Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 462e469

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Technical note

Evaluation of geogrid reinforcement effects on unbound granular

pavement base courses using loaded wheel tester
Hao Wu a, b, 1, Baoshan Huang c, *, Xiang Shu c, 2, Sheng Zhao d, 3
a
School of Civil Engineering, Central South University, 22 South Shaoshan Rd., Tianxin District, Changsha 410075, PR China
b
National Engineering Laboratory for High Speed Railway Construction, Central South University, 22 South Shaoshan Rd., Tianxin District, Changsha
410075, PR China
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Tennessee, 325 John D. Tickle Building, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
d
Cener for Environmentally Sustainable Transportation in Cold Climates, Institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK
99775, USA

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

Article history: Loaded wheel tester (LWT) was employed in this study to investigate the effect of geogrid reinforcement
Received 26 October 2014 on unbound granular pavement base materials. In the LWT test, the compacted base course specimen
Received in revised form was tested under the repeated wheel loading given by the LWT to simulate the actual service situation,
21 April 2015
and the rut depths of the base specimen were measured along the loading path. Four types of geogrids
Accepted 24 April 2015
with different apertures and stiffness were tested with river sand and gravel base courses. In order to
Available online 23 May 2015
verify the effectiveness of the LWT tests, commonly applied cyclic plate loading tests were also per-
formed on the same geogrids and base materials as comparisons. Three technical indices, the Traffic
Keywords:
Geosynthetics
Benefit Ratio (TBR), the Rutting Reduction Ratio (RRR), and the Rate of Deflection (ROD), were employed
Loaded wheel tester in the study for the evaluation of the potential benefits of geogrid reinforcement. It was found that the
Repeated wheel load results from LWT tests were generally in agreement with those from the cyclic plate loading tests, which
Unbound granular base indicates that the LWT test was an effective method to characterize the reinforcement effects of different
Cyclic plate loading test combinations of geogrids and base courses. The corresponding technical indices proposed in the study
were also valid to evaluate the reinforcement effects of geogrids on the specimens with or without
geogrid reinforcement. From both LWT and cyclic plate loading tests, the geogrid-reinforced base courses
exhibited significant improvement in rutting resistance comparing to the base courses without geogrid
reinforcement.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Currently, several experimental approaches have been devel-

Due to the potential benefits of decreasing permanent vertical
deformation, increasing lateral restraint ability, controlling crack
propagation, and reducing base course thickness, geogrid has been
widely used as a reinforcement material in pavement systems
(Austin and Gilchrist, 1996; Perkins, 2001; Giroud and Han, 2004a,
2004b; Palmeira, 2009; Bhandari and Han, 2010; Dong et al., 2011;
Zhou et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2014).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 865 974 7713; fax: þ1 865 974 2669.
E-mail addresses: haoutk@csu.edu.cn (H. Wu), bhuang@utk.edu (B. Huang),
xshu@utk.edu (X. Shu), szhao2@utk.edu (S. Zhao).
1
Tel.: þ86 18073158227.
2
Tel.: þ1 865 974 2608; fax: þ1 865 974 2669.
3
Tel.: þ1 907 474 5054; fax: þ1 907 474 6030.
oped to investigate the reinforcement effects of geosynthetics in
pavement structures, which range from full-scale field tests to
small-scale laboratory tests. Most of the results from previous
studies indicated that incorporating geosynthetics in pavement
base course can generally improve the overall performance of
pavements and thus help them achieve a longer service life.
Field tests were carried out by Fannin and Sigurdsson (1996) on
reinforced and unreinforced unpaved road sections through a test
vehicle with standard axle loading. Large-scale single and multiple
wheel tracking tests were carried out by Chan et al. (1989) at the
Nottingham Pavement Test Facility (PTF) to study the reinforce-
ment potential of geosynthetics in full-scale pavement sections.
Perkins (2002) utilized a heavy vehicle simulator to apply traffic
loads for characterizing the dynamic response of geosynthetic-
reinforced flexible pavement in an environmental-controlled fa-
cility. More recently, a full-scale test track of unpaved road on soft

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.04.014
0266-1144/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 H. Wu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 462e469 463

subgrade was constructed by Hufenus et al. (2006) in order to Table 1

evaluate its bearing capacity and performance with or without Fundamental properties of the base materials.

