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

net/publication/359733727

A Novel Approach to the Design of Geogrid-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Article  in  International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering · April 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s40891-022-00373-3

CITATIONS READS

0 208

4 authors, including:

Sayanti Banerjee
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sayanti Banerjee on 07 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-022-00373-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

A Novel Approach to the Design of Geogrid‑Reinforced Flexible

Pavements
Sayanti Banerjee1 · Maj Vikas Kumar Srivastava1 · Bappaditya Manna1   · J. T. Shahu1

Received: 14 October 2021 / Accepted: 12 March 2022 / Published online: 5 April 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

Abstract
In this study, a numerical analysis is carried out for the evaluation of both unreinforced and reinforced flexible pavements for
different California bearing ratio (CBR) values of subgrade and traffic loads using the robust finite-element method-based
software PLAXIS 2D. The behavior of base, sub-base, and subgrade soil has been simulated using a linear elastic model.
First, the numerical results of vertical subgrade strain for unreinforced pavement were validated with the results obtained
from the mechanistic-empirical method based on IITPAVE software. This study has been extended with the inclusion of
geogrid in the base layer of flexible pavement using the validated numerical model. Results obtained from this study showed
considerable improvement in modulus value of the base layer for geogrid-reinforced pavement when compared with the
unreinforced section. Based on the improved modulus value of the base layer for reinforced pavement, the Modulus Improve-
ment Factor (MIF) for geogrid has been derived. This MIF value provides the direct correlation between the stiffness of
different types of geogrids and thickness of the base layer for reinforced pavement. Based on the results obtained from this
study, a design catalogue for geogrid-reinforced pavement has been proposed for different combinations of traffic load and
CBR value of subgrade. This study has also been used to investigate the improvement in life of reinforced pavement layer
when compared with an unreinforced layer.

Keywords  Flexible pavement · Geogrid · Modulus improvement factor · Service life ratio · Resilient modulus

Introduction with flexible pavements include rutting and fatigue from a

The performance of flexible pavements depends on the
strength and rigidity of the pavement layers. Normally, flex-
ible unreinforced pavements are constructed from bitumi-
nous materials and the stress is transmitted to the subgrade
through the lateral distribution of the traffic load with depth.
However, due to fatigue and environmental degradation, the
bituminous pavement itself used for unreinforced pavement
can also deform under repetitive loading. Major problems
* Bappaditya Manna
bmanna@civil.iitd.ac.in
Sayanti Banerjee
Sayanti.Banerjee@civil.iitd.ac.in
Maj Vikas Kumar Srivastava
vikassrivastava2901@gmail.com
J. T. Shahu
shahu@civil.iitd.ac.in
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India
high volume of traffic [1, 2]. If the subgrade soil is having
very low bearing capacity, in comparison to traditional rigid
reinforcement (i.e., steel, timber), geosynthetics are being
used worldwide in the flexible pavement as reinforcement
[3–7]. Geosynthetics can be applied to alleviate these issues
at the base layer of the pavement structure. Geosynthetic
materials in the form of strong flexible sheets woven or non-
woven, permeable or water-tight, 2D planer or 3D geocell
have been used for several years to improve soil quality and
performance in different pavement related facts, e.g., base
and sub-base stabilization, reinforcement, drainage, protec-
tion of slopes, and embankments. Specific products, such
as geotextiles, geogrids, geocells, geomembranes, geocom-
posite, etc., have been progressively developed for various
applications of geotechnical engineering. Several researchers
have highlighted the advantageous effects of geogrid rein-
forcements on static and cyclic loading of pavement appli-
cations [8–22]. The geogrid has the effect of restricting the
lateral movement of the granular soil, and as a result, the
use of geogrid in pavement construction may lead to less

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
29 
Page 2 of 15
deformation under repeated loading and may minimize the
thicknesses of base materials required [23–33].
Raymond and Ismail [34] have shown by experimental
studies that, incorporating geogrid in the railway track, high-
way, and runaway embankments on unbound aggregate can
enhance the bearing capacity and performance of the trans-
port support system. Perkins et al. [35] carried out cyclic tri-
axial tests on geogrid-reinforced and unreinforced granular
base materials. The findings revealed that the geosynthetic
reinforcement of granular materials had no major effect on
the resilient modulus of unbound aggregates. However, a
significant reduction was observed in the rutting depth of
test specimens when they were reinforced with a layer of
geosynthetic. These findings are similar to those observed
by Nejad and Small [36].
Several studies have been carried out over the last 2
decades to analyze the effects of geogrid and its utiliza-
tion in paved and unpaved roads. Numerous studies on
pavement design were compiled in various design codes,
i.e., AASHTO R50 [37], IRC: SP:59 [38] for the design
of geogrid-reinforced flexible pavements. However, these
design codes are limited to the design methodology, and
no specific catalogue is available for the design of geogrid-
reinforced flexible pavements. Hence, the objective of the
present study is to investigate the beneficial effect of geogrid
reinforcement in terms of MIF and SLR of the reinforced
pavement layer, and finally, a design catalogue for geogrid-
reinforced pavement has been proposed for different combi-
nations of traffic load and CBR value of subgrade conform-
ing to IRC 37 [40] and IRC: SP:59 [38] specifications.
For this study, a numerical model for unreinforced and
geogrid-reinforced pavement has been developed using
PLAXIS 2D [39] which is effective FEM-based software
and used to perform the deformation and stability analysis
of geotechnical problems. The thickness of various pavement
layers such as subgrade, sub-base, base, and bitumen layer
are taken from the design catalogue given in IRC 37 [40]
corresponding to CBR value and traffic load. The geogrid is
introduced at the base layer of the pavement. After validating
both numerical models of reinforced and unreinforced flex-
ible pavements, numerical analysis has been carried out using
validated numerical models to estimate the vertical compres-
sive strain on the subgrade and the reduced thickness of base
layer. Comparing both reinforced and unreinforced flexible
pavements, the service life ratio (SLR) of subgrade layer and
modulus improvement factor (MIF) of base layer of pavement
are estimated. Also, the comparative study between two dif-
ferent types of geogrids (i.e., stiffness of 400 kN/m and 800
kN/m) in terms of modulus improvement factor (MIF) and
service life ratio (SLR) is investigated. Finally, design cata-
logues for estimation of the most economical pavement sec-
tion with different types of geogrid reinforcement conforming
to IRC 37 [40] specifications are proposed in this study.
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29
Design Methodology
The design of geogrid-reinforced pavement is strongly based
on the condition of different soil layers, geogrid properties,
and traffic loads, and therefore, each design needs special
analysis and calculations. Various design methodologies
available for reinforced paving are (1) AASHTO R50 [37]
and (2) IRC: SP:59 [38]. According to this design method-
ology, a geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavement section
can be designed based on two design approaches, i.e., (1)
Layer Coefficient Ratio (LCR) and (2) Modulus Improve-
ment Factor (MIF). However, these design codes are lim-
ited to the design methodology, and no specific catalogue
is available for the design of geogrid-reinforced flexible
pavements. On the other hand, a standard design approach
(Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide) for analy-
sis and design of conventional pavement (i.e., unreinforced
pavement) has gained widespread acceptance due to its
numerous advantages over the empirical approach. This
mechanistic-empirical technique was used in IRC 37 [40]
for analysis and design of unreinforced pavement. Indian
roads congress (IRC 37) has specified the design catalogues
for unreinforced flexible pavements based on different traf-
fic loads (in terms of million standard axles, msa) and CBR
values of the subgrade. According to design approach given
in IRC 37 [40], Tensile strain, εt, at the bottom of the bitu-
minous layer and the vertical subgrade strain, εv, on the top
of the subgrade is considered to be the critical parameters
for pavement design to restrict cracking and rutting in the
bituminous and non-bituminous layer respectively.
In this study, a numerical analysis is carried out for both
unreinforced and reinforced pavements for different sub-
grade CBR (3%, 8%, and 10%) and traffic loading conditions
(5 msa, 10 msa, 20 msa, 30 msa, and 50 msa). The flexible
pavements have been modeled as a three-layer structure and
stresses and strains at critical locations (i.e., top of the sub-
grade and bottom of the bitumen layer) have been computed
using the linear elastic model. Based on the limiting val-
ues of strains against different traffic loads as proposed by
IRC 37 [40], pavement sections for both unreinforced and
geogrid reinforced have been proposed. However, the ben-
eficial effect of geogrid reinforcement is obtained in terms
of MIF and SLR of the reinforced pavement layer (using the
formula given in IRC: SP:59 [38]).
The detailed design philosophy for the design of geogrid-
reinforced flexible pavement is illustrated as follows.
Step 1: For the design of geogrid-reinforced flexible pave-
ment, the thickness of various pavement layers such as
subgrade, sub-base, base, and bitumen layer is taken from
the design catalogue given in IRC 37 [40] corresponding
to CBR value and traffic load.
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29 Page 3 of 15  29

