Empirical Design Methods
for Geosynthetic-Reinforced
Low-Volume Roads
Jeb S. Tingle and Sarah R. Jersey
Low-volume road managers are forced to focus their limited resources
on higher-capacity infrastructure, with minimal funding for repair-
ing, maintaining, or improving unpaved low-volume roads as a result.
Insufficient funding requires road managers to consider the use of inno-
vative stabilization and reinforcement materials to reduce operational
costs and minimize maintenance requirements. Geosynthetic materials
have been used for many years to improve the quality of low-volume roads
in an effort to reduce the amount of aggregate required or to extend the
service life of the pavement. The objective of this paper is to review the use
of geotextiles and geogrids in unpaved roads, compare common design
approaches, discuss advantages and limitations of current design meth-
ods, and seek directions for future research efforts to improve the imple-
mentation of geosynthetic technologies. This paper summarizes prior
research activities to establish the historical performance of geosynthetic-
reinforced unpaved roads. Once the performance benefits have been
generally supported, current design methods for separation and re-
inforcement, including advantages and limiting assumptions, are dis-
cussed. The sensitivity of the design methods to specific input parameters
is examined to provide users with an understanding of the impact of
design assumptions on the resulting structural design. Design methods are
compared by performing designs with different methods for a variety of
site conditions. Finally, the paper discusses the essential requirements for
the development of more advanced design methods.
Low-volume roads are an estimated 80% of the world’s transportation
infrastructure, and the majority of low-volume roads are unpaved.
However, road managers are forced to focus their limited resources on
higher-capacity infrastructure, with minimal funding for repairing,
maintaining, or improving unpaved low-volume roads as a result.
Geosynthetic materials have been used for many years to improve
the quality of low-volume roads in an effort to reduce the amount
of aggregate required or to extend the service life of the pavement.
Numerous research efforts document the improved performance
of both geotextile- and geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads; however,
exact quantification of their benefits has been variable. In general,
researchers have reported an increased ability to sustain vehicle traffic
or demonstrated equivalent performance between unreinforced and
reinforced road sections with reduced aggregate thicknesses. Thus,
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry
Road, CEERD-GM-A, Vicksburg, MS 39180. Corresponding author: J. S. Tingle,
Jeb.S.Tingle@erdc.usace.army.mil.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1989, Vol. 2, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 91–101.
DOI: 10.3141/1989-52
91
there is general agreement that the proper use of geosynthetics can
provide savings in terms of reduced aggregate requirements and
reduced maintenance costs due to extended service lives. As with all
new materials, successful implementation of a new technology is a
function of the effectiveness of adequately developing appropriate
design methods, specifications, and construction support. The use of
geosynthetics in the design of low-volume roads has met with mixed
success with some agencies routinely using products in their designs,
some considering geosynthetics for specific projects, and many
simply neglecting to consider geosynthetic alternatives.
The objective of this paper is to review the use of geotextiles and
geogrids in unpaved roads, compare common design approaches, and
discuss advantages and limitations of current design methods. This
paper summarizes research activities that demonstrate improved
performance of geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads. Current design
methods for separation and reinforcement, including the basis for the
original design procedure and limiting assumptions, are discussed.
Analyses that demonstrate the sensitivity of these design procedures
to individual input requirements are presented. The design procedures
are compared by computing design pavement thicknesses for repre-
sentative road sections. These data are used to support discussion of
the advantages and limitations of the current design methods.
GEOSYNTHETIC PERFORMANCE
IN UNPAVED ROADS
The following paragraphs summarize laboratory and full-scale test
results for geosynthetic-reinforced aggregate road sections.
Laboratory Experiment Literature
The literature review identified numerous laboratory-based exper-
iments for geosynthetic-reinforced aggregate pavement sections.
Douglas (1) conducted cyclic beam load tests to evaluate the bene-
fit of using a geotextile to reinforce a clean sand “base” over a peat
subgrade. He developed a model to predict enhanced performance
for the geosynthetic-reinforced pavement sections. Kelly et al. (2)
performed laboratory repeated plate load tests on model roads includ-
ing geotextiles and geogrids. Their experiment showed improved
performance for both geotextile- and geogrid-reinforced road sections
with and without anchoring of the geosynthetics. Modified California
bearing ratio (CBR) tests were conducted by Gregory and Bang (3)
to evaluate the effect of soil improvement resulting from geosynthetic
inclusions. Their small-scale laboratory tests confirmed that geo-
synthetics improve the CBR of the material in a fully anchored test
92
configuration. Cyclic plate load tests were conducted by Douglas and
Valsangkar (4) on large-scale laboratory unbound aggregate road sec-
tions over a soft peat subgrade. A nonwoven geotextile was placed at
the interface between the aggregate and subgrade for all tests, and a
geogrid was placed in the middle of the base for selected tests. Their
results showed that the stiffness of the geogrid-reinforced pavement
improved the pavement stiffness by 2 to 6 times the stiffness of the
geotextile-reinforced peat subgrade alone. Bauer and Abdelhalim (5)
conducted cyclic plate load experiments on geogrid reinforced large-
scale laboratory pavement sections. Their investigation showed that
the geogrid effectively reduced the total surface deformation and
provided a 50% improvement in the number of cycles to failure for
the reinforced section, or a traffic benefit ratio (TBR) of 1.5. TBR is
defined as the amount of traffic sustained by the reinforced section
divided by the unreinforced section.
The literature on laboratory experiments demonstrates improved
