 110–122.
McDowell, G., Stickley, P., 2006. Performance of geogrid-reinforced ballast. Ground Eng.
39 (1), 26–30.
Morsy, A.M., Zornberg, J.G., Leshchinsky, D., Han, J., 2019. Soil–reinforcement inter-
action: effect of reinforcement spacing and normal stress. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 145 (12), 04019115.
NAUE GmbH, Co, K.G., 2019. www.naue.com.
Paderno, C., 2011. Improving ballast tamping process. In: Proceeding of World Congress
on Railway Research, Lille, France, May, 2011.
Paixao, A., Fortunato, E., Calçada, R., 2015. Design and construction of backfills for
railway track transition zones. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. - Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit 229
(1), 58–70.
Parsons, R., Jowkar, M., Han, J., 2012. Performance of Geogrid Reinforced Ballast under
Dynamic Loading (No. 25-1121-0001-363). Mid-America Transportation Center.
Qian, Y., Mishra, D., Tutumluer, E., Kwon, J., 2013. Comparative evaluation of different
aperture geogrids for ballast reinforcement through triaxial testing and discrete
element modeling. In: Proceedings of Geosynthetics. California, USA.
Rahman, A.J., 2013. Permeability, Resistivity and Strength of Fouled Railroad Ballast.
Master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Kansas, USA, pp. 101.
Roodi, G.H., Zornberg, J.G., 2020. Long-term field evaluation of a geosynthetic-stabilized
roadway founded on expansive clays. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 146 (4),
05020001.
Sadeghi, J., Tolou Kian, A.R., Shater Khabbazi, A., 2016. Improvement of mechanical
properties of railway track concrete sleepers using steel fibers. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28
(11), 04016131.
Sadeghi, J., Zakeri, J.A., Tolou Kian, A.R., 2018. Effect of unsupported sleepers on rail
track dynamic behaviour. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.-Transport 171 (5), 286–298.
Saha Roy, S., Deb, K., 2018. Closely spaced rectangular footings on sand over soft clay
with geogrid at the interface. Geosynth. Int. 25 (4), 412–426.
Saha Roy, S., Deb, K., 2020. Effect of aspect ratio of footing on behavior of two closely-
spaced footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotext. Geomembranes. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.02.003. (Article (in press).
Sayeed, M.A., Shahin, M.A., 2018. Design of ballasted railway track foundations using
numerical modelling. Part II: Applications. Can. Geotech. J. 55 (3), 369–396.
Selig, E.T., Waters, J.M., 1994. Track Geotechnology and Substructure Management.
Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 446.
Sun, Q., Indraratna, B., Ngo, N.T., 2019. Effect of increase in load and frequency on the
resilience of railway ballast. Geotechnique 69 (9), 833–840.
Tamim, M.M., 2017. Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Hybrid Geosynthetic Reinforcement
System to Mitigate Differential Heave on Flexible Pavement Due to Expansive
Subgrades, Doctoral Dissertation. Boise State University, pp. 127.
Tolou Kian, A.R., Sadeghi, J., Zakeri, J.A., 2018a. Large-scale direct shear tests on sand-
contaminated ballast. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng.-Geotech. Eng. 171 (5), 451–461.
Tolou Kian, A.R., Zakeri, J.A., Sadeghi, J., 2018b. Experimental investigation of effects of
sand contamination on strain modulus of railway ballast. Geomech. Eng. 14 (6),
563–570.
Tolou Kian, A.R., Sadeghi, J., Zakeri, J.A., 2020. Influences of railway ballast sand con-
tamination on loading pattern of pre-stressed concrete sleeper. Construct. Build.
Mater. 233, 117324.
Yu, Z., Woodward, P.K., Laghrouche, O., Connolly, D.P., 2019. True triaxial testing of
geogrid for high speed railways. Transport. Geotech. 100247.
Zhang, X., Thompson, D., Jeong, H., Toward, M., Herron, D., Jones, C., Vincent, N., 2020.
Measurements of the high frequency dynamic stiffness of railway ballast and sub-
grade. J. Sound Vib. 468, 115081.