Step 2: Calculation of resilient modulus of subgrade
and different layers of pavement is done based on the
empirical relation as given in IRC 37 [40], as illustrated
in Table 1.
Step 3: For unreinforced pavement, stresses, strains, and
deflections at the selected critical locations are obtained
from numerical analyses using the input value of modu-
lus of different layers of pavement, their thicknesses, and
Poisson’s ratio as recommended by IRC 37 [40]. If the
obtained strain values are within the limiting strain val-
ues, then the pavement composition is considered to be
safe.
Step 4: Now, the limiting strain values are calculated from
the rutting and fatigue model which are given in IRC 37
[40]. Table 2 shows the rutting and fatigue model as given
in IRC 37 [40].
Step 5: Now, to design a geogrid-reinforced pavement,
the geogrid is introduced at the base layer of the pave-
ment and numerical analyses have been carried out. The
vertical compressive strain on the subgrade is calculated
for the reinforced case and the obtained strain will be less
than the unreinforced section.
Step 6: Based on the vertical compressive strain on sub-
grade in case of the reinforced and unreinforced pave-
ment, service life ratio is obtained
𝜀V1
SLR = , (1)
𝜀V2

Table 1  Resilient modulus of Pavement layers Resilient modulus

subgrade and different layers of
pavement Bitumen layer MBitumen = 2000MPa, for traffic load upto 20 msa
MBitumen = 3000MPa, for traffic load exceeding 20 msa.
Base/ Subbase MGranular = 0.2 × (h)0.45 × MSupport
( )
2 1 − 𝜇2 pa
MSupport =
𝛿
Subgrade MRS = 10.0 × CBR, for CBR ≤ 5%
MRS = 17.6 × (CBR)0.64 , for CBR > 5%

MRS = Resilient modulus of subgrade soil (in MPa), CBR = California bearing ratio of subgrade soil (%),
h = thickness of the granular layer (sub-base/base) in mm, MGranular = resilient modulus of the granular layer
(sub-base/ base) in MPa, MSupport = effective resilient modulus of the supporting layer (MPa) (i.e., the com-
bination of the subgrade layer and layer of the borrow material), p = contact pressure = 0.56 MPa, a = radius
of circular contact area, which can be calculated using the load applied (40,000 N) and the contact pressure
‘p’ (0.56 MPa) = 150.8 mm, µ = Poisson’s ratio = 0.35, δ = Deflection, MRS = effective resilient modulus of
the supporting layer (MPa), MBitumen = Resilient modulus of Bitumen layer

Table 2  The rutting and fatigue Proposed model Empirical relation

model as proposed by IRC 37
[40] Rutting model [ ]4.5337
NR = 4.1656 × 10−08 1∕𝜀v (for 80% reliability)
−08
[ ] 4.5337
NR = 1.41 × 10 1∕𝜀v (for 90% reliability)
Fatigue model Nf = 1.6064 ∗ C ∗ 10 −04
[
1∕𝜀t
]3.89 [
∗ 1∕MRm
]0.854
(for 80% reliability)
]3.89 [ ]0.854
Nf = 0.5161 ∗ C ∗ 10−04 1∕𝜀t
[
∗ 1∕MRm (for 90% reliability)
( )
Vbe
where, C = 10M , M = 4.84 − 0.69
Va + Vbe
NR = subgrade rutting life in number of standard axles, εv = vertical compressive strain at the top of the sub-
grade calculated using linear elastic layered theory Va = Percent volume of air void in the mix used in the
bottom bituminous layer, Vbe = Percent volume of effective bitumen in the mix used in the bottom bitumi-
nous layer, Nf = Fatigue life of bituminous layer in number of standard axles, εt = Maximum horizontal ten-
sile strain at the bottom of the bottom bituminous layer, MRm = Resilient modulus (MPa) of the bituminous
mix used in the bottom bituminous layer