performance in terms of increased stiffness, reduced permanent
surface deformation, and extended service life as measured by the
number of cycles to failure compared with unreinforced sections.
Although the number of laboratory load repetitions sustained under
the test conditions noted may not be representative of actual loading
conditions, these data indicate that the inclusion of geosynthetics
in unpaved road sections offers significant performance benefits
compared with unreinforced sections.
Full-Scale Testing
Surprisingly few well-documented full-scale experiments were
discovered for geosynthetic-reinforced aggregate-surfaced roads.
Webster and Watkins (6) and Webster and Alford (7) constructed a
series of full-scale test sections, including geosynthetic reinforcement.
The authors concluded that the horizontal placement of fabrics and
membranes between a soft clay subgrade and a crushed limestone base
provided substantial reinforcement (principally due to separation),
which can lead to reduced design thicknesses by as much as 50%
for reinforced sections. Chaddock (8) conducted full-scale tests on
geogrid-reinforced base layers over weak clay subgrades and reported
that reinforced sections sustained approximately 3.5 times the traffic
of the unreinforced sections for a rut depth of 1.5 in. and subgrade
strengths ranging from 1.5 CBR to 5.0 CBR. Very little reinforcement
of the base was provided by the geogrid for the 0.4 CBR subgrade item
because of subgrade intrusion. In Webster (9), Fannin and Sigurdsson
reported results of a full-scale experiment, including five aggregate
road test items constructed over a high-plasticity organic subgrade
(OH) with an undrained shear strength of approximately 40 kPa
(∼1.3 CBR). For the thinner base sections (0.25 m), the reinforced
items sustained between 4 and 7.5 times as much traffic as did the
corresponding unreinforced item. As the base thickness increased to
0.5 m, the benefit of the reinforcement was less pronounced. Tingle
and Webster (10) reported a reduction in base course thickness of
25% for geotextile-reinforced sections and a base reduction in
course thickness of 50% for aggregate roads reinforced with both a
geotextile and a geogrid over a 0.7 CBR subgrade.
An analysis of the full-scale experiment literature indicated several
trends and shortcomings worthy of discussion. First, the full-scale
experiments focused on road construction over soft, fine-grained sub-
grades, with only two test items constructed over subgrade strengths
exceeding 1.6 CBR. The reported benefits of reinforcing unpaved
roads with geosynthetics included improved permanent deformation
resistance and TBR values ranging from 2 to 55, but typically less
than 10. The authors noted that as the subgrade strength decreased,
Transportation Research Record 1989
the benefit of reinforcement increased. These experiments serve to
establish the potential for geosynthetics to improve aggregate road
performance.
COMMON GEOSYNTHETIC DESIGN METHODS
The empirical design of geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads began
with the incorporation of geotextiles at the base–subgrade interface
for separation, filtration, and reinforcement. The first notable design
procedure for geotextile-reinforced unpaved roads was proposed by
Barenberg et al. (11) on the basis of the limit equilibrium bearing
capacity theory. The limit equilibrium bearing capacity theory is
based on selecting an aggregate base thickness such that the vertical
stress applied to the subgrade is below the theoretical limits for sub-
grade shear failure. This design procedure is based on the bearing
capacity theory of a footing under static load, a granular fill, and a
soft cohesive subgrade. An additional assumption is that the failure
mode of the unreinforced system is characterized by local shear, while
the failure mode of a geotextile-reinforced system is characterized
by a general shear failure due to additional distribution of the load.
Barenberg et al. (11) proposed bearing capacity factors of 3.3 and
6.0 for unreinforced and reinforced systems, respectively. These fac-
tors were suggested for roads designed for very low traffic volumes
and large deformations.
The limit equilibrium bearing capacity theory was modified by
Steward et al. (12) by proposing lower bearing capacity factors to
account for increased traffic requirements. Steward et al. suggested
an unreinforced bearing capacity factor of 2.8 and a geotextile-
reinforced bearing capacity factor of 5.0 for unpaved roads designed
for 1,000 equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs) and 2-in. of rutting.
Steward et al. used a Boussinesq solution for calculating the vertical
stress beneath a uniform circularly loaded area and the modified bear-
ing capacity factors to construct design curves for single, dual, and
dual tandem axle loadings. This procedure was adopted by both
the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
geotextile-reinforced unpaved roads. However, Tingle and Webster
(10) used full-scale test section results to validate the applicability
of the design procedure and modify it for the incorporation of
geogrids. Their results indicated that the bearing capacity factor for
the unreinforced roads was satisfactory, but the geotextile-reinforced
unpaved roads should be reduced to 3.6. However, the data were
deemed insufficient to change the criteria. They showed that the use
of a geotextile and geogrid over soft cohesive subgrades provided
substantial benefits, and a new bearing capacity factor of 5.8 was
suggested. Tingle and Webster’s results were used to prepare the
current Corps of Engineers design method described in Engineering
Technical Letter (ETL) 1110-1-189 (13).
An alternative approach in the design of geosynthetic-reinforced
unpaved roads was based on the widespread acceptance of the ten-
sioned membrane effect as the primary reinforcement mechanism
responsible for changing shear failure modes from localized shear for
unreinforced systems to generalized shear for geotextile-reinforced
systems. New design procedures were developed on the basis of the
use of large-deformation membrane analysis equations. The most
popular design procedure was produced by Giroud and Noiray (14)
and was also based on limit equilibrium bearing capacity theory with
modifications to include benefits of the tensioned membrane effect.
More recently Giroud and Han (15) modified the Giroud and
Noiray (14) method to consider the stress distribution, base course
strength properties, geosynthetic–base interlock, and geosynthetic
in-plane stiffness. These additions are combined with previously
Tingle and Jersey 93

