See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336872391

Experimental and numerical studies on geotextile reinforced subgrade soil

Article  in  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · October 2019

DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2019.1684654

CITATIONS READS

2 307

2 authors:

Madhu Sudan Negi Sanjay Singh

Indian Institute of Technology Mandi Punjab Engineering College
4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   229 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

unsaturated soil behaviour View project

Micromechanical modelling of granular media View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Madhu Sudan Negi on 05 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Experimental and numerical studies on geotextile

reinforced subgrade soil

Madhu Sudan Negi & S.K. Singh

To cite this article: Madhu Sudan Negi & S.K. Singh (2019): Experimental and numerical studies
on geotextile reinforced subgrade soil, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/19386362.2019.1684654

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1684654

Published online: 28 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1684654

Experimental and numerical studies on geotextile reinforced subgrade soil

Madhu Sudan Negi and S.K. Singh
Civil Engineering Department, Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Experimental and numerical studies were undertaken to study the effect of geotextile used for subgrade Received 13 June 2019
reinforcement. The standard laboratory California bearing ratio (CBR) test was conducted on the soil Accepted 11 October 2019
reinforced with geotextile. Two different types of subgrade soil, sandy and clayey soil, and two types of KEYWORDS
geotextiles (woven and non-woven) were used in this study. The geotextile reinforcements were placed CBR; sandy and clayey soils;
in samples in various combinations in one, two and three layers. The effects of type of geotextile and non-woven geotextile;
position and number of geotextile layers on the strength of subgrade were investigated. An increase in subgrade; ABACUS; FEM;
CBR value was observed due to the inclusion of woven geotextile reinforcement in the subgrade. It was reinforcement; woven
also observed that woven geotextile performed better than non-woven geotextile. Finite-element pro- geotextile
gram ABACUS is also used to back analyse the experimentally calculated CBR values and found to be in
good agreement with experimental results.

1. Introduction However, this study mainly focuses on the effect of geotex-

tile on subgrade reinforcement. The benefits of using geotex-
Subgrade stabilization becomes important where the local soil
tiles as a reinforcement are found to be most significant in
available is weak to support the traffic loads. There are several
weak subgrades of California bearing ratio (CBR) less than 3%
methods available for subgrade stabilization, either mechanical
as shown by Duncan-Williams and Attoh-Okine (2008) and
or chemical, but all of these methods require skilled manpower
Hufenus et al. (2006). Many researchers also indicate that
and costly equipment. The use of geosynthetics nowadays has
geotextiles which possess high tensile capacity are most effec-
recognized as an effective means of soil reinforcement.
tive for subgrade reinforcement (Christopher and Holtz 1985;
Nowadays, different types of geosynthetic materials are used
De Groat et al. 1986; Robnett and Lai 1982). The location of
in the pavement for performing various functions such as
geosynthetic reinforcement is one of the key factors affecting
separation, filtration, lateral drainage and reinforcement.
the bearing capacity of reinforced soil. Higher bearing capacity
Several researchers (Giroud and Noiray 1981; Perkins 2001)
has been generally observed by many researchers in experi-
recommended that the performance of pavement can be
mental studies on laboratory specimens (Singh, Trivedi, and
improved due to the geosynthetic reinforcement. Even in
Shukla 2019; Fragaszy and Lawton 1984; Sankariah and
cases where the stabilization application is primarily selected
Narahari 1988; Raymond 1992) when the geosynthetic is
for initial construction, geosynthetics can provide long-term
placed at the upper half of the sample.
benefits and improve the performance of the road over its
In recent years, many finite-element (FE) studies were also
design life (Zoenberg 2012). A geosynthetic placed for one of
conducted for examining the behaviour of geotextile-
the several roadway applications may increase pavement life,
reinforced soils. Rashidian, Naeini, and Mirzakhanlari (2018)
decrease construction costs, and reduce required aggregate
conducted an experimental and numerical analysis on the
thickness. Geotextiles and geogrid are among the two types
effect of geotextile reinforcement on bearing capacity of gran-
of geosynthetic which are widely used in pavement.
ular soils. Bergado et al. (2001) conducted CBR tests on soft
Lots of researches have been carried out for evaluating the
soil overlain by sand reinforced with non-woven geotextile
effects of using geotextile and geogrid as reinforcing material
which acts as a separator; also, FE analysis using the PLAXIS
within the pavement system. Many of which conducted large-
software was done to back analyse the results of the CBR tests.
scale field tests (Al-Qadi et al. 2008; Cuelho and Perkins 2017;
In most of the studies, the geotextile layer had been used as
Hufenus et al. 2006) and laboratory model tests (Aiban et al.
a separator, i.e. at the interface of subgrade and sub-base layer.
2006; Kiptoo et al. 2017). Laboratory experiments have also been
Very few studies had used the geotextile as a reinforcing ele-
conducted by many researchers (Som and Sahu 1999; Rashidian,
ment within subgrade soil in a single layer only, and also, there
Naeini, and Mirzakhanlari 2018; Duncan-Williams and Attoh-
is a confusion about the optimum placement location of the
Okine 2008; Naeini and Mirzakhanlari 2008; Singh, Trivedi, and
geotextile layer. The present study investigates the effect of
Shukla 2019) to understand the effect of geosynthetic as
geotextile in single as well as in multiple layers at different
a reinforcing material in the subgrade. The results showed that
placement levels in two different types of soil, viz. sandy and
the geosynthetic used as a subgrade reinforcement can signifi-
clayey soil. Also, the experimental results are validated through
cantly improve the strength characteristics of subgrade.