13
29 
Page 4 of 15
where, 𝜀V1 = Vertical compressive strain on the subgrade
in unreinforced case, 𝜀V2 = Vertical compressive strain on
the subgrade in reinforced case.
Step 7: By repeated trials and back calculations method,
in case of reinforced pavement, the height of base layer
is reduced based on the equal subgrade strain value of
unreinforced pavement model. Using the value of reduced
base layer thickness, the resilient modulus of the base
layer for reinforced pavement is determined as per the
formulae given in Table 1.
Step 8: Furthermore, using the same base layer thick-
ness for both the unreinforced and reinforced pavement
sections as given in IRC 37 [40] for different values of
CBR and traffic loads, the surface deflection was obtained
through numerical analyses. Then, the effective resilient
modulus of the supporting layer is computed using the
obtained deflection values as explained in Table 1. Then,
resilient modulus of both reinforced and unreinforced
base layers is again calculated with the value of sup-
porting layer. Based on the obtained value of resilient
modulus of base layer for reinforced and unreinforced
pavement, a modulus improvement factor is derived as
Modulus of base layer for reinforced pavement
MIF = .
Modulus of base layer for unreinforced pavement
(2)
This procedure is repeated for a different combination of
CBR values and traffic loads to get a new design catalogue
for geogrid-reinforced flexible pavement.
Numerical Modeling
This section briefly discusses the numerical analysis of unre-
inforced and reinforced (i.e., geogrid) flexible pavements
using finite-element method (FEM) based software, PLAXIS
2D [39]. Whereas, for evaluation of the results based on
numerical analysis, a mechanistic-empirical software pro-
gram IITPAVE is used as the benchmark for the problems.
Multilayer Elastic Linear Analysis of Pavement
IITPAVE software, developed by IIT Kharagpur, is an
elastic multilayer linear analysis tool that is used to design
unreinforced pavements using the FPAVE subroutine [41].
The stresses, strains, and deflection for a standard axle load
were computed using this software at the critical points for
unreinforced pavement, as recommended by IRC 37 [40]. In
this simulation, structural analysis of unreinforced pavement
is carried out using this IITPAVE software, with required
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29
inputs such as the layer thicknesses, moduli, Poisson's
ratio values, the standard axle load of 80 kN distributed on
four wheels (20 kN on each wheel), and tyre pressure as
0.56 MPa. Since the analysis is performed for the standard
axle of 80 kN, an effective single-wheel load of 40,000 N is
given as an input parameter. The estimation of resilient sub-
grade modules for different pavement layers is done based on
the empirical relationship, as illustrated in Table 1.
Once all the required parameters are given as input, the
program is executed using the RUN option. After the execu-
tion of the program, output has been displayed with strain
and displacement values at various locations. For example,
the tensile strain and vertical subgrade strain are evaluated
for CBR of 10% and traffic load of 10 msa. The obtained
value of tensile strain is 0.2550 × ­10–3 and vertical subgrade
strain is 0.4490 × ­10–3. For 80% reliability, the limiting value
of tensile strain is 0.326 × ­10–3 and the vertical subgrade
strain is 0.673 × ­10–3. It is clear that the obtained values
are within the permissible limit, so the pavement section is
safe. IITPAVE only gives the design methodology for the
design of unreinforced flexible pavement. However, there is
no provision for the design of reinforced flexible pavement
in IITPAVE.
Numerical Modeling of Unreinforced and Reinforced
Pavement with Geogrid
The finite-element (FE) modeling for unreinforced and rein-
forced flexible pavements is described in detail.
I. Boundary Conditions and Mesh Discretization
  Two-dimensional finite-element analyses for both the
unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced flexible pavements
are performed using PLAXIS 2D which is an effective
FEM-based software, used to perform the deformation
and stability analysis of geotechnical engineering activi-
ties. For both the design of unreinforced and reinforced
flexible pavements, the thickness of various pavement
layers, such as subgrade, sub-base, base, and bitumen
layer, is taken from the design catalogue given in IRC
37 [40] corresponding to CBR value and traffic load.
According to IRC 37 [40], the flexible pavement was
modeled as a multilayer structure. The model prepared
for an unreinforced case for CBR of 10% and traffic load
of 10 msa is shown in Fig. 1a. The model prepared for a
reinforced case for geogrid stiffness of 400 kN/m, CBR
of 10%, and traffic load of 10 msa is shown in Fig. 1b.
At the boundaries, a standard fixity is used, which means
that only horizontal displacement is restricted in the ver-
tical boundaries, whereas both vertical and horizontal
displacements are restricted at the bottom boundary.
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29 Page 5 of 15  29

Table 3  Properties of pavement material and geogrid used in the

numerical modelling for CBR of 10% and traffic load of 10 msa

Parameters Values

Bitumen layer
 Thickness of pavement layer (mm) 80
 Resilient modulus (MPa) 3000
 Poisson’s ratio 0.35
Base
 Thickness of pavement layer (mm) 250
 Resilient modulus (MPa) 300
 Poisson’s ratio 0.35
Subbase
 Thickness of pavement layer (mm) 200
 Resilient modulus (MPa) 200
 Poisson’s ratio 0.35
Subgrade
 Resilient modulus (MPa) 80
 Poisson’s ratio 0.35
Geogrid
 Material Model Elastic
 Stiffness, EA (kN/m) 400, 800

cular with a tyre pressure of 565 kPa. The radius of the

II. Material Properties
  The axisymmetric linear elastic model was consid-
Fig. 1  Finite-element modelling for CBR of 10% and traffic load
of 10 msa: a unreinforced pavement; b pavement reinforced with
geogrid having stiffness of 400 kN/m
  Mesh discretization has been done using 15-noded
triangular elements. For all the analysis, mesh with a
relative element size of 0.333 has been adopted. Addi-
tional mesh refinement was also carried out at the inter-
faces of different layers of the pavement and also near
the geogrid. Analysis with ‘fine mesh’ gives results in
higher accuracy but of course with the cost of reason-
able computational time. According to IRC 37 [40], the
responses of the pavement were analyzed under static
loading conditions. The loading was assumed to be cir-
circular load was taken as 150 mm.
ered for both unreinforced and reinforced flexible pave-
ments. Axisymmetric modelling was chosen in this
study, because it could simulate circular loading [15, 17,
42, 43]. A model of with or without reinforced flexible
pavement section contains bituminous layer, granular
base layer, granular sub-base layer, and subgrade layer.
In the analysis, the different pavement layers were mod-
eled using the 15-noded structural solid element. For
different CBR values and traffic loads, the estimation of
resilient modulus or elastic modulus for separate pave-
ment layers is done based on the empirical relation-
ship, as illustrated in Table 1. For the flexible pavement
design, the thickness of various layers and the resilient
modulus or elastic modulus of different layers have been
calculated from IRC 37 [40] guidelines. For example,
the required input parameters for CBR of 10% and traf-
fic load of 10 msa are shown in Table 3. As suggested
in IRC 37 [40], the Poisson’s ratio for every layer was
taken as 0.35. Geogrid was modeled by placing geogrid
element at the base layer of pavement. For geogrid-
reinforced pavement, biaxial elastic geogrid has been
considered in the model and only the value of axial stiff-
ness ‘EA’ is given as an input parameter, as illustrated
in Table 3. The shear strength of the interface element is
represented in PLAXIS 2D by specifying an ‘Interface