considered factors: traffic volume, wheel load, tire pressure, subgrade
strength, rut depth, and influence of the type of geosynthetic on the
failure mode of the system. Giroud and Han’s design method is based
on determining the stresses at the base–subgrade interface and deter-
mining the rut depth as a function of those stresses and the subgrade
bearing capacity. The influence of the number of vehicle passes and
the properties of the geogrid are accounted for through modifications
of the stress distribution angle of the aggregate base.
Three critical assumptions regarding the subgrade bearing capacity
factors are made by Giroud and Han (15). First, they select a bearing
capacity factor of 3.14 for unreinforced unpaved roads, which is the
elastic limit for a saturated undrained subgrade (zero shear strength,
a conservative assumption). Second, a bearing capacity factor of
5.14 is selected for the case of a geotextile-reinforced unpaved road
on the basis of the assumption that the geotextile provides a separa-
tion function resulting in a condition of zero shear strength at the
base–subgrade interface. Finally, a bearing capacity factor of 5.71
(theoretical ultimate bearing capacity factor with maximum inward
stress on the subgrade) is used for the geogrid-reinforced unpaved
roads because of the expectation of maximum inward shear stress at
the base–subgrade interface resulting from geogrid–aggregate inter-
lock. The restrained horizontal movement of the base material due
to the geogrid is expected to result in zero outward shear stress being
applied to the subgrade surface. Interesting adaptations include the
use of a mobilization coefficient to account for the fact that only a
fraction of the maximum bearing capacity of the subgrade is mobilized
during loading. Giroud and Han (15) account for the base course and
subgrade properties, repeated loadings, and the geogrid properties
through modifications of the angle of the stress distribution.
In summary, the common empirical design methods of reinforced
unpaved roads are based on the limit equilibrium bearing capacity
theory. These design methods range from the original work of
Barenberg et al. (11) to the most recent adaptation by Giroud and
Han (15). Table 1 shows the critical assumptions for the three design
methods discussed, and Table 2 lists the critical input parameters for
each method. Each adaptation attempts to improve the ability of the
procedure to provide a theoretically rigorous analysis. Common
adaptations include methods for consideration of the influence of
parameters believed to influence the performance of the pavement
and the mechanisms of reinforcement. The limit equilibrium bearing
capacity design procedures offer a relatively simple means of design-
ing reinforced pavements with some theoretical basis. However, the
theory is based on plane strain conditions and static loading: neither
represents the loading conditions of pavements accurately. In short,
the empirical methods presented offer a simple means of designing
pavements where more rigorous analyses have yet to be developed,
but their limitations must be recognized by the designer.
SENSITIVITY OF DESIGN METHODS
TO INPUT VARIABLES
This section evaluates the sensitivity of common empirical design
procedures to critical input parameters. The critical assumptions and
key variables of three common procedures are shown in Tables 1
and 2, respectively. Sensitivity analyses provide insight regarding
the effect of design assumptions on aggregate thickness. To establish
conservative procedures for determining critical input parameters,
designers must understand how the selection of design input values
affects the required aggregate thickness.
Tingle and Webster (10)
and ETL 1110-1-189 (13)
The current Corps of Engineers design method for incorporating
geosynthetics in unpaved road designs is a simplistic modification
of the limit equilibrium bearing capacity approach. Figure 1 shows
the relationship between required aggregate thickness and subgrade

