Final

Report 1999-04

Fabric for Reinforcement

and Separation in Unpaved Roads
 FABRIC FOR REINFORCEMENT AND SEPARATION
IN UNPAVED ROADS

Final Report

Prepared by

Julie B. Bearden
Joseph F. Labuz

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Minnesota
500 Pillsbury Drive S.E.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455-0220

December 1998

Published by

Minnesota Department of Transportation

Office of Research Services, First Floor
395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data
presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of
Transportation at the time of publication. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Local Road Research Board (LRRB) through the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) funded the research presented in this report. Without the participation
of Mn/DOT personnel this work would not have been possible. The support of LRRB is also
gratefully acknowledged.
 Table of Contents
Executive Summary i

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 2 Literature Review 5

2.1 Description of Geotextiles and Their Functions 5

2.2 Reinforcement in Unpaved Roads 8

2.2.1 Membrane Reinforcement 9
2.2.2 Shear Reinforcement 20
2.2.3 Factors Affecting Reinforced Unpaved Roads 32

2.3 Separation in Unpaved Roads 36

2.4 Case Studies 39

2.5 Summary 42

Chapter 3 Direct Shear Tests 49

3.1 Apparatus and Setup 50
3.1.1 Apparatus Description 50
3.1.2 Apparatus Setup 51

3.2 Test Materials and Test Setup 52

3.2.1 Test Materials 52
3.2.2 Test Setup 54

3.3 Test Matrix 55

3.3.1 Clay Placement 55
3.3.2 Geotextile and Gravel Placement 55

3.4 Results 59

3.5 Summary 64
Chapter 4 Model Tests 65
4.1 Apparatus and Setup 65
4.1.1 Determination of SFA System 65
4.1.2 Cylinder Design 68
4.1.3 Testing System and Configuration 70

4.2 Materials 72

4.3 Practice Tests 75

4.3.1 Anchored Slit Film Reinforcement 76
4.3.2 Unanchored Nonwoven Reinforcement 77

4.4 Test Matrix 78

4.5 Results 80
4.5.1 Test Parameters and Final Rut Depths 80
4.5.2 Shape of Rut 83
4.5.3 Equivalency Charts 87
4.5.4 Bearing Capacity 91

4.6 Summary 93

Chapter 5 Conclusions 95

References 97

Appendix A Vendor Recommended Design Procedures A-1

A.1 FHWA Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines [22] A-3
A.2 U.S. Forest Service [7] A-11
A.3 Barenberg [3] A-13
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Section of reinforced unpaved road 2

Figure 2.1: Testing apparatus 9
Figure 2.2: Dual wheel axle configuration 15
Figure 2.3: Pyramidal load distribution 16
Figure 2.4: Plastic zone 17
Figure 2.5: Geotextile deformed shape 18
Figure 2.6: Section of stretched geotextile 22
Figure 2.7: Geometry of deformed geotextile 29
Figure 2.8: Load distribution through aggregate 31
Figure 3.1: Section of reinforced unpaved road 49
Figure 3.2: Direct shear box 50
Figure 3.3: Bladder calibration curve 51
Figure 3.4: Silty-clay compaction curve 52
Figure 3.5: Gravel gradation curve 53
Figure 3.6: Results of gravel direct shear tests 53
Figure 3.7: Geotextile clamping and sliding schematic 56
Figure 3.8: Geotextile clamping system on the direct shear machine (Fig. 3.2) 56
Figure 3.9: Results from slit film sliding on gravel (test number 11) 59
Figure 3.10: Results from direct shear tests on the SFA systems 60
Figure 3.11: Change in aggregate volume for three geotextiles: gravel and clay sliding 63
Figure 4.1: Tire print configuration 66
Figure 4.2: Interface pressure 67
Figure 4.3: Pressure isobar 68
Figure 4.4: Loading of a cylindrical pressure vessel 69
Figure 4.5: Schematic of cylinder design 70
Figure 4.6: Operation of closed-loop, servo-controlled testing machine 71
Figure 4.7: Loading history 71
Figure 4.8: Geotextile location for model tests 73
Figure 4.9: Bottom fill compaction curve 74
Figure 4.10: Top fill compaction curve 74
Figure 4.11: Compaction curve for silty-clay after completion of model tests 75
Figure 4.12: Anchorage scenarios 76
Figure 4.13: Rut mapping measurements 80
*
Figure 4.14: Rut depth histogram with table of test parameters ( extrapolated rut depth values) 82
Figure 4:15: Extrapolated rut depths for X41 and X61 82
Figure 4.16: Rut geometry interpretation 83
Figure 4.17: Coordinate system used to develop Eq. 4.4 84
Figure 4.18: Rut geometry as a function of reinforcement 85
Figure 4.19: Rut geometry as a function of gravel thickness 86
Figure 4.20: Equivalency charts after 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 cycles for subgrade with
average (final) shear strength of 75 kPa 90
Figure 4.21: Bearing capacity factors for the unreinforced, slit film reinforced, and nonwoven
reinforced tests 91
Figure A.1: Thickness design curve for single wheel loads [7] A-8
Figure A.2: Thickness design curve for dual wheel loads [7] A-9
Figure A.3: Thickness design curve for tandem wheel loads [7] A-10
Figure A.4: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a 22 kN (5,000 lb) wheel load [3] A-16
Figure A.5: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a 44.5 kN (10,000 lb) wheel load [3] A-17
Figure A.6: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a 67 kN (15,000 lb) wheel load [3] A-18
Figure A.7: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a 90 kN (20,000 lb) wheel load [3] A-20
 List of Tables

