Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Effect of Geotextile On CBR Strength of Unpaved Road With Soft Subgrade
Effect of Geotextile On CBR Strength of Unpaved Road With Soft Subgrade
R. Rajkumar
Graduate Student, Master of Engineering (Infrastructure),
Department of Civil Engineering,
PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India
ABSTRACT
Successful use of geosynthetics is ensured in a given geotechnical application, as it is not only
compatible but effective in improving the soil properties when appropriately placed. In this
study the performance of woven and nonwoven geotextile, interfaced between soft subgrade
and unbound gravel in an unpaved flexible pavement system, is carried out experimentally,
utilising the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) testing arrangement. In order to evaluate the
performance, the reinforcement ratio is obtained based on the CBR load – penetration relation
of both soft subgrade-gravel and soft subgrade-geotextile-gravel, separately, for woven and
nonwoven geotextile. Comparison of reinforcement ratio determined using the CBR strength
test shows that the performance is improved with the inclusion of woven and nonwoven
geotextile.
INTRODUCTION
The economical development of a country is closely related to its road transport infrastructure
facilities available. Especially in an under developing country, the rural roads connecting
agricultural villages is vital in improving the rural economy. It is known that the option of
unpaved roads are economical for low traffic volume in such areas, however, when unpaved
roads laid on soft subgrade undergoes large deformations, where the periodical maintenance of
the rural road is limited due to cost considerations, which may disrupt the service and affect the
function of the road. In such situations, comparing various other methods, geosynthetics can be
- 1355 -
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. J 1356
utilized to improve not only the performance of the unpaved road by increasing the life time, but
also, minimizing the maintenance cost as well as reducing the thickness of the road.
Full-scale field tests and large scale laboratory tests (Elvidge and Raymond, 1999; Bergado et
al., 2001; Hufenus et al., 2006; Bhosale and Kambale, 2008; Subaida et al., 2009; Palmeria and
Antunes, 2010) are carried out to investigate the performance of unpaved roads. Laboratory CBR
tests are performed to study the use of natural coir and jute geotextile (Michael and Vinod, 2009;
Senthil Kumar and Pandiammal Devi, 2011; and Babu et al., 2011). CBR tests are also conducted
by introducing geotextiles and geogrid in granular soil (Naeini and Mirzakhanlari, 2008; Duncan-
Williams and Attoh-Okine, 2008; and Dhule et al., 2011). Further, based on CBR test, the
influence of geotextile, geogrid and geonet are investigated in clay with low or medium
compressibility (Srivastava et al., 1995; Naeini and Moayed, 2009; Nair and Latha, 2010;
Moayed and Nazari, 2011; and Nair and Latha 2011) as soft subgrade in an unpaved road system.
Hence, in this study the effect woven and non-woven geotextiles on the CBR strength of the
aggregate – soil system is carried out considering the clay with high compressibility as soft
subgrade.
MATERIALS USED
Soil
Soil sample obtained locally is used for the present experimental investigations. The required
properties of the soil were determined and are presented Table 1.
Aggregate
The gravel aggregate used for the base course is subjected to the sieve analysis. The
uniformity co-efficient and co-efficient of curvature of the aggregate is 4.5 and 2 respectively.
Hence, the aggregate used in the CBR test is classified as well graded gravel.
Geosynthetic Material
A woven and nonwoven geotextile produced from polypropylene were interfaced between the
soil and the aggregate. The properties provided by the manufacturers are given in Table 2.
Figure 1: Schematic arrangement and photograph of the Soil-Aggregate in the CBR Mould
Vol.
V 17 [2012], Bund.. J 135
58
RES
SULTS AND
A DIS
SCUSSIION
Thhe results obtained by taaking the aveerage of threee trails for each, are pllotted as loaad
versu
us penetratioon. The variation of loaad-penetratioon curve forr soil-aggreggate and soiil-
woveen geotextilee-aggregate is
i shown in Figure
F 2.
240
220
Soil-A
Aggregate
200
180 Soil-W
Woven Geotextile-
Aggreggate
160
140
L d(k )
Load(kg)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 166 18 20 22
Penetration(m
mm)
Figure 2: Compariso
on between Soil-Aggregat
S te and Soil-W
Woven geotexttile-
Aggregate
A
200
180 Soil-Aggregate
160 Soil-Nonwoven
geotextile-Aggregate
140
120
Load (kg)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Penetration(mm)
From the load-penetration curve of Figure 2 and 3, it is clearly observed that there is an
increase in resistance to penetration, when the woven geotextile as well as nonwoven geotextile
interfaced between soft subgrade and base aggregate.
Further, in order to quantify the amount of increase in the penetration resistance, the
reinforcement ratio is taken into consideration. The reinforcement ratio (Koerner, 2005) at a
particular penetration is,
ℎ
=
ℎ
Based on the reinforcement ratio obtained for both soil-woven geotextile-aggregate and soil-
nonwoven geotextile-aggregate, the reinforcement ratio versus penetration curve is plotted, as
shown in Figure 4.
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. J 1360
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
Reinforcement Ratio
1.40
1.20
1.00
Woven geotextile
0.80
Nonwoven geotextile
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Penetration(mm)
From the Figure 4, it shows that the reinforcement ratio is more than one throughout the test,
which indicates that the introduction of geotextile offers good resistance even to lower
penetration. Further, the reinforcement ratio increases with an increase in penetration. Hence the
use of geotextile is most advantage in an unpaved road with soft subgrade at higher penetration.