TABLE 1 Critical Assumptions from Geosynthetic Pavement Design Procedures

Design Method Critical Assumptions

ETL 1110-1-189 Failure in subgrade

Giroud and Han (2004)
Giroud and Noiray (1981)
Fine-grained subgrade soils with undrained loading conditions
2-in. rut failure criterion
1,000-pass failure criterion with linear extrapolations to higher traffic levels
Geotextile primary function: separation rather than reinforcement
Minimum aggregate thickness of 6 in. (0.15 m)
Uniform base course thickness
Channelized traffic for nontraffic areas
Minimum base course thickness of 4 in. (0.1 m) for constructability and anchorage purposes
Fine-grained subgrade soils with undrained loading conditions
Reinforcement allowing loads in the elastic zone while acting as though the subgrade is in the plastic zone
Reorientation of shear stress at the subgrade interface
Resilient moduli of base course and subgrade used
Upper bound of base to subgrade modulus ratio: 5
Limited to less than 10,000 vehicle passes
Minimum aggregate thickness of 4 in. (0.10 m)
Fine-grained subgrade soils with undrained loading conditions
Limited to less than 10,000 vehicle passes
Elliptical contact area from wheel replaced with rectangular area associated with dual tire
Geotextile roughness preventing failure of the aggregate layer by sliding along the geotextile
Pyramidal distribution of load in aggregate layer
Assumed angle of load distribution pyramid
Reinforcement allowing loads in the elastic zone while acting as though the subgrade is in the plastic zone
Induced settlement under load assumed to be parabolic
No minimum aggregate depth
94 Transportation Research Record 1989

TABLE 2 Variables Used in Geosynthetic Pavement Design Procedures

Design Method Dependent Variable Independent Variables

ETL 1110-1-189 Required aggregate thickness Subgrade strength

Giroud and Noiray (1981)
Giroud and Han (2004)
Subgrade soil strength
Required aggregate thickness
Geosynthetic type (unreinforced, geogrid, or geotextile)
Wheel load
Axle configuration (single-wheel, dual-wheel, tandem-axle)
Number of passes (1,000, 2,000, or 5,000)
Single-axle load
Allowable rut depth
Number of traffic passes
Tire inflation pressure
Tire size (highway versus off-highway trucks)
Secant modulus of geosynthetic reinforcement
Distance between the midpoints of 2 wheels
Required aggregate thicknessa
Geogrid aperture stability modulus
Required aggregate thicknessa
Number of passes
Tire pressure
Wheel load
Geosynthetic type (unreinforced, geogrid, or geotextile)
Base course strength
Subgrade strength
Allowable rut depth

a Method requires iteration to obtain required aggregate thickness for subgrade conditions.

strength for the unreinforced and geotextile- and geogrid-reinforced
pavement alternatives on the basis of the Corps of Engineers method.
The figure shows decreasing aggregate requirements for increasing
subgrade strengths. The figure shows significant aggregate savings up
to a subgrade strength of approximately 4 CBR. The close proximity
of the geotextile- and geogrid-reinforced curves indicates that rela-
tively little additional benefit is permitted for geogrids over geotextiles.
However, the procedure recommends the use of a geotextile in con-
junction with the geogrid for subgrade strengths less than 4 CBR. In
addition, Tingle and Webster (10) noted that full-scale data suggested
that the geotextile-only bearing capacity be reduced to 3.6 rather
than 5.0, but the data were not sufficient to warrant the change in