geosynthetic reinforcement. Al-Qadi et al. (2008) also proposed an Base Specific Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
accelerated test to characterize the reinforcement effects of geo- materials gravity, unit weight, unit weight, void ratio, void ratio,
grids in full-scale pavement sections. Field tests were conducted by GS gdmin, kN/m3 gdmax, kN/m3 emin emax

Mekkawy et al. (2011) to evaluate the reinforcement of biaxial River 2.651 16.70 18.77 0.384 0.560
geogrids on stabilizing a severely rutted granular shoulder section sand
Gravel 2.640 17.01 21.64 e e
supported on soft subgrade soils. Large or small scale cyclic plate
loading tests have also been widely used to characterize
geosynthetic-reinforced pavement systems in the laboratory. A
presented in Table 1. In order to characterize the effect of the in-
series of cyclic plate load tests were carried out at the University of
teractions between the grain size of aggregate and the aperture of
Waterloo to investigate the geosynthetics reinforcement to gran-
geogrids, two different gradations of gravel were considered. One is
ular bases (Penner et al., 1985; Haas et al., 1988). Dynamic plate
the original AB-3 gravel and the other is the one adjusted to meet
loading test was conducted by Ling and Liu (2001) to investigate the
the Gradation D requirements in the Tennessee Department of
performance and various mechanical responses of geosynthetic-
Transportation (TDOT) specification. The grain size distribution of
reinforced base courses in asphalt pavement under plane strain
the river sand and the gravels are shown in Fig. 1. It is evident that
conditions. Full-scale cyclic plate loading tests were conducted by
the adjusted AB-3 gravel is coarser than the original AB-3 gravel.
Chen et al. (2009) on pavement sections to evaluate the influences
Four types of geogrids, named GD1, GD2, GD3, and GD4,
of modulus, aperture shape and location of geogrids on the rein-
respectively, were tested in the study (Fig. 2). GD1 and GD2 are
forcement. Similar tests were also carried out by Al-Qadi et al.
made of two and three layers of high strength extruded biaxial-
(1994) in a test pit and Perkins (1999) in a concrete test box on
oriented polypropylene. The layers are tied together without
full-structured pavement sections. Large-scale unbound aggregate
superimposing the grids, thus random-sized apertures are created
road sections were tested by cyclic loading to investigate geotextile
to accommodate a variety of filling aggregates. GD3 and GD4 are
and geogrid reinforcement in the aggregate bases over a soft sub-
punched-drawn biaxial polypropylene geogrids with a single layer,
grade in Tingle and Jersey (2005). Large scale field tests were per-
which possess relatively high modulus and large rib thickness and
formed by Demir et al. (2013) on the unbound granular fill layer
thus allowing strong mechanical interlock with aggregates being
above natural clay soil to understand how the bearing capacity and
reinforced. The apertures of GD1 and GD2 are relatively smaller
subgrade modulus was affected by footing size in unreinforced and
than those of GD3 and GD4 due to their multilayer structures, while
granular fill with and without geogrid reinforcement. Similar large
the stiffness and tensile strength of GD4 are much higher than
or small scale tests were also performed on base-subgrade struc-
those of GD1, GD2 and GD3. The fundamental properties of the
tures in many other studies (Leng and Gabr, 2002; Moraci and
geogrids provided by the manufacturer are presented in Table 2.
Cardile, 2012; Nguyen et al., 2013; Abdi and Zandieh, 2014).
According to their physical and mechanical characteristics, GD1 and
Compared to field and full scale accelerated tests, small scale lab-
GD2 were applied in the river sand base course, while GD2, GD3
oratory tests are more cost-effective in evaluating the reinforce-
and GD4 were applied in gravel base courses.
ment effects of geosynthetics on pavement bases. Zhang (2007) and
Han et al. (2011) at the University of Kansas proposed the use of a
3.2. LWT test
commonly available type of loaded wheel tester (LWT), Asphalt
Pavement Analyzer (APA), to characterize the reinforcement effects
Both the LWT and the cyclic plate loading tests were conducted
of geogrids on unbound granular base materials. They conducted a
at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Prior to testing, the un-
limited laboratory experiment on two geogrids and two types of
bound base material was compacted in an aluminum testing box
granular materials. Their findings indicate that LWT is promising in
(600 mm  400 mm  100 mm) through manpower tamping and
evaluating geogrid reinforcement. However, due to the limited
hammering efforts. Although 90% or higher relative density can be
scope of their work, validation of LWT test method with more va-
achieved in pavement constructions, 70% was chosen as the relative
rieties of geogrids and a comparison between the LWT result and
density for the compaction of the specimens, which is more
other conventional tests have not been completed yet.
applicable in the laboratory considering the manual compaction
method. To control the density of the sample, the mass of the base
2. Objective and scope
materials for each layer were calculated in terms of the funda-
mental properties of the base materials given in Table 1. In addition,
The objective of the present study was to validate the LWT test
for testing the base materials with greater density, a greater
in evaluating geogrids reinforcement to unbound granular base
materials.
In order to achieve the objective, three unbound granular ma-
terials were utilized to evaluate the reinforcement effects of four
types of geogrids with different apertures and stiffness. The LWT
results were also compared to those from a traditional cyclic axial
load plate test on the same materials.