CONTACT Madhu Sudan Negi msudan999@gmail.com Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh 160012, India
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. S. NEGI AND S. K. SINGH

numerical modelling using FEM-based software ABACUS. limits, and strength parameters were tested in laboratory and
The mechanism of load transfer in the case of reinforced are tabulated in Table 1.
subgrade is discussed in the light of results obtained through
FEM analysis. 2.1.2. Geotextile
Geotextiles are permeable, polymeric textile products in the
form of flexible sheets. Two types of geotextile, i.e. woven and
2 Experimental programme
non-woven geotextile, were used in this study (Figure 3).
2.1. Materials Woven geotextiles are made from yarns by conventional weav-
ing process with regular textile structure. These have visible
Two types of soils having different strength characteristics
distinct construction pattern having high tensile strength.
have been chosen for this study. Soil 1 is a sandy type soil
Non-woven geotextiles are made from directionally or ran-
having soaked CBR of 19.6% and soil 2 is a clayey soil with
domly oriented fibres into a loose web by bonding with partial
soaked CBR value of 1.78%. For analysing the effect of different
melting, needle punching or chemical binding agents. These
types of geotextile on CBR of soil, two types of geotextile, i.e.
have a random pattern and have low tensile strength. Some
woven and non-woven geotextiles, were used in this study.
physical properties of geotextiles as provided by the manufac-
turer are summarized in Table 2.
2.1.1. Soil
The sandy soil (soil 1) used in the experiment was collected
from Chandigarh and used for the comparative study with 2.2. CBR testing
weak clayey soil (soil 2) which was collected from village
For understanding the strength improvement of reinforced
Sarsod, district Hisar, Haryana (India). The particle size dis-
soil, laboratory CBR test on unreinforced soil samples and
tributions for the soils (Figure 1) were determined based on
samples reinforced with woven and non-woven geotextile
wet sieve analysis. In soil 2, the percentage of particles passing
was conducted. CBR test on soils was performed by the stan-
0.075 mm sieve was more than 50%; hence, hydrometer test
dard procedure mentioned in IS-2720 (Part-16) by compacting
was used for the particle size distribution. Soil 1 and soil 2 were
the specimen in three equal layers on OMC to achieve the
classified as SP-SM (poorly graded silty sand) and CL (clay
with low plasticity), respectively, according to Indian Standard
Classification System IS 1498(1970) which is equivalent to 18
MDD = 17.12 kN/m3, OMC = 12 %
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Standard Proctor Soil 1
test conforming to IS:2720 (Part 7) was used for determining 17
Soil 2
the optimum moisture content (OMC) and maximum dry
Dry density (kN/m3)

16
density (MDD) of soils. For this test, the soil was compacted MDD = 15.1 kN/m3, OMC = 18 %
in a 1000 cc mould in three equal layers by giving 25 number of 15
blows to each layer by a 2.6 kg rammer falling from a height of
14
310 mm. The MDD obtained from the standard Proctor test
was 17.12 and 15.10 kN/m3 for soil 1 and soil 2, respectively 13
(Figure 2). For obtaining the shear strength parameters of soils,
consolidated undrained triaxial tests on different confining 12
pressure were conducted on the remoulded soil by preparing
11
soil specimen on its MDD by adding the OMC. The stress–
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
strain curves of soil are nonlinear, so the modulus of elasticity Water Content (%)
was calculated corresponding to the initial tangent to the
stress–strain curves obtained from the triaxial test. More geo- Figure 2. Compaction curve of soils (based on standard Proctor test).
technical properties of soils such as specific gravity, Atterberg
Table 1. Geotechnical properties of soil.
100 Properties Soil 1 Soil 2
90 Gravel (%) (>4.75 mm) 2.1 0
Sand (%) (4.75–0.075 mm) 87.3 3
80 Soil 1
Silt (%) (0.075–0.002 mm) 67
soil 2
Clay (%) (<0.002 mm) 10.6a 30
Percentage passing

70
Uniformity coefficient, Cu 3.33 –
60
Curvature coefficient, Cc 1.2 –
50 Specific gravity 2.67 2.71
40 Optimum moisture content (%) 12 18
Maximum dry density (kN/m3) 17.12 15.10
30
Cohesion c (kPa) 1.68 30
20 Friction angle (°) 34.7 1
Modulus of elasticity E, (MPa) 32 3
10
Liquid limit (%) – 46
0 Plasticity index (%) – 23
0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000 Free swell index, FSI (%) – 22.7
Particle size (mm)
USCS classification SP-SM CL
Figure 1. Particle size distributions by wet sieving. a
% Silt + % clay.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3

Figure 3. Geotextile: (a) woven and (b) non-woven.

corresponding to the OMC and then compacted in three layers

Table 2. Properties of geotextile (courtesy of Puritec Ltd., Mohali). for unreinforced case.
Properties Woven geotextile Non-woven geotextile For preparing reinforced specimens, the geotextile was cut
Designation wgt nwgt in the form of a circular disk of diameter slightly less than the
Weight (g/m2 ) 400 150 diameter of CBR mould. The geotextile was placed in the
Thickness (mm) 0.88 0.86 middle of each compacted layer. First putting the reinforcing
Modulus of elasticity E, (MPa) 80 20 layers in the middle of each soil layer will guarantee an equal
Tensile strength (kN/m) 30 13
Elongation at peak stress (%) 15–20 45–50 distance between the reinforcements when there are three
layers of geotextiles. Hence, the geotextile was to be placed at
a height of H/6, H/2 and 5H/6 from top of the sample, where
desired density. The required quantity of dry soil and water for H is the height of the sample in CBR mould. The soil was filled
filling the mould was calculated based on the MDD and OMC in the mould up to the mark where reinforcing layer was to be
obtained from the standard Proctor test. The soil was mixed placed and more soil was filled above geotextile reinforcement
thoroughly after adding the required amount of water and then compacted to the desired level to get the required dry

Figure 4. Placement of geotextile (GT) in CBR mould.