40

Unreinforced: 1,000 Passes 5,000 Passes

35 Geotextile: 1,000 Passes 5,000 Passes
Geogrid: 1,000 Passes 5,000 Passes

30
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Subgrade Strength (% CBR)

FIGURE 1 Sensitivity of Corps of Engineers (13) design method to subgrade strength, 18-kip standard axle (10, 13).
Tingle and Jersey
criteria. The method’s sensitivity to the bearing capacity factor can
also be evaluated from Figure 1 by comparing the unreinforced with
the geotextile- and geogrid-reinforced analyses. As the bearing
capacity factor increases, the required aggregate thickness decreases
relatively proportionally up to a CBR of 4. The sensitivity to traffic
level shows an increase in required aggregate thickness for increased
traffic levels.
Giroud and Noiray (14)
The Giroud and Noiray (14) method has been used for many years.
Recently, however, the emphasis on the tensioned membrane effect
has declined, with evidence that lateral restraint is the dominant
reinforcement mechanism for geogrids. Figure 2 shows a decrease
in required aggregate thickness with increasing subgrade strength
for the Giroud and Noiray (14) method. The figure also shows rela-
tively consistent reductions in required aggregate thickness for re-
inforced designs compared with unreinforced designs, with slightly
decreasing benefit as the subgrade strength increases. The parallel
curves indicate that increased traffic levels result in proportional
increases in the required aggregate thickness. Figure 3 shows the rel-
ative insensitivity of the Giroud and Noiray (14) method to tensile
secant modulus, with greater benefit on softer subgrades. This figure
suggests that there is minimal benefit in specifying geosynthetics
with higher tensile moduli. For example, a product with a tensile
secant modulus of 100 kN/m performs only slightly worse than one
with a modulus of 700 kN/m. The design method shows relatively
little benefit due to tensioned membrane effect and implies that most
of the benefit is due to separation or lateral restraint since most of the
aggregate savings are independent of the strength of the geosynthetic.
60
50
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Unreinforced: 10 Passes
Reinforced: 10 Passes
FIGURE 2 Sensitivity of Giroud and Noiray (14) design method to subgrade strength, 18-kip standard axle load.
95
Furthermore, there is an unexplained increase in aggregate thickness
requirements with increasing tensile secant modulus for the reinforced
designs at the higher 3 CBR subgrade strength. Designers should
consider that the Giroud and Noiray method provides significantly
reduced aggregate thickness requirements for reinforced designs,
but there is little influence due to tensile secant modulus.
Giroud and Han (15)
Giroud and Han (15) include a number of additional considerations
with theoretical basis that provide the designer with a means of
accounting for key design inputs that differ from those used to
develop the original empirical relationship. Figures 4, 5, and 6 show
the sensitivity of the Giroud and Han (15) method to increasing
subgrade strengths for the unreinforced and geotextile- and geogrid-
reinforced designs, respectively. These figures indicate that the
required aggregate thicknesses decrease as a power function with
increasing subgrade strength at different traffic levels. The figures
also show a general increase in required aggregate thickness with
increasing traffic levels. Comparing Figures 4 through 6 shows that
the design method results in significantly reduced aggregate thick-
ness requirements for geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads, with
substantially more benefit for geogrids compared with geotextiles.
Figure 7 indicates that the aggregate thickness requirements are
moderately sensitive to base course strength, with decreasing thick-
ness required for stronger base materials. There appears to be an odd
lower bound for base strength influence on thickness requirements
at low traffic levels, as indicated by the same thickness requirement
for the 10 and 20 CBR base materials at 100 passes. Figure 8 shows
that the design method is reasonably sensitive to the aperture stability
Unreinforced:
Reinforced:
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Subgrade Strength (% CBR)
100 Passes 1,000 Passes 10,000 Passes
100 Passes 1,000 Passes 10,000 Passes
96 Transportation Research Record 1989

25

20
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)

15

10

5 Unreinforced:
Reinforced:

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Tensile Secant Modulus (kN/m)
Reinforced: 1 CBR 2 CBR 3 CBR
Unreinforced: 1 CBR 2 CBR 3 CBR

FIGURE 3 Sensitivity of Giroud and Noiray (14) design method to tensile secant modulus of the Geosynthetic, 1,000 passes of 18-kip
standard axle load.