3. Experimental methods

3.1. Materials

River sand and gravel were used as the unbound pavement base
materials. The river sand and original AB-3 gravel were the same as
those used by Zhang (2007) and Han et al. (2011) at the University
of Kansas. The fundamental properties of those base materials are Fig. 1. Grain-size distribution of base course materials.
464 H. Wu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 462e469

Fig. 2. Geogrids used for testing.

Table 2 specimen with geogrids partially buried in the base. After all the
Properties of the geogrids tested in this study. base material were filled into the testing box and compacted, the
Geogrid specimen was ready to be mounted onto the APA testing chamber.
Properties
Direction Unit GD1 GD2 GD3 GD4
The LWT test was generally conducted following the procedures of
a b
Zhang (2007) and Han et al. (2011).
Aperture size MD mm 42 42 41 34
In the LWT testing, the cyclic load was supplied by the APA
TDc 50 50 31 27
Rib thickness MD mm 1.3 1.3 3.0 3.0 loading system which uses three controllable loaded steel wheels
TD 1.3 1.3 3.0 3.0 and contact pressures through three air pressurized rubber hoses to
Open area N/A % 75 70 75 75 simulate vehicle loads on pavements. The base course in the
Mass per unit area N/A g/m2 220 330 270 650
aluminum box was placed underneath the three rubber hoses with
Peak tensile strength MD kN/m 13.5 20.0 20.0 40.0
TD 20.5 30.7 20.0 40.0 repeated wheel loads applied on them. As shown in Fig. 4(b), the
Tensile strength at 2% strain MD kN/m 4.4 6.1 7.0 14.0 rubber hoses are placed on the specimen, and the wheels are
TD 6.6 9.0 7.0 15.0 loaded on the rubber hoses for providing moving loads on the
Tensile strength at 5% strain MD kN/m 9.0 13.5 14.0 28.0 specimen.
TD 13.4 19.6 14.0 30.0
The LWT test was conducted for 16,000 cycles at a frequency of
Initial modulus MD kN/m 250 400 460 730
TD 400 650 510 760 2 Hz (2-cycle/sec.). According to different types of base materials,
Tensile modulus at 2% strain MD kN/m 220 305 350 600 different load magnitudes were applied. For river sand, 88 N wheel
TD 328 450 350 650 load and 138 kPa rubber hose pressure were used, while 353 N and
Tensile modulus at 5% strain MD kN/m 180 270 280 560
552 kPa for gravel. During the testing, the rut depths of the spec-
TD 269 392 280 600
imen were measured at five equidistant locations along the loading
Notes: path of the wheels by the vertical deformation sensors integrated
a
Single layer value for GD1 and GD2.
b on them. All the data were collected automatically by the APA data
MD-machine direction (longitudinal to the roll).
c
TD-transverse direction (across roll width). acquisition system and the average values were calculated as the
rut depths for analyzing and evaluating the rut resistance of the
geogrid-reinforced base materials.
magnitude of wheel load and a longer testing time are also required
to produce a measurable deformation.
In order to achieve uniform compaction, the aggregate mass was
filled and compacted in the testing box in three layers. After each 3.3. Cyclic plate loading test
layer of the base material was filled, it was then compacted till the
thickness of the layer reached one third of the depth of the testing The materials and specimen preparation process in the cyclic
box. It should be pointed out that the embedment depth of geogrids plate loading test were the same as those for the LWT test. Instead
affects their reinforcement effect (Moayedi et al., 2009). After some of applying moving wheel loads as in the LWT test, cyclic vertical
trial tests, it was found that the reinforcement was insignificant load was applied to the base specimen via a Materials Testing
when the geogrids were placed 35 mm below the base surface, System (MTS) in the cyclic plate loading test. A universal loading
while the geogrids could be easily exposed during testing if they head attached to a circular steel plate (165 mm in diameter) was
were buried too shallow, and the suitable depth to place the geo- designed for the test. The test setup and base specimens during
grid was between 20 mm and 30 mm. In the study, it was deter- testing are shown in Fig. 5. Due to the difference in loading mode,
mined that geogrids were placed 25 mm below the surface of base different contact pressures were used in LWT and cyclic plate
course. Special care was taken to ensure that geogrids were buried loading tests. The amplitude of the cyclic load was 8.9 kN (pressure
evenly and level in the base course. Fig. 3 shows the base course of 416 kPa) for the river sand base and 13.3 kN (pressure of 623 kPa)