Table 2.1: Summary of literature review findings 42

Table 3.1: Physical and mechanical properties of the geotextiles 54
Table 3.2: Direct shear test order 58
Table 3.3: Summary of shear tests 61
Table 3.4: Interface friction angles 61
Table 4.1: Eleven model tests and their moisture contents 78
Table 4.2: Comparison of measured and calculated values for S 84
Table 4.3: Correction for stroke 87
Table 4.4: Rut depths at different cycle intervals 88
Table 4.5: Results from Steward et al. [7] 93
Table A.1: Construction survivability ratings [Task Force 25, 46] A-4
1
Table A.2: Physical property requirements A-5
Table A.3: Bearing capacity factors A-6
Table A.4: Drainage and filtration requirements A-7
 Executive Summary

When a vertical load from a vehicle is applied to an unpaved road involving a gravel aggregate-
clay subgrade system, horizontal and vertical stresses are generated. The horizontal stresses in
the aggregate result in outward shear stresses on the surface of the subgrade. These shear
stresses reduce the bearing capacity of the clay to as little as one half the value for purely vertical
loading. If fabric is present, these shear stresses can possibly be carried by the reinforcement
(depending on interface friction), allowing the full bearing capacity of the clay to be mobilized.
Laboratory experiments were performed on soil-fabric-aggregate systems to evaluate the
effect a geotextile has on the performance of an unpaved road. A series of 18 direct shear tests
on soil-fabric-aggregate systems and 13 model tests on various unpaved road designs were
conducted. The direct shear tests indicated that the nonwoven geotextile system developed an
interface friction value similar to the gravel alone (42o-45o), while the slit film and heavyweight
woven systems generated friction angles about 20% lower (about 34o).
By performing model tests on similar pavement systems it was observed that, in terms of
rut depths, the nonwoven performed better than the slit film woven geotextile for all gravel
thicknesses, most likely due to the nonwoven’s higher frictional characteristics. For all tests,
geotextile anchorage was observed to be unimportant, as the geotextile appeared to be stretched
only within the distributed load area at that location. The rut diameters for the slit film and
nonwoven reinforced systems tended to be larger than those observed for the unreinforced
systems indicating that gravel-geotextile interlocking produced some confinement within the
gravel resulting in an increased load-spread angle through the gravel.
Based on rutting alone, the unreinforced model with 200 mm (8 in.) of gravel was
equivalent to that of the slit film model with 150 mm (6 in.) of gravel and the nonwoven model
with 100 mm (4 in.) of gravel, although the rutting was significant (60 mm or 40% of the load
plate diameter). The bearing capacity factor (the ratio of maximum applied stress and shear
strength) for the nonwoven reinforced models was approximately 1.5-2 times greater than the
unreinforced models, in reasonable agreement with theory.

i
 Chapter 1
Introduction

Fabric in an unpaved road can reduce the amount of aggregate needed by reinforcing the road
and can eliminate the need for additional aggregate to account for mixing at the soil-gravel
interface by separating the two materials. Cost savings have been recognized through the
reinforcing and separating mechanisms provided by a fabric. Many agencies have successfully
used geotextiles in unpaved road design. Some agencies have also experienced failures.
Through both the successes and failures, it is clear that many questions remain as to how
reinforced unpaved roads are designed. For example: what are the mechanisms that control road
design? Is there some system property that can be efficiently evaluated and used as a deciding
parameter in design?
Many factors in a soil-fabric-aggregate system affect performance:
• gravel and subgrade material properties;
• interface friction and stiffness of the geotextile;
• separation properties of the geotextile such as apparent opening size, permeability and
transmissivity.
A number of researchers have looked at the mechanisms or system properties that affect the
performance of geotextile reinforced unpaved roads. Barenberg et al. [1] developed a design
procedure assuming that significant rutting occurs; it was also assumed that the deflected shape
of the geotextile was a circular arc and no slip of the geotextile occurred at the interface. It was
determined that for reinforced unpaved roads the permissible value for allowable subgrade stress
is 6cu and for unreinforced roads is 3.2cu, where cu is the subgrade’s undrained shear strength.
Kinney [2] found that geotextile properties, such as the modulus, have a significant effect
on the behavior of soil-fabric-aggregate (SFA) systems. The fabric tension model was
developed so as to take these effects into account. Included in the model were methods for
determining geotextile shear and normal stresses as well as geotextile strain energy. The fabric