45
Assumptions:
40 Aperture Stability Modulus - 0 mN/degree
Base Course CBR Strength - 20%
Subgrade CBR Strength - 2.5%
35 Bearing Capacity Factor - 5.71
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)

Bearing Capacity Mobilization Coefficient - 0.605

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Soil Strength (% CBR)
10 passes 100 passes 1,000 passes 10,000 passes

FIGURE 4 Sensitivity of Giroud and Han (15) design method to subgrade strength for unreinforced unpaved roads, 18-kip axle loading.
Tingle and Jersey 97

35
Assumptions:
Aperture Stability Modulus - 0 mN/degree
30 Base Course CBR Strength - 20%
Subgrade CBR Strength - 2.5%
Bearing Capacity Factor - 5.71
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)

Bearing Capacity Mobilization Coefficient - 0.605

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Soil Strength (% CBR)
10 passes 100 passes 1,000 passes 10,000 passes

FIGURE 5 Sensitivity of Giroud and Han (15) design method to subgrade strength for geotextile-reinforced unpaved roads,
18-kip axle loading.

25

Assumptions:
Aperture Stability Modulus - 0.65 mN/degree
20 Base Course CBR Strength - 20%
Subgrade CBR Strength - 2.5%
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)

Bearing Capacity Factor - 5.71

Bearing Capacity Mobilization Coefficient - 0.605

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Soil Strength (% CBR)
10 passes 100 passes 1,000 passes 10,000 passes

FIGURE 6 Sensitivity of Giroud and Han (15) design method to subgrade strength for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads, 18-kip axle loading.
98 Transportation Research Record 1989

Assumptions:
Aperture Stability Modulus - 0.65 mN/deg
Subgrade CBR Strength - 2.5%
5 Bearing Capacity Factor - 5.71
Bearing Capacity Mobilization Coefficient - 0.605
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)

Rut Depth - 50 mm

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Base Course Strength (% CBR)
100 Passes 1,000 Passes 10,000 Passes

FIGURE 7 Sensitivity of Giroud and Han (15) design method to base course–reinforced unpaved roads, 18-kip axle loading.

12
Assumptions:
Base Course CBR Strength - 20%
Subgrade CBR Strength - 2.5%
10
Bearing Capacity Factor - 5.71
Bearing Capacity Mobilization Coefficient - 0.605
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)

Rut Depth - 50 mm
8

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Aperture Stability Modulus (mN/degree)
100 Passes 1,000 Passes 10,000 Passes

FIGURE 8 Sensitivity of Giroud and Han (15) design method to aperture stability of the geogrid, 18-kip axle loading.
Tingle and Jersey
modulus, with decreasing aggregate requirements for products
with increasing aperture stability. However, the figure shows con-
vergence between traffic levels at an aperture stability modulus
of approximately 0.8 mN/degrees. Thus, designers should consider
that this method gives substantial credit for reinforced designs,
especially geogrids, for CBR values less than 1 due to higher
aperture stability, while there is relatively little credit for base course
strength.
COMPARISON OF DESIGN METHODS
The three principal design methods considered in this paper have
been widely accepted for the design of geosynthetic-reinforced
unpaved roads. In general, these methods are represented by a series
of assumptions shown in Table 1. Some common assumptions are
that the base course materials provide adequate load support, the sub-
grade soils are fine-grained, and failure is characterized by undrained
failure of the subgrade.
In general, the Giroud and Han method shows greater aggregate
savings than the other two methods. This savings is due to the increased
aggregate requirements for unreinforced pavements relative to the
alternative design methods. As shown in Figure 9, Giroud and Han
require significantly more aggregate than the other design methods
for unreinforced designs, particularly at lower strengths (CBR < 2).
Above a 2 CBR, this method shows a higher slope relating soil strength
to required aggregate thickness; the relationship indicates that the
required aggregate thickness increases rapidly with decreasing soil
strength. Figure 9 also shows that the unreinforced sections designed
with the methods presented by Giroud and Noiray and the ETL
50
45
40
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
ETL 1110-1-189
FIGURE 9 Aggregate requirements for unreinforced pavement section with 2-in. ruts at 1,000 vehicle passes, 18-kip axle loading.
99
present similar aggregate requirements over a broad spectrum of
subgrade strengths.
As shown in Figure 10, the Corps of Engineers method require-
ments for sections containing geogrids, geogrids and geotextiles,
and geotextiles at the base–subgrade interface are consistent with the
results shown for Giroud and Noiray for a geosynthetic with modulus
of 300 N/m. These four curves show excellent agreement with one
another at a terminal rut depth of 2 in. after 1,000 vehicle passes.
For a geogrid design using a strong geogrid (J = 0.65 N/m/°), Giroud
and Han show agreement with the other design procedures at sub-
grade strengths above 1 CBR. Below 1 CBR, Giroud and Han require
significantly more aggregate for geogrid-reinforced sections. For
pavements containing geotextiles, Giroud and Han show less ben-
efit in terms of aggregate savings until a subgrade strength of 4 is
obtained.
Table 3 presents a simplistic cost–benefit analysis performed for
a pavement expected to withstand 1,000 passes at a 2-in. rut depth
to compare the methods. Subgrade strengths of 1 and 3 CBR were
considered in this analysis. On the basis of local experience, a cost
of $22/ton was assigned to the crushed limestone base, while the
geogrid and geotextiles were assumed to cost $3.00/ft2 and $0.25/ft2,
respectively. This analysis shows significant benefit for reinforce-
ment of an aggregate road constructed over a 1 CBR subgrade, but
minimal benefit at a 3 CBR subgrade. However, this cost–benefit
analysis considers material costs alone. Additional factors including
hauling costs, installation costs, construction labor costs, road main-
tenance costs, and user costs are required to obtain a true cost–benefit
analysis to determine the suitability of a project for geosynthetic
inclusions. Upon inclusion of these project-specific costs, analyses
will show greater benefits with the inclusion of geosynthetics in the
pavement structure.
Assumptions:
Base Course CBR Strength - 20%
Rut Depth - 2 in. (50 mm)
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Subgrade Strength (% CBR)
Giroud and Noiray Giroud and Han
100 Transportation Research Record 1989