4 M. S. NEGI AND S. K. SINGH

density. Both the unreinforced and reinforced samples were
compacted in three layers with the 56 number of blows with
the 2.6 kg rammer falling from a height of 310 mm, such that
the standard compaction energy, which was constant for all the
three layers, was imparted. For conducting the soaked CBR
test, the soil sample with a surcharge of 4.6 kg was submerged
in water under controlled conditions (at 27°C) for 96 h.
Following the 96-h soaking period, CBR tests were performed.
The geotextile in single and multiple layers was placed at
different positions in CBR mould. Seven cases were considered
for placing geotextile as shown in Figure 4(a–h). Notations
used in this study for various combinations for placement of
geotextile in CBR mould are given in Table 3.
Performance of different types of geotextile to reinforce the
subgrade soils can only be accurately compared if the condi-
tions between each of the individual tests are identical.
Therefore, utmost importance was given while preparing all
the samples for the CBR test for ensuring identical conditions
between each individual CBR samples. For a reliable CBR
value, an average of minimum two CBR tests is recommended
(Yoder and Witczak 1975). In this study, also two replicate
samples were tested for each of the CBR values reported.
Bearing capacity ratio (BCR) is a term used herein for
quantifying the strength improvement of the soil. It is defined
as the ratio of CBR of reinforced soil (CBRr ) to the CBR of the
unreinforced soil (CBRu ) as follows:
CBRr
BCR ¼
CBRu
2.3. CBR test results
2.3.1. CBR test on soil 1
The results of CBR tests on soil 1 are given in Table 4. To
analyse the effectiveness of geotextile in increasing the
Table 3. Notations for different combinations for placement of geotextile.
Woven
geotextile
Placement of geotextile at height (from top) (wgt)
Unreinforced (Figure 4(a)) unr/f
H/6 (single layer) (Figure 4(b)) wgt1
H/2 (single layer) (Figure 4(c)) wgt2
5H/6 (single layer) (Figure 4(d)) wgt3
H/6 and H/2 (double layer) (Figure 4(e)) wgt12
H/2 and 5H/6 (double layer) (Figure 4(f)) wgt23
H/6 and 5H/6 (double layer) (Figure 4(g)) wgt13
H/6, H/2 and 5H/6 (triple layer) (Figure 4(h)) wgt123
strength, the BCR is calculated for all the cases (Table 4) and
compared. A typical load vs penetration graph for soil 1, when
geotextile (woven and non-woven) placed at a distance H/6
and H/2 from top, is shown in Figure 5.
2.3.2. CBR test on soil 2
As soil 2 is of clayey type, the effect of moisture variation is of
critical importance. Hence, the soaked condition is chosen for
conducting the CBR test. Indian Roads Congress (IRC 37
2018) also recommends conducting the CBR test in soaked
condition (i.e. 96 h soaking) for the design of pavement. The
results of soaked CBR tests on soil 2 are given in Table 5.
A typical load vs penetration graph is shown in Figure 6, for
the case when geotextile (woven and non-woven) placed at
height H/6 and H/2 from top.
2.4. Results and discussion
The results from the experimental study show that geotextile
can be successfully used for reinforcement of subgrade soil as
the increase in CBR value of the soil is observed by reinforcing
it with geotextile. From Tables 4 and 5, it can be observed that
the inclusion of geotextile can significantly improve the CBR of
subgrade soil. For almost all the cases, the BCR comes out to be
more than 1 except for the case of soil 1 when two layers of
non-woven geotextile were placed at a distance of H/2 and 5H/
6 from the top (nwgt23). This might be due to the low tensile
(1) strength of non-woven geotextile when placed away from the
loading area not contributing towards the strength mobiliza-
tion of geotextile reinforcement. Other than that, it is quite
clear that the geotextile-reinforced soil has more strength than
unreinforced soil irrespective of the soil type.
2.4.1. Effect of type of geotextile
From Figure 7(a,b), it can be observed that the BCR of soil
reinforced with woven geotextile comes out to be more than
that with non-woven geotextile in all of the cases. For the case of
soil 1, maximum BCR of 1.40 and 1.29 is obtained when woven
Non-woven and non-woven geotextiles were used, respectively. On the other
geotextile
hand, for soil 2, maximum BCR of 2.74 and 1.85 is obtained
(nwgt)
when woven and non-woven geotextiles were used, respectively.
nwgt1 Hence, it can be inferred that woven geotextile offers better
nwgt2 reinforcing ability as compared to non-woven geotextile which
nwgt3 is also observed by many researchers (Choudhary et al. 2012;
nwgt12
nwgt23 Rashidian, Naeini, and Mirzakhanlari 2018; Sivapragasam et al.
nwgt13 2010). This may be because the tensile strength of woven geo-
nwgt123 textile is more than non-woven geotextile.