13
29 
Page 6 of 15
Reduction Factor,’ i.e., ‘Rint,’ which captures the inter-
face strength as a proportion of the shear strength of the
surrounding soil mass. The status of the soil at the soil–
structure interface determines the value of the reduc-
tion factor for interface elements. To provide a smooth
interfacial interaction between the various pavement
layer elements, ‘Rint’ is considered as 1. In the pavement
response model, full contact between the geogrid and
the layer of the pavement is considered. On paved roads
with a limited amount of permissible surface rutting, the
chances of slippage are minimal unless excessive rutting
occurs [44].
III. Analysis
  Various phases are considered to represent the differ-
ent states of construction in the actual field scenario. The
study is conducted in four steps:
a. Initial phase: In this phase, stresses are generated within
the soil volume by Ko-procedure which takes into
account the stress history of soil;
b. Phase 1: In this phase, subgrade and sub-base layers of
pavement are activated from the explorer window;
c. Phase 2: In this phase, base and bituminous layers of
unreinforced pavement are activated from the explorer
window, and for reinforced pavement, geogrid layer is
also activated from the explorer window;
d. Phase 3: In this phase, the loading condition is activated
simulating the deformation of the pavement section.
e. The displacements are applied to the nodes of the pave-
ment subgrade layer using a displacement control func-
tion available in PLAXIS 2D.
Validation
In this section, the FE model of unreinforced flexible pave-
ment obtained from PLAXIS 2D [39] was validated with the
results obtained from IITPAVE, and later on, the 2D-numeri-
cal results of geogrid-reinforced flexible pavement were vali-
dated with the experimental results obtained in large-scale
accelerated paved models [45]. The preliminary purpose of
Table 4  Comparison of vertical Traffic in msa Thickness of pavement layers
subgrade strain values for CBR (mm) (as per IRC 37 [40])
of 8%
Subbase Base
5 150 250
10 200 250
20 200 250
30 200 250
50 200 250
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29
this study was to validate the finite-element model of both
unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced pavement sections done
in PLAXIS, so that further study can be carried out using
the validated numerical models. The details of the validation
process are given below.
Validation of the Unreinforced 2D‑Numerical Model
The unreinforced flexible pavement is modeled and analysis
is done using FE method-based software using the same
input parameters (i.e., pavement layer thicknesses, mod-
uli, Poisson’s ratio values of different pavement layers as
0.35, the standard axle load of 80 kN, and tyre pressure as
0.56 MPa) which are adopted in IITPAVE. For the flexible
pavement design, the thickness of various layers and the
resilient modulus or elastic modulus of different layers have
been calculated from IRC 37 [40] guidelines. For a case of
CBR 8% and traffic load ranging from 5 to 50 msa, the ver-
tical compressive strain values on subgrade obtained from
FE analyses are compared with the same obtained from IIT-
PAVE software. Table 4 represents the comparison of verti-
cal compressive strain on subgrade obtained from both the
IITPAVE and PLAXIS 2D [39]. Also, the vertical compres-
sive strain values on subgrade obtained from FE analyses
are compared with the limiting vertical strain values (i.e.,
obtained from the Equation given in Table 2) for the CBR of
8% and traffic load ranging from 5 to 50 msa, as illustrated
in Table 4.
Table 4 indicates that the obtained strain values of the
current FE analysis are within the permissible limit, so
the pavement section is safe. Also, from Table 4, it can be
concluded that the obtained numerical results showed very
good agreement with the results of IITPAVE software with
an average 5.2% variation in the results. Therefore, this
validated 2D FE model is used to investigate the response
of unreinforced flexible pavement under static loading
conditions.
Strain (allowable value Strain (using Strain (using
as per IRC 37 [40]) IITPAVE) FE analysis)
Bitumen
80 7.84 × 10‾4 6.39 × 10ˉ4 6.43 × 10ˉ4
90 6.73 × 10‾4 4.96 × 10ˉ4 5.02 × 10ˉ4
120 5.77 × 10‾4 4.21 × 10ˉ4 4.26 × 10ˉ4
135 4.16 × 10‾4 3.58 × 10ˉ4 3.64 × 10ˉ4
155 3.90 × 10‾4 3.19 × 10ˉ4 3.24 × 10ˉ4
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29 Page 7 of 15  29
Validation of the Geogrid‑Reinforced 2D‑Numerical
Model
The precision of the numerical simulation is validated by
comparing the results of the numerical analyses with the
large-scale model testing results obtained by Correia [45].
Correia [45] carried out a large-scale model testing on
geogrid-reinforced paved road where the model was loaded
using wheel tracking facility to evaluate the beneficial effect
of geogrid reinforcement.
In the present study, considering the symmetry, just
one-half of the geogrid-soil structure was modeled
numerically. In the simulation, the bituminous layer has
been designed as linear elastic model, while subgrade
and base layers have been designed as Mohr–Coulomb
model. The unit weight, Young’s modulus, and Poisson’s
ratio of the bituminous layer were reported as 25 kN/m3,
2500 MPa, and 0.35, respectively. For the base layer, the
unit weight, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion,
and Friction angle were reported as 22 kN/m3, 100 MPa,
0.30, 0.01 kPa, and 45°, respectively. The unit weight,
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion, and Friction
angle of the subgrade layer were reported as 18 kN/m3,
10 MPa, 0.40, 46 kPa, and 26°, respectively. Geogrid was
modeled by placing the geogrid element in the bituminous
layer of pavement. The geogrid element was considered
as linearly elastic, defined by axial stiffness, EA (i.e., 900
Fig. 2  Comparison of experimental and numerical surface vertical
displacements
kN/m). In this analysis, the loading state was simulated
by adding a contact pressure of 700 kPa, which was also
used in laboratory experiments. The radius of the load-
ing area was taken as 60 mm. With regard to the loading
mode, Faheem and Hassan [46] checked that for low-
stress amplitudes, dynamic loading had no major impact
on the geogrid-reinforced pavement behavior.
The findings obtained from the numerical analysis were
compared with experimental results. Figure 2 represents the
comparison of vertical surface displacement obtained from
both the experiment and PLAXIS 2D [39]. The 2D-numeri-
cal results of maximum vertical surface displacement under
the wheel load area showed very good agreement with the
results of experimental study. Moreover, the numerical simu-
lations would not accurately capture the trend found in the
experimental findings in the area of upheaval zone along the
wheel track [47]. Comparing the results of numerical and
experimental large-scale pavement model, similar vertical
surface displacement behavior was observed by Saevars-
dottir [48]. Ling and Liu [49] reported that linear elastic
models were constrained to replicate volumetric changes in
the bituminous layer and the sometimes nonlinear behavior
of geogrids. However, in the present study, the maximum
vertical surface displacement was required to obtain a spe-
cific design catalogue for the geogrid-reinforced flexible
pavements and the numerical model was able to accurately
estimate the maximum vertical displacement behavior on the
surface layer. Thus, by placing the geogrid at the base of the
pavement layer in the same validated FE model, numerical
analysis of the geogrid-reinforced case has been carried out
to investigate the response of reinforced flexible pavement
under static loading.
Results and Discussion
To evaluate the improvement achieved by the geogrid
reinforcement, two cases were analyzed, namely, the unre-
inforced flexible pavement and the geogrid-reinforced
pavement. Also, the comparative study between different
types of geogrid (i.e., stiffness of 400 kN/m and 800 kN/m)
reinforced pavement based on modulus improvement fac-
tor (MIF) and service life ratio (SLR) is discussed in this
section.
Unreinforced Pavement
The vertical compressive strain on subgrade of unreinforced
flexible pavement for different CBR values and traffic load
cases was obtained using the validated PLAXIS 2D [39]
model. For example, the allowable vertical subgrade strain
values obtained from the Equation (i.e., given in Table 2)
given in IRC 37 [40] and the subgrade strain values obtained
13
29 
Page 8 of 15 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29