40

Assumptions:
35 Base Subgrade CBR Strength - 20%
Rut Depth - 2 in. (50 mm)
Geosynthetic Secant Modulus - 300 N/m
Aperture Stability Modulus - 0.62 N/m/degree
Required Aggregate Thickness (in.)

30
Traffic Level - 1,000 Passes

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Subgrade Strength (% CBR)
ETL 1110-1-189 Geogrid ETL 1110-1-189 Geotextile Reinforced Giroud and Noiray
Giroud and Han Geogrid Reinforced Giroud and Han Geotextile

FIGURE 10 Aggregate requirements for geosynthetic-reinforced pavement section with 2-in. ruts at 1,000 vehicle passes,
18-kip axle loading.

TABLE 3 Cost–Benefit Analysis of Materials

Design Aggregate Aggregate Materials

Thickness Reduction Geosynthetic Savings Savings
(in.) (in.) Costs ($/mi)a ($/mi) b ($/mi) c

1 CBR subgrade strength

ETL 1110-1-189
Unreinforced 15 0 — — —
Geotextile 9 6 26,400 81,312 54,912
Geogrid 8 7 316,800 94,864 −221,936
Giroud and Noiray
Unreinforced 15.5 0 — — —
Geosynthetic 9.5 6 26,400 81,312 54,912
Giroud and Han
Unreinforced 24 0 — — —
Geotextile 17.5 6.5 26,400 88,088 61,688
Geogrid 10.5 13.5 316,800 182,952 −133,848
3 CBR subgrade strength
ETL 1110-1-189
Unreinforced 8 0 — — —
Geotextile 6 2 26,400 333 −26,067
Geogrid 6 2 316,800 333 −316,467
Giroud and Noiray
Unreinforced 8 0 — — —
Geosynthetic 5.5 2.5 84,480 417 −84,063
Giroud and Han
Unreinforced 15.5 0 — — —
Geotextile 9 6.5 26,400 1,083 −25,317
Geogrid 4 11.5 316,800 1,917 −314,883

aAssumed aggregate cost of $22/ton.