1
tension model is the basis for the design procedure developed for use with Mirafi 140 and 500
X geotextiles [3].
Giroud and Noiray [4] developed an equation for determining the required aggregate
layer thickness for a geotextile reinforced unpaved road as a function of loading, subgrade shear
strength, and geotextile properties. In developing the design procedure, the reinforcement at the
gravel-subgrade interface was assumed to distort a certain way under a wheel load and it was
assumed that the geotextile does not slip relative to the soil and gravel. It was also assumed that
the geotextile was firmly anchored at some point outside the loaded area, allowing the strain in
the reinforcement to be calculated. Assuming an amount of permissible rutting and knowing the
stiffness of the reinforcement, geotextile tension can be determined and, because of the assumed
rut geometry, a difference between the applied pressure above and below the reinforcement (the
tensioned membrane effect) could be calculated. The membrane effect was taken into account
through the use of an enhanced bearing capacity factor in the road design.
Several analyses of the reinforced unpaved road problem have been published along with
design charts, but all are based on essentially the same concepts as those adopted by Giroud and
Noiray [4] and Barenberg [3]. Recently, Milligan et al. [5] developed a method for the design of
reinforced unpaved roads where only small rutting is permitted. Their work was based on the
concept that the principal function of geotextile reinforcement is to carry shear stresses that
would otherwise be applied to the soft subgrade (Fig. 1.1).
Load

Aggregate P A
P P
τ B`
r

T
τ B`
Fabric r

P
Soil V

Figure 1.1: Section of reinforced unpaved road

2
 A series of 18 direct shear tests and 13 unpaved road model tests were performed to
evaluate how system properties such as interface friction affect the road’s performance. Three
types of geotextiles were used: a lightweight slit film, heavyweight woven, and a nonwoven.
The subgrade soil was silty-clay and the aggregate was crushed gravel. Gravel thickness was
varied for the model tests and the moisture content of the silty-clay was monitored so as to
remain 3-7% above optimum (w = 23-27%).
The model test apparatus consisted of a 560 mm (22 in.) diameter thin-walled steel
cylinder that was filled with clay during testing. The inside cylinder wall was covered with
plastic foam to reduce the effects of the boundaries by allowing sufficient displacement at the
cylinder wall. The geotextile was placed unanchored on the clay surface and covered with either
100, 150, or 200 mm (4, 6, or 8 in.) of gravel. Approximately 10,000 cycles were applied to
each modeled system at a frequency of 0.2 Hz.