Table 5  Comparison of design thickness of pavement layers based on IRC 37 [40] recommendation and FE analysis for different subgrade CBR
Traffic in msa Design parameters CBR values
3% 8% 10%

5 Thickness of Pavement base layer (mm) (as per IRC 37 [40]) 250 250 250
Thickness of modified pavement layers (mm) (Using FE analysis) 200 200 170
Strain (Using FE analysis) 7.79 × 10‾4 7.84 × 10‾4 5.65 × 10‾4
Strain (allowable value as per IRC 37 [40]) 7.84 × 10‾4 7.84 × 10‾4 7.84 × 10‾4
10 Thickness of Pavement base layer (mm) (as per IRC 37 [40]) 250 250 250
Thickness of modified pavement layers (mm) (Using FE analysis) 210 210 180
Strain (Using FE analysis) 5.51 × 10‾4 6.73 × 10‾4 4.64 × 10‾4
Strain (allowable value as per IRC 37 [40]) 6.73 × 10‾4 6.73 × 10‾4 6.73 × 10‾4
20 Thickness of Pavement base layer (mm) (as per IRC 37 [40]) 250 250 250
Thickness of modified pavement layers (mm) (Using FE analysis) 220 220 190
Strain (Using FE analysis) 5.252 × 10‾4 5.71 × 10‾4 3.99 × 10‾4
Strain (allowable value as per IRC 37 [40]) 5.77 × 10‾4 5.77 × 10‾4 5.77 × 10‾4
30 Thickness of Pavement base layer (mm) (as per IRC 37 [40]) 250 250 250
Thickness of modified pavement layers (mm) (Using FE analysis) 230 230 190
Strain (Using FE analysis) 4.10 × 10‾4 4.14 × 10‾4 3.44 × 10‾4
Strain (allowable value as per IRC 37 [40]) 4.16 × 10‾4 4.16 × 10‾4 4.16 × 10‾4
50 Thickness of Pavement base layer (mm) (as per IRC 37 [40]) 250 250 250
Thickness of modified pavement layers (mm) (Using FE analysis) 230 230 190
Strain (Using FE analysis) 3.737 × 10‾4 3.73 × 10‾4 3.08 × 10‾4
Strain (allowable value as per IRC 37 [40]) 3.90 × 10‾4 3.90 × 10‾4 3.90 × 10‾4

Fig. 3  Comparison of design catalogue based on IRC 37 [40] recom- Fig. 4  Comparison of design catalogue based on IRC 37 [40] recom-
mendation and FE analysis for CBR of 3% mendation and FE analysis for CBR of 8%

from FE analyses are given in Table 4 for CBR of 8% and
traffic load ranging from 5 to 50 msa. The result shows that
strain values on subgrade obtained from PLAXIS 2D are
much lesser than the allowable strain value. Hence, the
thickness of base layer is reduced by repeated trials and
back calculations method to obtain the strain on subgrade
equal to the allowable strain on the subgrade. According
to the guidelines given in the IRC 37 [40], it is mandated
to keep a minimum of 150 mm of base layer thickness for
flexible pavement design. Therefore, the reduced base layer
thickness should be within this limit. Based on the afore-
mentioned equation given in Table 2, the allowable vertical

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29 Page 9 of 15  29

compressive strain at the top of the subgrade was calculated

Fig. 5  Comparison of design catalogue based on IRC 37 [40] recom-
mendation and FE analysis for CBR of 10%
for 80% reliability. A comparison study was done with the
modified pavement layers thickness and the thickness of
pavement layers as recommended by IRC 37 [40] guidelines.
Furthermore a comparison was done with the obtained strain
value and allowable strain value for different traffic loads as
prescribed by IRC 37 [40] guidelines.
The modified thicknesses of pavement layers along with
the strain values obtained from numerical analyses for CBR
of 3%, 8%, and 10% are given in Table 5. From Table 5, it is
understandable that the strain values obtained from numeri-
cal analyses are below the limiting strain as per IRC 37 [40]
for the given CBR value, the modified thickness of pavement
layer, and traffic load. Hence, the section is considered to be
safe for modified pavement thickness and assumed traffic
load.
The design catalogues depicting the comparison of IRC
37 [40] recommended thickness of pavement layers and the
thickness of modified pavement layers obtained from the
numerical study are shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5 for CBR
of 3%, 8%, and 10%, respectively. As depicted in Table 5
and Figs. 3, 4, and 5, use of modified pavement thickness
as obtained from numerical study instead of IRC 37 [40]

Table 6  Effect of geogrid 1 Traffic in msa Design parameters CBR values

reinforcement in base layer for
different subgrade CBR 3% 8% 10%

5 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 225 225 225
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 138.9 205.56 240.28
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 132.48 196.04 229.15
MIF 1.05 1.05 1.05
SLR 1.30 1.36 1.36
10 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 230 230 230
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 148.79 237.08 273.55
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 143.31 228.35 263.46
MIF 1.04 1.04 1.04
SLR 1.32 1.33 1.34
20 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 230 230 230
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 148.79 237.08 273.55
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 143.31 228.35 263.46
MIF 1.04 1.04 1.04
SLR 1.27 1.30 1.30
30 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 230 230 230
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 148.79 237.08 273.55
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 143.31 228.35 263.46
MIF 1.04 1.04 1.04
SLR 1.27 1.33 1.31
50 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 230 230 230
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 148.79 237.08 273.55
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 143.31 228.35 263.46
MIF 1.04 1.04 1.04
SLR 1.27 1.33 1.31