2.4.2. Effect of geotextile reinforcement on different types

Table 4. CBR test result on soil 1.
of soil
Geotextile in
single layer Geotextile in multiple layers
For the case of soil 1, which is a sandy type soil having soaked
Geotextile placement CBR (%) BCR Geotextile placement CBR (%) BCR
CBR value of 19.6%, after reinforcing with geotextile, an
unr/f 19.66 1 wgt12 27.55 1.4
improvement of 40% (BCR of 1.40) is observed when two
wgt1 23.23 1.18 ngt12 22.63 1.15 layers of woven geotextile were placed at height of H/6 and
nwgt1 20.96 1.07 wgt13 22.96 1.17 H/2 from top (wgt12). On the other hand, for soil 2 which is
wgt2 27.6 1.4 nwgt13 20.58 1.05
nwgt2 25.44 1.29 wgt23 20.8 1.06
a weak clayey type soil having soaked CBR of 1.79%, after
wgt3 24.54 1.25 nwgt23 18.96 0.96 reinforcing with geotextile, maximum improvement of 173%
nwgt3 22.63 1.15 wgt123 26.09 1.33 (BCR of 2.74) is observed when two layers of woven geotextile
nwt123 20.58 1.05
were placed at height of H/6 and H/2 from top (wgt12).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

12000
urf wgt12 nwgt12
10000

8000

Load (N)
6000

4000

2000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Penetration (mm)
Figure 5. Load vs penetration graph for soil 1 when geotextile placed at a distance H/6 and H/2 from top.

Table 5. CBR test results on soil 2. woven geotextile used for the experiment has a high tensile
Geotextile in single layer Geotextile in multiple layers strength of 30 kN/m, tensile stresses develop in the geotextile
Geotextile Soaked Geotextile Soaked and, therefore, helps the weak clayey soil to sustain the applied
placement CBR (%) BCR placement CBR (%) BCR stress due to loading.
unr/f 1.78 1 wgt12 4.87 2.74
wgt1 2.48 1.39 ngt12 3.29 1.85
nwgt1 1.94 1.09 wgt13 3.78 2.12 2.4.3. Effect of number of geotextile and its placement
wgt2 3.08 1.73 nwgt13 3.35 1.88
nwgt2 2.92 1.64 wgt23 3.46 1.94
position
wgt3 3.94 2.21 nwgt23 3.19 1.79 For the case of soil 1 (sandy soil), maximum reinforcement
nwgt3 3.67 2.06 wgt123 4 2.25 benefit is derived when a single layer geotextile layer was
nwt123 3.62 2.03
placed in the middle of sample, i.e. H/2. Also, it is observed
from Table 4 that placing of geotextile in multiple layers
does not give the advantage in terms of increasing CBR to
that extent. If more number of geotextile is provided, then
Maximum geotextile reinforcement benefit is obtained for the it will add to the cost of the project without any significant
case of soil 2 which is a weak soil of clayey type (Figure 8(a,b)). contribution to strength.
This result is in good agreement with the results obtained by On the other hand, for soil 2 (clayey soil), the best
Duncan-Williams and Attoh-Okine (2008). It confirms the obser- reinforcement benefit is achieved when two layers of
vation that the maximum benefit of geotextile reinforcement is woven geotextile are placed at height H/6 and H/2 from
achieved when the CBR of soil is less than 3%. Hence, it is top of the soil. For this case, an increase in the number of
observed that the smaller the soil CBR, the more effective is the reinforcement layer from one to two led to the further
strength mobilization effects of geosynthetic material. Since the increase in the strength of the soil. The BCR lies between

3500
urf wgt12 nwgt12
3000

2500
Load (N)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Penetration (mm)
Figure 6. Load vs penetration graph for soil 2 when geotextile placed at a distance of H/6 and H/2 from top.
6 M. S. NEGI AND S. K. SINGH

3.00 3.00

2.50 woven 2.50

nonwoven
2.00 2.00
BCR

BCR
1.50 1.50
woven
1.00 1.00
nonwoven
0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00
gt1 gt2 gt3 gt12 gt13 gt23 gt123 gt1 gt2 gt3 gt12 gt13 gt23 gt123
Geotextile placement Geotextile placement
(a) (b)

Figure 7. BCR vs geotextile placement for (a) soil 1 and (b) soil 2.

3.00 3.00
Soil 1
Soil 1
2.50 Soil 2 2.50 Soil 2

2.00 2.00

1.50 1.50
BCR

BCR

1.00 1.00

0.50 0.50

0.00 0.00
gt1 gt2 gt3 gt12 gt13 gt23 gt123 gt1 gt2 gt3 gt12 gt13 gt23 gt123
Geotextile placement Geotextile placement
(a) (b)

Figure 8. BCR vs geotextile placement for (a) woven and (b) non-woven geotextile.

1.5 and 3, which indicates that inclusion of geotextile in 3. Numerical modelling

