Giroud-Han Design Method

- Development and Calibration

Jie Han, Ph.D., PE

Professor
The University of Kansas
USA
 Outline of Presentation

 Introduction

 Development of Design Method

 Calibration

 Proper Use

 Concluding Remarks
Introduction
 Unpaved Roads

Local road Temporary or haul road

Rutting under Wheel Loading

Rut

Upward movement

Lateral movement
Compression
 Use of Geosynthetics for Different
Subgrade CBR Values

CBR value Geosynthetic

Function product
Unsoaked Soaked
Separation >8 >3 NWV fabric

Reinforcement 8-3 3-1 Geogrid/WV fabric

Reinforcement Geogrid+NWV fabric

& separation <3 <1
/WV fabric
 Geosynthetic Reinforcement
Woven Geotextile

GSI

Triangular Geogrid Geocell

Particle Movement Under Wheel Loading

Particle Particle
movement movement

Wheel Wheel
movement movement

No Reinforcement Geogrid Reinforcement

Unreinforced
Deformation

Reinforced

Load cycles Courtesy of Kinney

Confinement

Interlocking
Optimum Geogrid Aperture/Aggregate Size

Biaxial geogrid

Aggregate: Dmax = 50 mm and D50 = 38 mm

Brown et al. (2006)
Geogrid Reinforcement
Development of Design Method
 Design Philosophies

Unstable base or subgrade

Bearing failure

Rut depths

Resilient behavior Stable base

& subgrade

No. of passes
Unstable vs. Stable

Unstable

Stable
 Design of Geosynthetic-reinforced
Unpaved Roads – Giroud-Han Method

 Consideration of base quality

 Stress distribution angle varying with traffic passes
 Base thickness reduction based on cyclic loading
 Differentiation among geosynthetic materials
 Influence of rut depth based on the stress-strain
relationship
 Calibrated and verified by field data

Giroud and Han (2004)

Design of Unpaved Roads with Unstable
Base or Subgrade
Tire

Base Course CBR

Subgrade

Tire

At failure Initial
Base Course N passes E1

Subgrade E2 & CBR

 CBR Required for Traffic on Base Course
CBR
100
No. of Passes
10,000
Single wheel load (kips) 5,000

10 1,000
500
50
25 100
10 50
1
10 100 200 300
10
Tire Pressure (psi) 5

(Hammitt II, 1970) 1

 Stresses on Subgrade Soil

P Tire
2r

Ebc pi α h

Esq

P
pi = pi ≤ m N c cu
π (r + h tan α) 2
m = bearing capacity mobilization factor
r  P 

h= 
tan α  πr 2 mN c cu 
 Bearing Capacity Factor

Unreinforced unpaved roads

Nc = 3.14 Local failure τ

Geotextile reinforced unpaved roads

Nc = 5.14 Ultimate bearing capacity with τ=0

smooth geotextile-subgarde interface
Geogrid reinforced unpaved roads
Ultimate bearing capacity with
Nc = 5.71 rough geogrid-subgarde interface τ
 Initial Stress Distribution Angle

Base, Ebc
α0 α1

Subgrade, Esg

  Ebc  
tan α1 =tan α 0 1 + 0.204  − 1  Simplified from
  E  Bumister (1958)
 sg 

α0 = distribution angle for a reference uniform medium

 Stress Distribution Angle at N
Tire

At failure Initial
Base Course N passes Ebc

Subgrade Esg

1 1 + k log N 1
= = + λ log N from Gabr (2001)
tan α tan α1 tan α1

λ = distribution angle reduction rate

α = back-calculated from the measured maximum
vertical stress on top of subgrade
Calibration
 Determination of λ

5.0
Unreinforced 1/tanα = 1.1+ 0.84 logN
BX1
R2 = 0.955
4.0 BX1100
BX2
BX1200
3.0
1/tanα

1/tanα = 1.1+ 0.68 logN

R2 = 0.976
2.0

1.0 1/tanα = 1.1 + 0.17 logN

R2 = 0.958
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
logN
Cyclic Plate Loading Test
Stress Distribution Angle

α
 Correlation of λ with Geogrid
Aperture Stability Modulus

1 0.15 m section
λ = 0.84 − 1.275 J2
0.25 m section
0.8
Approximation for
0.15 m section
0.6
Slope, λ

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Geogrid Aperture Stability Modulus, J (m-N/o)
Why Was the Aperture Stability
Modulus Selected?