bAssumed geotextile cost of $0.25/ft2, assumed geogrid cost of $3/ft2.
cSavings purely in terms of material costs.
Tingle and Jersey
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
1. Laboratory and field experiments have demonstrated improved
performance of geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads in terms of
reduced aggregate requirements and increased traffic service life.
2. Current geosynthetic design methods consist of empirical rela-
tionships based on limit equilibrium bearing capacity theory with
adaptations to include theoretically rigorous parameters linked to
failure mechanisms identified in historical experiments.
3. All three design methods show significant benefits in terms of
reduced aggregate thickness for geotextile- and geogrid-reinforced
unpaved roads.
4. There is minimal reinforcement benefit from the geogrid in the
Corps of Engineers design method beyond that provided by the geo-
textile, because a geotextile is recommended for CBR values less
than 4. However, Tingle and Webster (10) presented results indicating
that the geotextile bearing capacity factor may be unconservative.
5. The Giroud and Noiray method, while incorporating tensile
secant modulus, was not very sensitive to the tensile secant mod-
ulus; this insensitivity suggests little benefit for high-strength
materials. The Giroud and Noiray method does not have a minimum
aggregate thickness.
6. The Giroud and Han method is relatively insensitive to base
course strength because of a limit on the ratio of base modulus to
subgrade modulus of 5. The Giroud and Han method is sensitive to
aperture stability modulus; this gives additional credit for stiff
geogrid products.
7. The Giroud and Han method shows greater savings than the
other methods, partially due to a general increase in the aggregate
thickness requirements for unreinforced unpaved roads.
8. Because of the limited sensitivity of the Giroud and Noiray
method to tensile secant modulus, the design results are similar to
those generated with the Corps of Engineers design method.
9. On the basis of material costs alone, the geotextile is generally
warranted for subgrade strengths less than 2. Consideration of addi-
tional factors including hauling costs, installation costs, construction
labor costs, road maintenance costs, and user costs is required to
obtain a true cost–benefit analysis to determine the suitability of a
project for geosynthetic inclusions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The tests described and the resulting data, unless otherwise noted,
were obtained from research conducted under the Pavements Research
Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by the Engineer
Research and Development Center. Permission was granted by the
Chief of Engineers to publish this information.
101
REFERENCES
1. Douglas, R. A. Repeated-Load Behaviour of Geosynthetic-Built Unbound
Roads. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 34, 1997, pp. 197–203.
2. Kelly, D., C. Fairfield, and A. Sibbald. Geosynthetics for the Improvement
of Unpaved Roads. Highways and Transportation, Vol. 42, No. 07/08,
1995, pp. 13–15.
3. Gregory, G. H., and S. Bang. Design of Flexible Pavement Subgrades
with Geosynthetics. Proc., 30th Symposium on Engineering Geology
and Geotechnical Engineering, Boise, Idaho, 1994, pp. 569–582.
4. Douglas, R. A., and A. J. Valsangkar. Unpaved Geosynthetic-Built
Resource Access Roads: Stiffness Rather than Rut Depth as the Key Design
Criterion. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, 1992, pp. 45–59.
5. Bauer, G. E., and A. O. A. Abdelhalim. The Performance of Geogrid
Reinforced Road Bases. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 1,
No. 2, 1987, pp. 71–75.
6. Webster, S. L., and J. E. Watkins. Investigation of Construction Techniques
for Tactical Bridge Approach Roads Across Soft Ground. Technical
Report S-77-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss., 1977, pp. 1–74.
7. Webster, S. L., and S. J. Alford. Investigation of Construction Concepts
for Pavements Across Soft Ground. Technical Report S-78-6, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 1978,
pp. 1–81.
8. Chaddock, B. C. J. Deformation of Road Foundations with Geogrid
Reinforcement. Research Report 140. Transportation and Road Research
Laboratory, 1988, pp. 1–8.
9. Webster, S. L. Geogrid Reinforced Base Courses for Flexible Pavements
for Light Aircraft: Literature Review and Test Section Design. Miscel-
laneous Paper GL-92-6. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 1992, pp. 7–14.
10. Tingle, J. S., and S. L. Webster. Corps of Engineers Design of Geo-
synthetic-Reinforced Unpaved Roads. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1849, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2003, pp. 193–201.
11. Barenberg, E. J., J. Hales, and J. Dowland. Evaluation of Soil-Aggregate
Systems with MIRAFI Fabric. University of Illinois Report UILU-ENG-
75-2020, prepared for Celanese Fibers Marketing Company, Urbana,
Ill., 1975.
12. Steward, J. E., R. Williamson, and J. Mohney. Guidelines for Use of
Fabrics in Construction and Maintenance of Low Volume Roads. Forest
Service Report PB-276 972. Department of Agriculture, Portland, Ore.,
1977.
13. Use of Geogrids in Pavement Construction. Engineer Technical Letter
1110-1-189, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2003,
pp. 1–23.
14. Giroud, J. P., and L. Noiray. Geotextile Reinforced Unpaved Road
Design. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 107,
No. GT9, 1981, pp. 1233–1254.
15. Giroud, J. P., and J. Han. 2004. Design Method for Geogrid-Reinforced
Unpaved Roads. I. Development of Design Method. ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8,
pp. 775–786.
The Committee on Low-Volume Roads: Research, Practice, and International
Technology Transfer sponsored publication of this paper.