13
29 
Page 10 of 15
recommended thickness of the pavement will also be safe
from the design point of view. It has been observed from
numerical study that the design catalogue given by IRC 37
[40] for the subgrade of different CBR values has been made
with sufficient factor of safety to avoid failure of the pave-
ment due to excessive rutting. This analysis is also done for
CBR 5% and 12% and these results are also following the
same trend.
Fig. 6  Colored contours of deflection of pavement having CBR of
10% and traffic load of 10 msa: a unreinforced pavement; b pavement
reinforced with geogrid having stiffness of 400 kN/m
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29
Geogrid‑Reinforced Pavement
The effect of reinforcement in the flexible pavement was
analyzed by introducing two different geogrids of stiffness
values of 400 kN/m and 800 kN/m using PLAXIS 2D [39].
In the first case, using geogrid of stiffness 400 kN/m, a com-
parison study of the reinforced and unreinforced pavement
section was analyzed, as shown in Table 6. In the second
case, the geogrid stiffness of 800 kN/m was considered for
analysis.
Geogrid 1 (Stiffness 400 kN/m)
The modified thickness of base layer with geogrid of stiff-
ness 400 kN/m obtained from PLAXIS 2D and the values
recommended in IRC 37 [40] are given in Table 6 for CBR
of 3%, 8% and 10%. It can be observed that the thickness
of modified pavement base layer is less than that of conven-
tional pavement base layer thickness.
Based on the reduced thickness of reinforced base layer,
the resilient modulus of reinforced pavement is determined
and it is not much less than that of conventional pavement.
Also, using the same base layer thickness for both the unre-
inforced and reinforced pavement sections as given in IRC
37 [40] for subgrade CBR value of 10% and a traffic load
of 10 msa, and the surface deflection values for both pave-
ments are obtained from FE analyses, which are shown in
Fig. 6a and b. Hence, using the obtained surface deflection,
the calculated resilient modulus (as per the formula given
in Table 1) values of unreinforced and reinforced base layer
were found to be 273.65 MPa and 285.76 MPa. This calcula-
tion is done for a different combination of CBR values and
traffic loads, and based on the obtained resilient modulus
Fig. 7  Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein-
forced pavement with geogrid 1 for CBR of 3%
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29 Page 11 of 15  29
Fig. 8  Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein-
forced pavement with geogrid 1 for CBR of 8%
Fig. 9  Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein-
forced pavement with geogrid 1 for CBR of 10%
values of the base layer in case of the reinforced and unrein-
forced pavements, a modulus improvement factor is derived
for different CBR values and the outcomes are given in
Table 6. From Table 6, it can be seen that the modulus values
of reinforced base layer are improved by around 1.042 times
to that of unreinforced case. A similar modulus improve-
ment value was observed by Goud et al. [50]. Furthermore,
based on the obtained vertical subgrade strain values from
FE analyses in case of the reinforced and unreinforced pave-
ments, service life ratio is derived for different CBR values
and the outcomes are shown in Table 6. From Table 6, it can
be observed that due to the use of geogrid as a reinforced
layer, the service life of reinforced pavement is improved
by around 1.27–1.36 times compared to the unreinforced
pavements.
The design catalogues depicting the comparison of IRC
37 [40] recommended thickness of pavement layers and
the thickness of reinforced pavement layers obtained from
numerical study are shown in Figs. 7, 8, and 9 for CBR of
3%, 8%, and 10%, respectively. As represented in Figs. 7,
8, and 9, it can also be seen that change in CBR value has
negligible effect on the variation of thickness of base layer.
Geogrid 2 (Stiffness 800 kN/m)
In the second case, the modified thickness of base layer with
geogrid of stiffness 800 kN/m obtained from FE software
and the values recommended in IRC 37 [40] are given in
Table 7 for different CBR values. It can be observed that
the thickness of the modified base layer of the pavement is
significantly less than that of the conventional base layer
thickness due to the use of higher stiffness geogrid material.
The resilient modulus of reinforced pavement is deter-
mined based on the reduced thickness of reinforced base
layer, and a very small reduction of modulus values of rein-
forced base layer of approximately 0.86% can be observed
as compared to the same obtained for the unreinforced case.
Also, using the same base layer thickness for both the unre-
inforced and reinforced pavement sections, the resilient
modulus values of the base layer and vertical compressive
strain on the subgrade in case of the reinforced pavement
are determined as described for geogrid 1, and based on
these values, modulus improvement factor and service life
ratio are obtained for CBR of 3%, 8% and 10%. The modu-
lus improvement factor and service life ratio are given in
Table 7. From Table 7, it can be seen that the modulus val-
ues of reinforced base layer are improved by around 1.162
times to that of unreinforced case. The study shows that the
geogrid-reinforced flexible pavement improved the pavement
service life by around 1.53–1.67 times compared to the unre-
inforced pavements.
The design catalogues depicting the comparison of IRC
37 [40] recommended thickness of pavement layers and
the thickness of reinforced pavement layers obtained from
numerical study are shown in Figs. 10, 11, and 12 for CBR
of 3%, 8%, and 10%, respectively. As shown in Figs. 10, 11,
and 12, due to the use of geogrid, reduction in the base layer
thickness can be observed and this reduction becomes more
significant with the increase in geogrid stiffness.
Furthermore, the comparative study between different
types of geogrid (i.e., stiffness of 400 kN/m and 800 kN/m)
reinforced pavement based on modulus improvement fac-
tor (MIF) and service life ratio (SLR) is given in Fig. 13a
and b. From Fig. 13a, it can be observed that the MIF val-
ues are improved due to the inclusion of geogrid with a
13
29 
Page 12 of 15 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29

Table 7  Effect of geogrid 2 Traffic in msa Design parameters CBR values

reinforcement in base layer for
different subgrade CBR 3% 8% 10%

5 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 175 175 175
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 138.9 205.56 240.28
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 118.31 175.08 204.65
MIF 1.17 1.17 1.17
SLR 1.61 1.65 1.67
10 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 180 180 180
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 148.79 237.08 273.55
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 128.35 204.50 235.96
MIF 1.16 1.16 1.16
SLR 1.56 1.61 1.63
20 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 180 180 180
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 148.79 237.08 273.55
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 128.35 204.50 235.96
MIF 1.16 1.16 1.16
SLR 1.55 1.61 1.63
30 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 180 180 180
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 148.79 237.08 273.55
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 128.35 204.50 235.96
MIF 1.16 1.16 1.16
SLR 1.56 1.62 1.63
50 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 180 180 180
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 148.79 237.08 273.55
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 128.35 204.50 235.96
MIF 1.16 1.16 1.16
SLR 1.53 1.63 1.63