CONCLUSIONS
Interfacing of both woven geotextile as well as nonwoven geotextile in an unpaved road
especially with soft subgrade, increases the penetration resistance and hence the CBR strength.
Therefore, the performance of the unpaved road is better with the inclusion of both the geotextiles
and improves further at larger depth of penetration.
REFERENCES
1. Babu, K.K., K.S. Beena and A.K. Raji (2011) “Estimation of CBR of Coir Geotextile
Reinforced Subgrade,” Highway Research Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 41-47.
2. Basu, G., A.N. Roy, S.K. Bhattacharyya and S.K. Ghosh (2009) “Construction of
Unpaved Rural Road using Jute-Synthetic Blended Woven Geotextile – A Case
Study,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 27, 506-512.
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. J 1361
17. Hu, Y.C. and Y.M. Zhang (2007) “Analysis of Load-Settlement Relationship for
Unpaved Road Reinforced with Geogrid,” First International Symposium on
Geotechnical Safety and Risk, Tongji University, Shanghai, China, 609-615.
18. Hufenus, R., R.Rueegger, R. Banjac, P. Mayor, S.M. Springman and R. Bronnimann
(2006) “Full-Scale Field Tests on Geosynthetic Reinforced Unpaved Roads on Soft
Subgrade,” Geotextiles and Geomembrane, Vol. 24, 21-37.
19. Jacobsen, H.M (1989) “In-situ Study of Road Reinforced by Geotextiles,” XII
ICFMFE, Rio De Janeiro, 1-17.
20. Kazimierowiicz-Frankowska, K (2007) “Influence of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on
the Load-Settlement Characteristics of Two-Layer Subgarde,” Geotextiles and
Geomembrane, Vol. 25, 366-376.
21. Koerner, R.M. (2005) “Designing with Geosynthetics,” Fifth Edition, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey, pp.184-186.
22. Love, J.P., H.J. Burd, G.W.E. Milligan and G.T. Houlsby (1987) “Analytical and
Model Studies of Reinforcement of a Layer of Granular Fill on a Soft Clay
Subgrade,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, 611-622.
23. Lyons, C.K. and J. Fannin (2006) “A Comparison of Two Design Methods for
Unpaved Roads Reinforced with Geogrids,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 43,
1389-1394.
24. Michael, M. and P. Vinod (2009) “California Bearing Ratio of Coir Geotextile
Reinforced Subgrade,” 10th National Conference on Technological Trends, College
of
Engineering, Trivandram, India, 63-67.
25. Moayed, R.Z. and M. Nazari (2011) “Effect of Utilization of Geosynthetic on
Reducing the Required Thickness of Subbase Layer of a Two Layered Soil,” World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Issue 49, Article 175, 963-967.
26. Naeini, S.A. and M. Mirzakhanlari (2008) “The Effect of Geotextile and Grading on
the Bearing Ratio of Granular Soils,” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 13, Bundle J, Paper 0891.
27. Naeini, S.A. and R. Z. Moayed (2009) “Effect of Plasticity Index and Reinforcement
on the CBR Value of Soft Clay,” International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 7,
No. 2, 124- 130.
28. Nair, A.M. and G.M. Latha (2010) “Bearing Resistance of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Soil-Aggregate Systems,” Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in
Materials, Mechanics and Management, College of Engineering, Trivandram, India,
Vol. I, 457-463.
29. Nair, A.M. and G.M. Latha (2011) “Bearing Resistance of Reinforced Soil-
Aggregate Systems,” Ground Improvement, Vol. 164, No. 2, 83-95.
30. Oloo, S.Y., D.G. Fredlund and J.K-M. Gan (1997) “Bearing Capacity of Unpaved
Road,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, 398-407.
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. J 1363
31. Palmeira, E.M. and L.G.S. Antunes (2010) “Large Scale Tests on Geosynthetic
Reinforced Unpaved Roads Subjected to Surface Maintenance,” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 28, 547-558.
32. Praveen Aggarwal, K.G. Sharma and K.K. Gupta (2007) “Modeling of Unreinforced
and Reinforced Pavement Composite Material using HISS Model,” IJE Transactions
B: Applications, Vol. 20, No. 1, 13-22.
33. Raymond, G. and I. Ismail (2003) “The Effect of Geogrid Reinforcement on
Unbound Aggregates,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 21, 355-380.
34. Retzlaff, J., U. Turezynski and S. Schwerdt (2006) “The Effect of Geogrids under
Unbound Sub-base Layers,” Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Yokohama, Japan, Vol. 3, 825-830.
35. Senthil Kumar, P. and S. Pandiammal Devi (2011) “Effect of Needle Punched
Nonwoven Coir and Jute Geotextiles on CBR Strength of Soft Subgrade,” ARPN
Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 11, 114-116.
36. 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, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1-17.
37. Srivastava, R.K., A.V. Jalota and R. Singh (1995) “Model Studies on Geotextile
Reinforced Pavements,” Indian Highways, Vol. 23, No. 9, 31-39.
38. Subaida, E.A., S. Chandrakaran and N. Sankar (2009) “Laboratory Performance of
Unpaved Roads Reinforced with Woven Coir Geotextils,” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 27, 204-210.
39. Watts, G.R.A. and D.I. Blackman (2004) “The Performance of Reinforced Unpaved
Sub-Bases Subjected to Trafficking,” Third Europen Geosynthetics Conference,
German Geotechnical Society and Zentrum Geotechnick, 261-266.
© 2012 ejge