double layers offers a good resistance against the penetra-
tion for weak soil. Further increasing the number of geo-
textile from two to three does not give an improvement in
CBR to that extent. It is found out that the number and
placement of geotextile are important factors in geotextile
reinforcement of weak subgrade. As in this case, reinforce-
ment of sandy soil (soil 1) does not have much advantage
in terms of CBR improvement with increasing the number
of geotextile layer, but in the case of weak clayey soil
(soil 2), the increase in the number of geotextile reinforce-
ment from one to two shows a significant improvement in
the CBR value of soil. It is also found out that the max-
imum improvement in CBR value is observed when the
geotextile layer is placed in the upper half of the specimen
(H/2 and H/6 from top). This result is also being in good
agreement with other researches (Singh, Trivedi, and
Shukla 2019; Fragaszy and Lawton 1984; Sankariah and
Narahari 1988; Raymond 1992). Thus, the geotextile layer
should be located at the optimum depth to improve the
contribution of the reinforcement.
FE code ABACUS version 6.14 is used for simulating the
behaviour of soil and the reinforcing effect of geotextile.
3.1. CBR test modelling
To simulate the experimental CBR test, a 3D FE model is
designed using ABACUS. The 3D analysis is preferred when
the verification of the numerical model results with the labora-
tory or field test results is desired (Saad, Mitri, and
Poorooshasb 2006). The CBR sample was modelled in
ABACUS having 120 mm height and 150 mm diameter
which was the size of actual CBR mould.
3.1.1. Mesh, boundary conditions and loading
In this CBR modelling, a structured meshing is used. C3D8R,
an eight-node linear brick element with reduced integration
and hourglass control, is used for soil and geotextile.
Considerable care is taken to optimize the mesh size in order
to get reliable results as well as to save time. Figure 9 shows the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7

Figure 9. Typical mesh used for CBR model.

mesh of the CBR model when three layers of geotextile are will remain close during the whole loading procedure (referred
placed. The encastrate (fixed) boundary condition is used at to as ‘rough behaviour’).
the bottom of the mould and a roller type boundary condition
is defined at the sides of the mould.
The loading in the CBR model is applied in two sequential 3.2. CBR test results
stages. In the first stage, the surcharge weight of 4.5 kg was Prediction ratio (PR) is a term defined herein as a ratio of CBR
applied, and in the second stage, the CBR model is loaded by value calculated using FEM to the CBR value obtained by
imposing a constant downward velocity of 1.25 mm/min until laboratory test. If the PR comes out to be closer to 1, then
a total displacement of 12.5 mm is reached. there is a good agreement between the predicted and actual
CBR values.
3.1.2. Material model and interaction
Many constitutive soil models were developed to represent the 3.2.1. CBR test results for soil 1
complicated soil behaviour. However, in this study, the com- Table 6 shows the CBR value for soil 1 calculated by the
monly used elastoplastic model with Mohr–Coulomb failure ABACUS and from the laboratory CBR tests. As it can be
criteria was selected to represent the behaviour of the soil. The observed from Table 6, the PR in all the cases comes out to
model parameters are Young’s modulus E, Poisson’s ratio μ be nearly 1 or slightly more than 1, which means that there is
(this behaviour is valid until the stress-path reaches the stress a good agreement between the predicted and actual CBR
yield envelope at which point plastic deformation begins to values. However, there is an overprediction of CBR when
develop), φ = friction angle of the soil and c = cohesion (the more than one layer of geotextile is present and a little under-
yield envelope is a Mohr–Coulomb type with the two asso- prediction when a single layer of geotextile is there. The reason
ciated soil parameters). The Mohr–Coulomb criterion assumes for this difference in the accuracy of the FE model can be
that failure occurs when the shear stress on any point in mostly explained as the soil in here is modelled as Mohr-
a material reaches a value that depends linearly on the normal Coulomb failure criteria. However, more advanced
stress in the same plane. The Mohr–Coulomb model is based
on plotting Mohr’s circle for states of stress at failure in the
Table 6. CBR value comparison for soil 1.
plane of the maximum and minimum principal stresses. The
Geotextile in single layer Geotextile in multiple layers
failure line is the best straight line that touches these Mohr’s
CBR value (%) CBR value (%)
circles. The geotextile reinforcement is modelled as an elastic
Geotextile Geotextile
material. The properties used for modelling soil and geotextile placement Test Numerical PR placement Test Numerical PR
are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. unr/f 19.66 20.04 1.02 wgt12 27.55 32 1.16
Two types of interactions are defined between the soil and wgt1 23.23 27.38 1.17 ngt12 22.63 30.72 1.36
geotextile layers, i.e. normal behaviour and tangential beha- nwgt1 20.96 26.11 1.24 wgt13 22.96 26.13 1.14
wgt2 27.6 27.14 0.98 nwgt13 20.58 25.23 1.23
viour. For the normal behaviour, it has been assumed that nwgt2 25.44 24.29 0.95 wgt23 20.8 24.1 1.16
there is no relative motion between two surfaces (referred to wgt3 24.54 21.59 0.87 nwgt23 18.96 23.15 1.22
as ‘hard contact’). For the tangential behaviour, it has been nwgt3 22.63 21.2 0.93 wgt123 26.09 31.99 1.22
nwt123 20.58 30.12 1.46
assumed that both surfaces (soil and geotextile) are close and
8 M. S. NEGI AND S. K. SINGH

Figure 10. CBR model after loading.

constitutive models such as Druger–Prager and Cam-Clay
models can be used to define the soil behaviour. Also, the
interaction defined between the soil and geotextile in the pre-
sent study is taken as rough behaviour which is not as in the
actual scenario. For determining the actual interaction
between soil and geotextile, pull-out tests are required and
the interaction has to be modelled as a penalty friction avail-
able in ABACUS by using the actual friction coefficient as
determined from the pull-out test.
Slipping of geotextile can also be seen through FEM as the
separation after contact is allowed in the interaction module of
ABAQUS. This slip is found to be more in the case of geotextile
placed from a distance of H/6 form top (gt1) as can be
observed from Figure 10. This slipping of geotextile is also
observed from the laboratory test. This is because of no ancho-
rage has been provided to the geotextile in the CBR mould.
However, in the actual field conditions, the geotextile is
anchored properly to minimize slipping.
the actual material property required for that particular con-
stitutive model is known.
3.3. Comparison between soil 1 and soil 2
FEM predicts almost the same CBR value as it was calculated
through laboratory experiment although some deviation can be
seen when geotextile is placed in multiple layers. For soil 1,
maximum CBR is obtained when two layers of woven geotextile
are placed at a height of H/6 and H/2 from top, whereas experi-
mental results show the maximum CBR in a single layer with
woven geotextile placed at H/6 from the top. And for soil 2,
maximum CBR is obtained when three layers of woven geotex-
tile are placed at a height of H/6, H/2 and 5H/6 from top,
whereas experimental results show the maximum CBR when
two layers of woven geotextile are placed at a height of H/6 and
H/2 from top. The geotextile placed near the top of the sample,
i.e. H/6, has induced more vertical strain and thus contributes