Fig. 10  Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein-

forced pavement with geogrid 2 for CBR of 3%
higher stiffness value. As shown in Fig. 13a, b remarkable
improvement in the service life of the pavement is observed
due to the use of higher stiffness geogrid. The modulus
Fig. 11  Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein-
forced pavement with geogrid 2 for CBR of 8%
improvement factor and the service life ratio values for dif-
ferent types of geogrid-reinforced pavement for CBR of 3%,

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29 Page 13 of 15  29

Fig. 12  Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein-

forced pavement with geogrid 2 for CBR of 10%

8%, and 10% are given in Tables 6 and 7. Geogrid-reinforced

pavement sections with poor condition subgrade soil (CBR
of 3%) showed (Tables 6 and 7) significant improvements
in service life ratio. As the increment of service life ratio
depends on the enhancement of subgrade condition and
intrinsic properties of geogrid, minor benefit in service life
ratio (SLR) was observed for sections constructed on a stiff
subgrade soil (CBR of 10%). Even when there is constant
value observed for MIF for a particular type of geogrid, it
is observed that the service life ratio (SLR) of the pavement
increases for a particular type of geogrid with the increase
of the CBR of the subgrade.
From the comparisons shown in Fig. 13a and b, it is clear Fig. 13  Comparison for geogrids of different stiffness values: a MIF
that higher stiffness geogrid-reinforced pavement yields bet- and b SLR
ter performance improvement than lower stiffness geogrid-
reinforced pavement.
ible pavements improved the pavement service life ratio
by around 1.27–1.67 times compared to the unreinforced
Conclusions pavements.
2. According to the results of numerical analysis, the resil-
The present study deals with the evaluation of flexible pave- ient modulus of the pavement base layer was improved
ment as per the guidelines given by IRC 37 [40]. This study due to the inclusion of geogrid in the base layer as com-
deals with the inclusion of geogrid in the pavement. The pared to unreinforced pavement.
study also covers the analysis for the presently adopted IRC 3. The strain on the subgrade considerably reduces with
design catalogue for different CBR values of subgrade and the inclusion of geogrid in the base layer and causes the
also for different traffic loads. The following conclusions can reduction in thickness of the base layer for equal strain
be drawn from the study described above: at subgrade as it was in the case of IRC 37 recommended
thickness in the design catalogues.
1. As compared to the performance of an unreinforced 4. As the stiffness of geogrid increases, the strain on the
pavement, the geogrid reinforcement provided signifi- subgrade is reduced to a large extent. Along with that
cant improvement in terms of service life of the pave- with the increased stiffness of geogrid material, the ser-
ment. The study shows that the geogrid-reinforced flex-