SASM@20cm-kg = 3.48 – 2.14*TIF + 0.981*TIF2 (R2 = 0.966)

Nreinforced
TBR =
Nunreinforced

Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR)

Webster (1992)
 Required Base Course Thickness

1.5
r
0.868 + (0.661 − 1.006 J )  log N
2

 h  P 
h=  − 1 r
 πr mNc cu
2
fE 

Ebc 3.48CBRbc0.3
f E = 1 + 0.204( RE − 1) RE = = ≤ 5.0
Esg CBRsg

 s    r   
2

Bearing capacity m =  1 − 0.9 exp −    
Mobilization factor  f s    h   
 Base Thickness - Unreinforced
1
P = 40 kN
s = 75 mm
p = 550 kPa
CBR bc = 15 s = 50 mm
0.8
Unreinforced

N = 10
0.6 N = 100
h (m)

N = 1,000 N = 10,000

N = 10
0.4
N = 100

N = 1,000
0.2
N = 10,000

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
CBRsg
 Base Thickness - Reinforced
1
P = 40 kN s = 75 mm
p = 550 kPa s = 50 mm
0.8 CBR bc = 15
Geogrid
J = 0.3 m-N/deg.
0.6
N = 10,000
h (m)

N = 1,000
N = 100
0.4
N = 10

N = 10
0.2
N = 100

N = 1,000
N = 10,000
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
CBRsg
 Computed vs. Measured for
Unreinforced Cases
0.8
Computed Base Thickness, h' (m)
h' = 1.1352h
R2 = 0.73
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Measured Base Thickness, h (m)
 Comparison –
Tingle & Webster Study (2003)

h (m) h (m)
Road section Measured Calculated
This study

Unreinforced 0.51 0.59

Reinforced with nonwoven 0.38 0.43

geotextile
Reinforced with woven 0.38 0.43
geotextile
Reinforced with BX1200 0.25 0.25
geogrid on geotextile
 Comparison –
Knapton & Austin Study (1996)

Rut depth (mm)

Number
of Road section
passes
Measured Calculated

Unreinforced 98 >75
14,500
Reinforced with 50 50
geogrid BX1200
Unreinforced 104 >75
52,000
Reinforced with 53 52
geogrid BX1200
Rut Depth versus CBR of Subgrade

White et al. (2007)

Proper Use
 Proper Use of Design Method

• This method is generic for all geotextiles and geogrids

but was calibrated for specific products
• Large cyclic plate loading tests or field tests are required to
calibrate this method
• Assume saturated and fine-grained subgrade
• Use remolded strength if subgrade is sensitive
• Have sufficient strength and stiffness of base course
• Have 50% reliability if average subgrade strength is used
• Use of base thickness for verification of this method against
field data
Giroud and Han (2011)
Variability of DCP vs. CBR Correlation

Webster et al. (1994)

Inconsistent Subgrade Strength

Cuelho and Perkins (2009)

Subgrade Strength Reduction

Cuelho and Perkins (2009)

Additional Base Thickness Required
due to Aggregate Loss
120

100
% of Design Average Thickness

80

60

40

20

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
CBR (%)
Christopher and Holtz (1989)
 Why Not Use T5% ?
18

16
TBR data from Watts et al. (2004)
Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR)

14

12

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Tensile strength at 5% strain (kN/m)
 Design vs. Performance

p0 Average performance
curve
Serviceability

Design curve
pt

ZR s0

Log N

Modified from AASHTO 1993

 Concluding Remarks
• Geosynthetics have been successfully used to stabilize
weak subgrade and reinforce base courses thus reducing
rut depths, reducing required base thickness, and/or
prolonging life of unpaved roads.

• Geosynthetics can reduce the rate of stress distribution

angle reduction

• Geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads over unstable

subgrade can be designed based on increased bearing
capacity

• G-H method was calibrated with large-scale cyclic plate

loading test data and verified by field and other lab data
Thank You!