3.2.2. CBR test results for soil 2

Table 7. CBR value comparison for soil 2.
The results of the FE analyses are presented in Table 7 which
CBR (%) CBR (%)
shows the CBR value for soil 2 calculated by the ABACUS and
from the laboratory CBR tests. As it can be seen from Table 7, Geotextile Geotextile
placement Test Numerical PR placement Test Numerical PR
the PR in all the cases comes out to be nearly 1, which means
unr/f 1.78 1.75 1.02 wgt12 4.87 3.14 0.64
that there is a good agreement between the predicted and wgt1 2.48 2.65 1.06 ngt12 3.29 2.87 0.87
actual CBR values. However, there is some underprediction nwgt1 1.94 2.55 1.31 wgt13 3.78 2.92 0.77
of CBR when more than one layer of geotextile is present. wgt2 3.08 2.63 0.85 nwgt13 3.35 2.89 0.86
nwgt2 2.92 2.54 0.86 wgt23 3.46 3.17 0.92
Hence, it can be inferred that FEM can be effectively used to wgt3 3.94 2.59 0.65 nwgt23 3.19 2.8 0.88
predict the CBR of any soil or soil reinforced with geotextile nwgt3 3.67 2.38 0.64 wgt123 4 4.32 1.08
provided that the constitutive model is chosen wisely and all nwt123 3.62 4.27 1.18

more to increase the bearing capacity due to membrane effect
which is mostly observed in weak clayey soil when large rutting
is provided. In this case, stress perpendicular to the plane of the
geotextile is induced, and the geotextile is stretched and devel-
oped in-plane tensile stress. The net effect is a change in the
magnitude of stress imposed on the subgrade. This spreading of
the stresses over a larger area improves the CBR of the soil.
3.4. Strain in geotextile
Figure 11 shows the accumulation of strain in the geotex-
tile layer when it is placed at a distance H/6 from top of
sample (gt1). It is observed that the maximum strain is
developed near the middle portion of geotextile where the
plunger penetrates the soil sample. The observation of the
specimens after the laboratory tests and numerical model-
ling showed that for the reinforced soil specimens the
geotextile reinforcement placed near the top of the speci-
men was deformed, following the deformations of the
adjacent soil, assuming a concave shape (Figure 13). This
indicates a transference of stresses from the soil to the
reinforcement. This reinforcement mechanism is often
designated as membrane tension support, as introduced
by Giroud and Noiray (1981). Part of the load applied,
Figure 11. Strain concentration in geotextile.
0 25
0.0500
0.0000
Strain in Geotextile (%)
-0.0500
-0.1000
-0.1500
-0.2000
-0.2500
Figure 12. Vertical strain profile for different geotextile positions.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9
which would have been transmitted to the lower layers of
soil, was transferred laterally to the adjacent soil by the
geotextile, increasing the bearing capacity of the composite
material.
Figure 12 shows the vertical strain profiles at different
locations of geotextile within the subgrade layer for reinforced
sections when three layers of geotextile were placed in the
sample. The figure clearly demonstrates the effect of geotextile
tensile modulus on the induced vertical strain; that is, pave-
ment sections reinforced with woven geotextile which is of
higher tensile modulus exhibited lower vertical strain than the
pavement sections with non-woven geotextile of lower tensile
modulus. The geotextile placed near the top of the sample has
induced more vertical strain and thus contributes more to
increase the bearing capacity of reinforced soil.
Figure 13 shows the concavity of geotextile placed at
a distance of H/6 from top of sample obtained from FEM
(Figure 13(a)) and from laboratory (Figure 13(b,c)); both
have shown the similar deformation of geotextile. This defor-
mation is observed to be more in the case of geotextile which is
placed near the top of the sample, and it is less when the
geotextile is placed near the bottom. This concavity is due to
the membrane effect of geotextile, in which the stress perpen-
dicular to the plane of the geotextile is induced and the
Distance from left (mm)
50 75 100 125 150
wgt1
nwgt1
wgt2
nwgt2
wgt3
nwgt3
10 M. S. NEGI AND S. K. SINGH
Figure 13. Deformation of geotextile placed at H/6 from top: (a) FEM, (b) laboratory top view and (c) Laboratory bottom view.
geotextile is stretched and developed in-plane tensile stress,
hence improving the bearing capacity of particularly weak soil.
4. Benefits of subgrade reinforcement with
geotextile
The stronger the subgrade (higher CBR), the lesser is the
thickness of the pavement, which gives a considerable cost
saving. Conversely, if subgrade is weak (low CBR), it
requires to construct a suitable thicker road pavement to
effectively transmit the load to subgrade. According to
MORTH (2013), it is specified that the minimum CBR
value of sub-base should be more than 20% for the case
of traffic less than 2 million standard axles (msa) and 30%
for traffic more than 2 msa. In the present study, for the
case of soil 1, as the soaked CBR values come out to be
19.66% and by reinforcing it with woven geotextile placed
at height H/2 from the top gives the CBR of 27.6%. Hence,
in such cases where traffic is less than 2 msa, base course
layer can be directly applied on reinforced subgrade layer
which can also act as sub-base, thus decreasing the cost of
construction.
IRC 37 (2018) states that if the CBR value of subgrade
in any site comes to be less than 2%, then a capping layer
of 150 mm thickness having CBR value more than 10% is
to be used over subgrade. Capping layer is designed to
provide a working platform on which sub-base construc-
tion can proceed with minimum interruption from wet
weather and to minimize the effect of a weak subgrade
on road performance. Several authors emphasize the use
of capping layer for the weak subgrade soil (Rogers 2008;
Flaherty 2002). They recommend using capping layer of
thickness 600 mm above subgrade having CBR value less
than 2%. In the case of soil 2 (clayey soil) as a subgrade
material, as the soaked CBR value comes out to be 1.78%
which is less than 2% and by reinforcing it with geotextile,
the soaked CBR value goes up to 4.8% as such the capping
layer will not be required. The benefit of using geotextile in
this case for reinforcement of subgrade is thus supported
by the fact that a sufficient amount of cost and effort
related to providing capping layer can be saved using
geotextile as reinforcing material.
5. Conclusions
In the present study, an attempt has been made to analyse the
improvement in the subgrade strength with the inclusion of
different types of geotextile. It is found out that there is
a significant increase in strength of subgrade soil when rein-
forced with geotextile, and it depends on the type of geotextile,
number and placement of geotextile layers and also on the type
of subgrade soil. These results are based on the laboratory
study and FEM-based numerical investigations. It is possible
that these results may vary if conducted in the field. Therefore,
actual field trials must be made to have more confidence in
these results.
The main conclusions that can be drawn from the experi-
mental study are the following:

● Geotextile reinforcement is an effective method for
improving the CBR of subgrade soil.
● Woven geotextile shows better reinforcement than non-
woven geotextile since it has higher tensile capacity as
compared to non-woven geotextile.
● Effect of number and position of geotextile is an important
parameter for the subgrade reinforcement. For sandy soil,
maximum CBR of 27% is obtained when a single layer of
woven geotextile was placed at height H/2 from top.
Increasing number of geotextile does not necessarily
increase the bearing capacity of subgrade in this case. For
the case of clayey soil, two layers of woven geotextile placed
at height of H/6 and H/2 from the top give maximum CBR.
● The strength improvement of soil when reinforced with
geotextile depends on the CBR of the soil. Soils with low
CBR have higher benefits in terms of improved strength
(BCR) than those with higher in situ CBR values. As in
this case, soil 2, which is clayey soil having soaked CBR of
1.78% which increased to 4.8% after placing woven geo-
textile in two layers at a distance of H/6 and H/2 from top
showing an increase of 171% from the unreinforced case.
● Reinforcing subgrade soil by geotextile can significantly
reduce the cost of construction of road. In the case of
sandy soil, the requirement of granular sub-base may be
dispensed. The base course may be directly laid over the
subgrade as CBR of reinforced soil is more than 20%. In
the case of clayey soil, the capping layer will not be
required as the CBR value increases from 1.78% to 4.8%
after reinforcing with geotextile.
● FEM can be effectively used to roughly predict the CBR of
any soil and soil reinforced with geotextile. The selection of
the constitutive model and interaction between the soil and
geotextile is an important parameter for the accuracy of
FEM results.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in
the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Notes on contributors
Madhu Sudan Negi is currently working as an Assistant Professor in the
Civil Engineering Department of CGC Jhanjheri College. His area of
specialization is Transportation Engineering. He is a member of the
Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi.
S. K. Singh is the Professor in the civil engineering department of Punjab
Engineering College. His area of specialization is Geotechnical
Engineering. His research interest is Pile foundation, micro piles, slope
stability, Engineered landfill, ash pond, tailing dam and pavement geo-
technics. He has been a member of various professional organizations viz.
Indian Geotechnical Society, Indian Roads Congress, Institution of
Engineers, NDMA, ASCE, etc.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 11
References
Aiban, S. A., H. M. Al-Ahmadi, I. M. Asi, Z. U. Siddique, and O. S. B. Al-
Amoudi. 2006. “Effect of Geotextile and Cement on the Performance of
Sabkha Subgrade.” Building and Environment 41: 807–820.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.03.006.
Al-Qadi, I., S. Dessouky, J. Kwon, and E. Tutumluer. 2008. “Geogrid in
Flexible Pavements: Validated Mechanism.” Transportation Research
Record 2045: 102–109. doi:10.3141/2045-12.
Bergado, D., S. Youwai, C. Hai, and P. Voottipruex. 2001. “Interaction of
Nonwoven Needle-punched Geotextiles under Axisymmetric Loading
Conditions.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19: 299–328. doi:10.1016/
S0266-1144(01)00010-3.
Choudhary, A., K. Gill, J. Jha, and S. Shukla. 2012. “Improvement in CBR
of the Expansive Soil Subgrades with a Single Reinforcement Layer.” In
Proc Indian Geotech Conf, 289–292, Delhi, India.
Christopher, B. R., and R. R. Holtz. 1985. Geotextile Engineering Manual
(Report No. FHWA-TS-86/203). Washington, D.C: Federal Highway
Administration.
Cuelho, E. V., and S. W. Perkins. 2017. “Geosynthetic Subgrade
Stabilization – Field Testing and Design Method Calibration.”
Transportation Geotechnics 10: 22–34. doi:10.1016/J.
TRGEO.2016.10.002.
De Groat, M., E. Janse, T. A. C. Maagdenberg, and C. Vandenberg. 1986.
“Design Methods and Guidelines for Geotextile Applications in Road
Construction.” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Geotext1les, 741–746, Vienna. Austria.
Duncan-Williams, E., and N. O. Attoh-Okine. 2008. “Effect of Geogrid in
Granular Base Strength – An Experimental Investigation.”
Construction and Building Materials 22: 2180–2184. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2007.08.008.
Flaherty, C. A. 2002. Highways: The Location, Design, Construction, and