Fig. 3. Specimen preparations for the LWT test.

 H. Wu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 462e469
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of LWT test.
for the gravel base. The cyclic plate loading test was also conducted
for 16,000 cycles at the frequency of 2 Hz.
3.4. Evaluation approach
In order to quantify the benefits of the reinforcement of geo-
grids, three technical indices, the Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR), the
Rutting Reduction Ratio (RRR), and the Rate of Deflection (ROD),
were employed in this study to analyze the results.
3.4.1. Traffic benefit ratio (TBR)
The Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR) is defined as the ratio of the
number of cycles required to reach a certain rut depth in the
reinforced specimen to the number of cycles required in the non-
reinforced specimen. TBR indicates the additional amount of
traffic loads that a pavement can bear when it is reinforced by
geogrids (Perkins, 2001). It can be expressed as the following
formula:
Fig. 5. Cyclic plate loading test setups and specimens.
465
Nreinforced
TBR ¼ (1)
Nnonreinforced
where, Nreinf orced and Nnonreinf orced are the number of cycles for
geogrids reinforced and non-reinforced specimens, respectively.
The threshold rut depth selected for calculating the TBR is defined
by the deflection point from the reinforced testing curve when the
rut depth becomes stabilized.
3.4.2. Rut reduction ratio (RRR)
The Rut Reduction Ratio (RRR) is defined as the ratio of the rut
depth of the reinforced base course at a certain cycle to the rut
depth of the non-reinforced base course at the equivalent cycle.
From the expression of RRR in the following formula, it is obvious
that the specimen with lower RRR value has better performance in
resisting rutting.
ureinforced
RRR ¼ (2)
unonreinforced
where, ureinforced and unonreinforced are the rut depth (deflection) at
specific cycle for reinforced and non-reinforced specimens,
respectively. The rut depth at the terminal cycle (the 16,000th cy-
cle) is used for calculating RRR in this study.
3.4.3. Rate of deflection (ROD)
The Rate of Deflection (ROD) has also been utilized to evaluate
the rut resistance of various specimens, which is defined as the
changing rate (velocity) of the vertical deformation. A lower ROD
value usually reflects a better rutting resistance of the specimen. It
can be expressed as the following formula:
unþ1  un
ROD ¼ (3)
tnþ1  tn
where, un is the deflection of the nth cycle; tn is the elapsed testing
time of the nth cycle.
4. Results and discussion
Due to the large amount of the collected data, the results at
specific cycles were selected for analysis. Figs. 6 and 7 present the
466 H. Wu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 462e469
Fig. 6. Rut depth results from LWT tests.
results of rut depth (vertical deformation) of the base specimens
with or without geogrid reinforcement from the LWT test and the
cyclic plate loading test, respectively.
The results from both LWT and cyclic plate loading tests show
that all the base specimens reinforced with geogrids exhibited less
rut depths than the control ones without geogrid reinforcement.
Gravel bases, although subjected to higher wheel loads, exhibited
lower vertical deformations than river sand bases. It was also
observed that the rut depths of gravel bases were stabilized much
faster than those of the river sand bases. From the deformation
development in the figures, in both LWT and cyclic plate loading
tests, the gravel bases showed 80% of the total rut depth at
approximately 1000 cycles, whereas 6000 cycles were needed for
the river sand base to reach the same degree of rutting.
Regarding the effects of geogrids, both GD1 and GD2 exhibited
significant improvement in reinforcement. However the triple-
layered GD2 had an even better effect than the double-layered
GD1 due to its relatively high stiffness and small apertures. In
addition, due to the triple-layer structure of GD2 the larger friction
area between geogrids and aggregates could create better mem-
brane effect in the sand base to resist the vertical load. With regard
to the gravel bases, both GD2 and GD4 were relatively more
Fig. 7. Vertical deformation results from cyclic plate loading tests.
effective to increase the rutting resistance of the base courses in
LWT tests according to the results shown in Fig. 6, whereas GD4
exhibited the best effect on reinforcement in cyclic plate loading
tests according to the results shown in Fig. 7. Although, the geogrids
showed different ranking in the reinforcement effects in LWT and
cyclic plate loading tests, both GD2 and GD4 produced better
reinforcement effects than other geogrids. As shown in Fig. 8(a) and
(b), the river sand without geogrids was intruded by the loading
plate. Although the river sand reinforced with geogrids appeared to
be affected in a larger area by the force, the intrusion was not as
obvious and as deep as with the river sand without geogrid rein-
forcement. It was also observed in the test that the geogrid sheets
used in reinforcing river sand showed a larger bending curve than
the geogrid sheets used for gravel even the geogrids in gravel base
was subjected to higher level forces. Those findings indicate that
the membrane and friction effects (as shown in Fig. 8(c)) provided
by geogrids were more functional in reinforcing fine aggregate base
courses.
Furthermore, the base specimens with geogrid reinforcement
achieved the stabilized rut depths earlier than the specimens
 H. Wu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 462e469 467