13
29 
Page 14 of 15
vice life ratio (SLR) of the pavement is also found to be
increasing.
5. In the findings of this study, it is also shown that with
the increased stiffness of geogrid material, the Modulus
Improvement Factor (MIF) of the pavement is also found
to be increasing.
6. The results of the study have been presented in the form
of design catalogues for various kinds of geogrid rein-
forcement. If the properties of geogrid are known, these
catalogues can be directly referred to design a reinforced
flexible pavement.
Acknowledgements  This study was funded by the project “Perfor-
mance Study of Geocell Reinforced Road Pavement at Dholera Acti-
vation Area”, by Dholera Industrial City Development Ltd., A Govern-
ment of Gujarat Undertaking, under Sanction No.: FT/05/299/2021.
Author contributions  SB: numerical analyses, interpretation of results,
and writing—original draft. VKS: study conceptualization and method-
ology. BM: study conceptualization, supervision, and writing—review
and editing. JTS: supervision, and writing—review and editing.
References
1. Barksdale RD, Brown SF (1989) Potential benefits of geosyn-
thetics in flexible pavement. In: National Cooperative Highway
Research Program. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, Washington, DC
2. Rigo JM, Degeimbre R, Francken L (1993) Reflective Cracking
in Pavements: state of the art and design recommendations. E &
FN Spon, London
3. Bathurst RJ, Raymond GP (1987) Geogrid reinforcement of bal-
lasted track. Transp Res Rec 1153:8–14
4. Bergado DT, Chai JC, Abiera HO, Alfaro MC, Balasubramaniam
AS (1993) Interaction between cohesive-frictional soil and various
grid reinforcements. Geotext Geomembr 12(4):327–349
5. Brown SF, Thom NH, Kwan J (2006) Optimising the Geogrid
Reinforcement of Rail Track Ballast. Railfound Conference, Bir-
mingham, pp. 346–354
6. Indraratna B, Ngo NT, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2011) Behavior of
geogrid-reinforced ballast under various levels of fouling. Geotext
Geomembr 29(3):313–322
7. Tutumluer E, Huang H, Bian X (2012) Geogrid-aggregate interlock
mechanism investigated through aggregate imaging based discrete
element modeling approach. ASCE Int J Geomech 12(4):391–398
8. Abu-Farsakh MY, Gu J, Voyiadjis GZ, Chen Q (2014) Mechanis-
tic–empirical analysis of the results of finite element analysis on
flexible pavement with geogrid base reinforcement. Int J Pavement
Eng 15(9):786–798
9. Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q (2011) Evaluation of geogrid base rein-
forcement in flexible pavement using cyclic plate load testing. Int
J Pavement Eng 12(3):275–288
10. Ahirwara SK, Mandal JN (2017) Finite element analysis of flex-
ible pavement with geogrids. Procedia Eng 189:411–416
11. Al-Jumaili MAH (2016) Finite element modelling of asphalt
concrete pavement reinforced with geogrid by using 3D plaxis
software. Int J Mater Chem Phys 2(2):62–70
12. Dondi G (1994) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of
a reinforced paved road, In proceedings of Fifth International
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29
Conference on Geotextile, Geomembranes and Related Products,
Singapore, pp. 95–100
13. Haas R, Walls J, Carroll RG (1988) Geogrid reinforcement of
granular bases in flexible pavements. Transp Res Rec 1188:19–27
14. Ling HI, Liu Z (2001) Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced
asphalt pavements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(2):177–184
15. Moayedi H, Kazemian S, Prasad A, Huat B (2009) Effect of
geogrid reinforcement location in paved road improvement. Elec-
tron J Geotech Eng 14:1–11
16. Nazzal M, Abu-Farsakh M, Mohammad L (2010) Implementation
of a critical state two-surface model to evaluate the response of
geosynthetic reinforced pavements. Int J Geomech 10(5):202–212
17. Pandey S, Rao RK, Tiwari D (2012) Effect of geogrid reinforce-
ment on critical responses of bituminous pavements. In Proc., 2­ 5th
ARRB Conf. Shaping the Future: Linking Policy, Research and
Outcomes, 17. Exton, PA: ARRB Group Ltd
18. Taherkhani H, Jalali M (2016) Investigating the performance of
geosynthetic-reinforced asphaltic pavement under various axle
loads using finite-element method. Road Materials Pavement
Design 18(5):1200–1217
19. Virgili A, Canestrari F, Grilli A, Santagata FA (2009) Repeated
load test on bituminous systems reinforced by geosynthetics. Geo-
text Geomembr 27(3):187–219
20. Wsathugala GW, Huang B, Pal S (1996) Numerical simulation of
geosynthetic-reinforced flexible Pavements. J Transp Res Record
TRB 1534:58–65
21. Obando-Ante J, Palmeira EM (2015) A laboratory study on the
performance of geosynthetic reinforced asphalt overlays. Int J
Geosynth Ground Eng 1:5
22. Singh M, Trivedi A, Shukla SK (2020) Influence of geosynthetic
reinforcement on unpaved roads based on CBR, and static and
dynamic cone penetration tests. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 6:13
23. Ahmed Kamel M, Chandra S, Kumar P (2004) Behavior of
subgrade soil reinforced with geogrid. Int J Pavement Eng
5(4):201–209
24. Cancelli A, Montanelli F (1999) In-ground test for geosynthetic
reinforced flexible paved roads. Proceedings of the conference
geosynthetics '99, Boston, MA, USA, April, 863–878
25. Chan FWK, Barksdale RD, Brown SF (1989) Aggregate base rein-
forcement of surfaced pavements. Geotext Geomembr 8:165–189
26. Collin JG, Kinney TC, Fu X (1996) Full scale highway load test
of flexible pavement system with geogrid reinforced base courses.
Geosynth Int 3(4):537–549
27. Kinney TC, Abbott J, Schuler J (1998) Benefits of using geogrids
for base reinforcement with regard to rutting. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1611, National Research Council 86–96
28. Miura N, Sakai A, Taesiri Y (1990) Polymer grid reinforced pave-
ment on soft grounds. Geotext Geomembr 9:99–123
29. Moghaddas-Nejad F, Small JC (1996) Effect of geogrid rein-
forcement in model track tests on pavements. J Transp Eng
122(6):468–474
30. Montanelli F, Zhao A, Rimoldi P (1997) Geosynthetic reinforced
pavement system: testing & design. Proceedings of the conference
geosynthetics ’97. Long Beach, CA, USA, March 1997, 619–632
31. Omoto S, Kawabata K, Mizobuchi M (1992) Reinforcement effect
of geotextiles on pavements with weak subgrade. Earth Reinforce-
ment Practice, Rotterdam, pp. 671–676
32. Wang ZJ, Jacobs F, Ziegler M (2014) Visualization of load trans-
fer behavior between geogrid and sand using PFC2D. Geotext
Geomembr 42:83–90
33. Wu H, Huang B, Shu X, Zhao S (2015) Evaluation of geogrid
reinforcement effects on unbound granular pavement base course
using loaded wheel tester. Geotext Geomembr 43(5):462–469
34. Raymond G, Ismail I (2003) The effect of geogrid reinforcement
on unbound aggregates. Geotext Geomembr 21:355–380
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29 Page 15 of 15  29
35. Perkins SW, Christopher BR, Cuelho EL, Eiksund GR, Hoff I,
Schwartz CW, Svanø G, Want A (2004) Development of Design
Methods for Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements. Report
No. DTFH61-01-X-00068, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., USA
36. Moghaddas-Nejad F, Small JC (2003) Resilient and permanent
characteristics of reinforced granular materials by repeated load
triaxial tests. Geotech Test J 26(2):152–166
37. AASHTO R50 (2009) Standard Practice for Geosynthetic Rein-
forcement of the Aggregate Base Course of Flexible Pavement
Structures. Washington, DC: American Association of Highway
and Transportation Officials
38. IRC: SP: 59 (2019) Guidelines for Use of Geosynthetics in Road
Pavements and Associated Works. 1st Rev. New Delhi: Indian
Roads Congress
39. PLAXIS 2D (2020) Reference Manual. https://​www.​plaxis.​com/​
suppo​rt/​manua​ls/​plaxis-​2d-​manua​ls/
40. IRC: 37 (2018) Guidelines for the design of Flexible pavements.
Indian Roads Congress, Fourth revision, New Delhi
41. Das A (1998) Analytical Design of Bituminous Pavements Based
on Field Performance, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineer-
ing Department, Indian Institute of Technology. Kharagpur, India
42. Kazemian S, Barghchi M, Prasad A, Maydi H, Huat BK (2010)
Reinforced pavement above trench under urban traffic load:
case study and finite element (FE) analysis. J Sci Res Essay
5(21):3313–3328
43. Howard IL, Warren KA (2009) Finite-element modelling of
instrumented flexible pavements under stationary transient load-
ing. J Transp Eng ASCE 135(2):53–61
View publication stats
44. Terrel RL, Awad IS, Foss LR (1974) Techniques for Character-
izing Bituminous Materials using a Versatile Triaxial Testing Sys-
tem, ASTM STP 561, American Society for Testing and Materi-
als, Philadelphia, pp. 47–66
45. Correia NS (2014) Performance of flexible pavements enhanced
using geogrid-reinforced asphalt overlays. Ph.D. dissertation,
Univ. of Sao Paulo
46. Faheem H, Hassan AM (2014) 2D Plaxis finite element modeling
of asphalt-concrete pavement reinforced with geogrid. J Eng Sci
Assiut Univ Faculty Eng. 42(6):1336–1348
47. Correia NS, Esquivel ER, Zornberg JG (2018) Finite-element eval-
uations of geogrid-reinforced asphalt overlays over flexible pave-
ments. J Transp Eng Part B Pavements, ASCE 144(2):04018020
48. Saevarsdottir T (2014) Performance modelling of flexible pave-
ments tested in a heavy vehicle simulator. Ph.D. dissertation,
Univ. of Iceland
49. Ling H, Liu H (2003) Finite element studies of asphalt concrete
pavement reinforced with geogrid. J Eng Mech 129(7):801–811
50. Goud GN, Ramu B, Umashankar B, Sireesh S, Madhav MR (2020)
Evaluation of layer coefficient ratios for geogrid-reinforced bases
of flexible pavements. J Road Mater Pavement Design. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1080/​14680​629.​2020.​18124​24
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13