Maintenance of Road Pavements. London: Butterworth Heinemann.
Fragaszy, R. J., and E. Lawton. 1984. “Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand
Subgrades.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 110: 1500–1507.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1984)110:10(1500).
Giroud, J. P., and L. Noiray. 1981. “Geotextile-reinforced Unpaved Road
Design.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 107 (9): 1233–1254.
Hufenus, R., R. Rueegger, R. Banjac, P. Mayor, S. Springman, and
R. Bronnimann. 2006. “Full-scale Field Tests on Geosynthetic
Reinforced Unpaved Roads on Soft Subgrade.” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 24: 21–37. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.06.002.
IRC: 37. 2018. Guideline for the Design of Flexible Pavements. New Delhi:
Indian Road Congress.
IS: 1498. 1970. “Classification and Identification of Soils for General
Engineering Purposes.” Methods of Test for Soils. New Delhi: Bureau
of Indian Standards. (Reaffirmed 2007). Indian Stand; 2007.
IS: 2720 (Part VII-1980). IS: 2720 (Part VII-1980). 2011. Methods of Test
for Soils, Determination of Water Content-Dry Density Relation Using
Light Compaction. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.
(Reaffirmed 2011). Indian Stand.
IS: 2720 (Part XVI-1987). 2002. IS: 2720 (Part XVI-1987) Methods of Test
for Soils, Laboratory Determination of CBR. New Delhi: Bureau of
Indian Standards. (Reaffirmed 2002). Indian Stand.
Kiptoo, D., J. Aschrafi, D. Kalumba, J. Lehn, C. Moormann, and
E. Zannoni. 2017. “Laboratory Investigation of a Geosynthetic
Reinforced Pavement under Static and Dynamic Loading.” Journal of
Testing and Evaluation 45: 20160170. doi:10.1520/jte20160170.
MORTH. 2013. 2013 Specifications for Roads and Bridge Works. Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways. New Delhi: Indian Roads Congress.
Fifth revision.
Naeini, S. A., and M. Mirzakhanlari. 2008. “The Effect of Geotextile and
Grading on the Bearing Ratio of the Soils.” Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 13J: 1–10.
Perkins, S. W. 2001. Mechanistic Empirical Modelling and Design Model
Development of Geosynthetics Reinforced Flexible Pavements (FHWA/
MT-01-002/99160-1A). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
12 M. S. NEGI AND S. K. SINGH
Rashidian, V., S. A. Naeini, and M. Mirzakhanlari. 2018. “Laboratory
Testing and Numerical Modelling on Bearing Capacity of
Geotextile-reinforced Granular Soils.” International Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering 12: 241–251. doi:10.1080/19386362.
2016.1269042.
Raymond, G. P. 1992. “Reinforced Sand Behavior Overlying
Compressible Sub-grades.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 118:
1663–1695. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1992)118:11(1663).
Robnett, Q., and J. Lai. 1982. “Effect of Fabric Properties on the
Performance and Design of Aggregate-Fabric-Soil-Systems.”
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Geotextiles,
Vol II, 381–386, Las Vegas.
Rogers, M. 2008. Highway Engineering. UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Saad, B., H. Mitri, and H. Poorooshasb. 2006. “3D FE Analysis of
Flexible Pavement with Geosynthetic Reinforcement.” Journal of
Transportation Engineering 132 (5): 402–415. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-947X(2006)132:5(402).
Sankariah, B., and R. Narahari. 1988. “Bearing Capacity of Reinforced
Sand Beds.” Proceedings of the First Indian Geotextile Conference on
View publication stats
Reinforced Soil and Geotextiles, 11–13, Bombay, India. doi:10.1016/
0306-4603(88)90020-2.
Singh, M., A. Trivedi, and S. K. Shukla. 2019. “Strength Enhancement of
the Subgrade Soil of Unpaved Road with Geosynthetic Reinforcement
Layers.” Transportation Geotechnics 19: 54–60. doi:10.1016/j.
trgeo.2019.01.007.
Sivapragasam, C., S. Vanitha, V. M. Arun, and S. Sutharsanam. 2010. “Study
on Synthetic Geotextiles for Road Pavements.” Proceedings of the Indian
Geotechnical Conference, GEOtrendz. IGS Mumbai Chapter, Mumbai,
India.
Som, N., and R. B. Sahu. 1999. “Bearing Capacity of a
Geotextile-Reinforced Unpaved Road as a Function of Deformation:
A Model Study.” Geosynthetics International 6: 1–17. doi:10.1680/
gein.6.0140.
Yoder, E. J., and M. W. Witczak. 1975. Principle of Pavement Design, 711.
2nd. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470172919.
Zoenberg, J. G. 2012. “Geosynthetic Reinforced Pavement System.”
Proceedings of the 5th European Geosynthetic Congress, 49–61,
Valencia.