Fig. 8. Unreinforced and reinforced river sand specimen after testing.

without geogrid. As shown in Fig. 9, the deflection rate of the gravel
base without geogrid reinforcement was greater than that of the
gravel base reinforced with geogrids, especially in the initial stage
of the test. The deflection rate became smaller and smaller with
increased cycles until no significant difference could be observed
between the reinforced and non-reinforced base courses after 6000
load cycles.
In this study, rut depths of 7 mm and 3 mm were chosen
respectively for river sand and gravel base courses as the thresholds
for the calculation of TBR, which can effectively reflect the rein-
forcement effects of geogrids. As an example, Fig. 10 illustrates how
TBR value was determined for gravel base courses. The numbers of
loading cycles to reach 3 mm rut depth were shown in the figures

Fig. 9. Rate of deflection results from LWT tests for gravel bases. Fig. 10. Illustration of the calculations for TBR.
468 H. Wu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 462e469

Table 3
Rut depth, RRR and TBR results.

Test method Base material Item No geogrids GD1 GD2 GD3 GD4

LWT River sand Rut depth (mm) 11.57 8.47 7.26 N/A N/A
RRR 1.00 0.61 0.53 N/A N/A
TBR-7mm 1.00 1.44 6.67 N/A N/A
Original AB-3 gravel Rut depth (mm) 7.85 N/A 3.40 5.68 4.60
RRR 1.00 N/A 0.43 0.72 0.59
TBR-3mm 1.00 N/A 5.83 1.92 2.58
Adjusted AB-3 gravel Rut depth (mm) 4.78 N/A 3.56 3.31 3.12
RRR 1.00 N/A 0.74 0.69 0.65
TBR-3mm 1.00 N/A 11.79 5.36 17.86
Cyclic plate loading River sand Rut depth (mm) 46.20 27.49 21.58 N/A N/A
RRR 1.00 0.59 0.47 N/A N/A
TBR-7mm 1.00 2.35 6.88 N/A N/A
Original AB-3 gravel Rut depth (mm) 6.97 N/A 3.32 4.04 3.02
RRR 1.00 N/A 0.48 0.58 0.43
TBR-3mm 1.00 N/A 13.33 1.67 50.37
Adjusted AB-3 gravel Rut depth (mm) 5.18 N/A 3.02 3.47 2.77
RRR 1.00 N/A 0.58 0.67 0.53
TBR-3mm 1.00 N/A 28.89 2.00 35.56

Note: When the rut depth threshold used to calculate TBR is greater than the terminal rut depth of the specimen at the 16,000th cycle, the TBR is expressed as
16000=Nnonreinforced .

for the gravel base courses. A greater TBR value indicates a better
reinforcement effect on base course.
Table 3 summarizes the results of the rut depth, RRR, and TBR
from both LWT and cyclic plate loading tests. Compared to the
controlled specimens without geogrid reinforcement, all the rein-
forced base courses showed appreciable benefits in improving the
rutting resistance in terms of TBR and RRR. The results from LWT
tests were generally in agreement with the results from the cyclic
plate loading test. Although in the cyclic plate loading test, GD4 was
the most effective one, GD2 also showed fairly good effects on
reinforcing both river sand and gravel bases.
It can also be seen in Table 3, the LWT test could identify the
influence of the geogrid's apertures compared to the grain size and
gradation of the aggregate on its reinforcement effects. The
adjusted AB-3 gravel reinforced with GD3 and GD4 had approxi-
mately equal RRR but much larger TRB values compared to the
original AB-3 gravel reinforced with the same geogrids, which
demonstrates that GD3 and GD4 exhibited more reinforcement
benefits when applied in the adjusted AB-3 gravel base. This is due
to the fact that the apertures of GD3 and GD4 are more suitable for
the grain size and gradation of the adjusted AB-3 gravel and thus
firm interlocking actions between them can be easily formed to
restrict rotations and vertical movements of the aggregate
particles.
5. Summary and conclusions
Laboratory experiments were carried out to evaluate the rein-
forcement effects of geogrids in river sand and gravel base courses
utilizing LWT. In addition to LWT test, cyclic plate loading test were
also conducted on the same base materials for the purposes of
comparison and validation. Based on the results from the experi-
ments, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The LWT with a modified specimen box was effective to evaluate
the reinforcement effects of geogrids on pavement base courses
under repeated wheel loading. The LWT testing method for
geogrid reinforcement had a good repeatability. The results from
this study were generally in agreement with those from studies
by other researchers.
2. The RRR and TBR that calculated base on the rut depth were
proved effective to quantify the benefits of the reinforcement of
geogrids. The LWT tests were generally in agreement with the
cyclic plate loading tests in characterizing the reinforcement
effects of geogrids on unbound granular base materials with or
without geogrid reinforcement.
3. The LWT test was proved to be able to identify the influence of
the geogrid's apertures compared to the types of base material,
grain size and gradation of the aggregates on its reinforcement
effects. Based on the test results, all the reinforced river sand
and gravel base courses exhibited significant improvements in
rutting resistance, but with various physical and mechanical
properties different effects could be observed with different
geogrid and base course combinations. The geogrid GD2
exhibited desirable improvement in reinforcement when it was
applied in the river sand base and grave bases, and GD4 was the
most effective geogrid in reinforcing grave bases.
References
Al-Qadi, I.L., Brandon, T.L., Valentine, R.J., Lacina, B.A., Smith, T.E., 1994. Laboratory
Evaluation of Geosynthetic Reinforced Pavement Sections. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1439. Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, D.C, pp. 25e31.
Al-Qadi, I.L., Dessouky, S.H., Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E., 2008. Geogrid in Flexible
Pavements: Validated Mechanism. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, 1849. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C, pp. 102e109.
Abdi, M.R., Zandieh, A.R., 2014. Experimental and numerical analysis of large scale
pull out tests conducted on clays reinforced with geogrids encapsulated with
coarse material. Geotext. Geomembr. 42 (5), 494e504.
Austin, R.A., Gilchrist, A.J.T., 1996. Enhanced performance of asphalt pavements
using geocomposites. Geotext. Geomembr. 14, 175e186.
Bhandari, A., Han, J., 2010. Investigation of geotextile-soil interaction under a cyclic
wheel load using the discrete element method. Geotext. Geomembr. 28 (1),
33e43.
Chan, F., Barksdale, R.D., Brown, S.F., 1989. Aggregate base reinforcement of surfaced
pavements. Geotext. Geomembr. 8 (3), 165e189.
Chen, Q., Abu-Farsakh, M.Y., Tao, M., 2009. Laboratory Evaluation of Geogrid Base
Reinforcement and Corresponding Instrumentation Program (Transportation
Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C).
Demir, A., Laman, M., Yildiz, A., Ornekc, M., 2013. Large scale field tests on geogrid-
reinforced granular fill underlain by clay soil. Geotext. Geomembr. 38, 1e15.
Dong, Y.-L., Han, J., Bai, X.-H., 2011. Numerical analysis of tensile behavior of geogrids
with rectangular and triangular apertures. Geotext. Geomembr. 29 (2), 83e91.
Fannin, R.J., Sigurdsson, O., 1996. Field observations on stabilization of unpaved
roads with geosynthetics. J. Geotech. Eng. 122, 544e553. ASEC.
Giroud, J.P., Han, J., 2004a. Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads e
Part I: theoretical development. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 130
(8), 776e786.
Giroud, J.P., Han, J., 2004b. Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads e
Part II: calibration and verification. ASCE J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 130
(8), 787e797.
 H. Wu et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (2015) 462e469
Haas, R., Walls, J., Carroll, R.G., 1988. Geogrid Reinforcement of Granular Bases in
Flexible Pavements. Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research
Board, IN: 1188, pp. 19e27.
Han, J., Zhang, Y., Parsons, R.L., 2011. Quantifying the influence of geosynthetics on
performance of reinforced granular bases in laboratory. Geotech. Eng. J. SEAGS
AGSSEA 42 (1).
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor, P., Springman, S.M., Bro €nnimann, R.,
2006. Full-scale field tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads on soft
subgrade. Geotext. Geomembr. 24, 21e37.
Leng, J., Gabr, M.A., 2002. Characteristics of Geogrid-reinforced Aggregate under
Cyclic Load. Transportation Research Board, No. 1786, pp. 29e35.
Ling, H.I., Liu, Z., 2001. Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced asphalt pavements.
J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 127 (2), 177e184.
Mekkawy, M.M., White, D.J., Suleiman, M.T., Jahren, Charles T., 2011. Mechanically
reinforced granular shoulders on soft subgrade: laboratory and full scale
studies. Geotext. Geomembr. 29 (2), 149e160.
Moayedi, H., Kazemian, S., Parasad, A., Huat, B.K., 2009. Effect of geogrid rein-
forcement location in paved road improvement. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 14,
1e11.
Moraci, N., Cardile, G., 2012. Deformative behaviour of different geogrids embedded
in a granular soil under monotonic and cyclic pullout loads. Geotext. Geo-
membr. 32, 104e110.
Nguyen, M.D., Yang, K.H., Lee, S.H., Wu, C.S., Tsai, M.H., 2013. Behavior of nonwoven-
geotextile-reinforced sand and mobilization of reinforcement strain under
triaxial compression. Geosynth. Int. 20 (3), 207e225.
469
Palmeira, E.M., 2009. Soil-geosynthetic interaction. Geotext. Geomembr. 27 (5),
368e390.
Penner, R., Haas, R., Walls, J., 1985. Geogrid reinforcement of granular bases. In:
Roads and Transportation Association of Canada Annual Conference, Vancouver,
September 1985.
Perkins, S.W., 1999. Mechanical response of geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pave-
ments. Geosynth. Int. 6 (5), 347e382.
Perkins, S.W., 2001. Mechanistic-empirical Modeling and Design Model Develop-
ment of Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements. Final Report. Montana
Department of Transportation, Helena, Montana, Report No. FHWA/MT-01/002/
99160e1a, 170p.
Perkins, S.W., 2002. Evaluation of Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavement Sys-
tems Using Two Pavement Test Facilities. Report No.FHWA/MT-02e008/20040.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Tingle, J., Jersey, S., 2005. Cyclic Plate Load Testing of Geosynthetic-reinforced Un-
bound Aggregate Roads. Transportation Research Record, TRB. No. 1936,
pp. 60e69.
Wang, Z.J., Jacobs, F., Ziegler, M., 2014. Visualization of load transfer behaviour
between geogrid and sand using PFC2D. Geotext. Geomembr. 42, 83e90.
Zhang, Y., 2007. Investigation of Geosynthetic-soil Confinement Using Asphalt
Pavement Analyzer. Dissertation for the Degree of Master’s of Science. Uni-
versity of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Zhou, J., Chen, J.F., Xue, J.F., Wang, J.Q., 2012. Micro-mechanism of the interaction
between sand and geogrid transverse ribs. Geosynth. Int. 19 (6), 426e437.