3
4
 Chapter 2
Literature Review

2.1 Description of Geotextiles and Their Functions

According to ASTM [6], a geosynthetic is defined as a planar product manufactured from a
polymeric material used with soil, rock, earth, or other geotechnical-related materials as an
integral part of a civil engineering project, structure, or system. A geotextile is a permeable
geosynthetic made of textile materials. There are other types of geosynthetics such as geogrids
and geomembranes. Geogrids are primarily used for reinforcement and are formed by a regular
network of tensile elements with apertures of sufficient size to interlock with surrounding fill
material. Geomembranes are low-permeability geosynthetics used as fluid barriers.
Elements such as fibers or yarns are combined into planar textile structures to
manufacture geotextiles. The fibers can be continuous filaments, which are very long thin
strands of a polymer, or staple fibers, which are short filaments, typically 20-150 mm (0.75-6 in.)
long. The fibers may also be produced by slitting an extruded plastic sheet of film to form thin
flat tapes. In both filaments and slit films, the extrusion or drawing process elongates the
polymers in the direction of the draw and increase the filament strength.
Geotextile type is determined by the method used to combine the filaments or tapes into
the planar structure. The vast majority of geotextiles are either woven or nonwoven. Woven
geotextiles are made of monofilament, multifilament, or fibrillated yarns, or of slit films and
tapes. The weaving process is like that of textile cloth-making. Nonwoven textile
manufacturing is a modern process in which synthetic polymer fibers or filaments are
continuously extruded and spun, blown or otherwise laid on to a moving belt. Then the mass of
filaments or fibers are either needlepunched, in which the filaments are mechanically entangled
by a series of small needles, or heat bonded, in which the fibers are welded together by heat
and/or pressure at their points of contact in the nonwoven mass.
Geosynthetics have six primary functions: filtration, drainage, separation, reinforcement,
fluid barrier, and protection. Geotextiles can be used as filters to prevent soil migration, as
5
drains to allow transmission of water through low permeability materials, as separators to
prevent mixing of subgrade and gravel in unpaved roads, and as reinforcement to add shear
strength to a soil matrix.
There are three different reinforcing mechanisms a geotextile is commonly believed to
provide to a geotextile reinforced unpaved road, commonly referred to as a soil-fabric-aggregate
(SFA) system. The first mechanism is that of membrane support or membrane reinforcement.
Giroud and Noiray [4] introduced the concept of membrane support for an unpaved road
reinforced with a geotextile and described it as follows:
In the case of wheel loadings on a geotextile reinforced unpaved road, the normal
stress applied through the aggregate and onto the geotextile is greater than the
normal stress applied through the geotextile and onto the subgrade. The stress
against its aggregate face is higher than the stress against its subgrade face. This
stress difference is attributed to membrane support.

Membrane support is produced only if the geotextile is stretched. For stretching to occur,
significant rutting of the unpaved road must take place. The tensioned geotextile takes on a
wavy form due to the rutting, producing a vertical component of tensile force that relieves the
subgrade of some vertical stress.
Shear reinforcement is commonly believed to be a second reinforcing mechanism a
geotextile provides. Shear stresses exist at the base of a gravel layer under loading. If geotextile
reinforcement is absent, these damaging stresses are transferred directly to the subgrade material.
Of course, this is not a serious problem if the subgrade is a competent material. However, if the
subgrade material is weak it may not be able to support these stresses. A geotextile placed at the
interface between the gravel and subgrade materials provides shear reinforcement by carrying
these shear stresses and not transferring them to the subgrade.
A third type of reinforcing mechanism is that of lateral confinement which is connected
to the shear reinforcing mechanism. For shear stresses to be transferred to the geotextile there
needs to be some gravel-geotextile interlock. When this interlock occurs the load-spread angle
through the gravel may be increased resulting in lower pressures at the geotextile interface.
This chapter summarizes a review of literature pertaining to the use of geotextiles for
reinforcement and separation in unpaved roads, and is organized by the following topics:
• Reinforcement in Unpaved Roads

6
• Separation in Unpaved Roads
• Case Studies
Research surrounding the design of geotextile reinforced unpaved roads seemingly started with
work performed at the University of Illinois by Barenberg et al. [1] and Kinney [2]. This work
ultimately led to the development of reinforced unpaved low-volume road design charts by
Giroud and Noiray [4]. The research and interest in the topic of reinforcing unpaved roads with
geotextiles quickly escalated after the publication of the work by Giroud and Noiray [4]. Based
on observations of field performance, Steward et al. [7] recommended a design procedure to the
U.S. Forest Service for using geotextile reinforcement in unpaved roads. However, all of these
design procedures assumed that large rutting occurs and develops geotextile membrane support.
Recently, Milligan et al. [5] studied reinforced unpaved roads where large rutting is not
permitted. For low-deformation systems membrane support is not developed. The reinforcement
mechanism may be a result of increased shear resistance at the gravel-geotextile interface.
While the use of geotextiles for reinforcing unpaved roads continued to be investigated,
others started to look at the use of geotextiles purely for separation in unpaved roads. Douglas et
al. [8] found that the reinforcement function of geotextiles in unpaved roads was insignificant
and that the primary reason for improved performance was separation. It is well known that
many engineering properties of granular materials, such as shear strength, permeability, resilient
modulus and frost action potential, are adversely affected by an increase in fines content. For
example, about 20% by weight of subgrade soil mixed into the aggregate base can reduce the
bearing capacity of the aggregate base to that of the subgrade soil [9]. Thus, the mixing of
aggregate and subgrade could compromise the structural integrity of the road.
Brorsson and Eriksson [10] reported on the long-term properties of geotextiles and their
function as a separator. Geotextiles were placed on soft and saturated frost susceptible clayey-
silt and silty-clay subgrades to act as a separator between the aggregate base and subgrade. After
five and ten years, geotextile samples were excavated and the subgrade and base materials were
examined. All of the geotextiles sampled were found to have performed the separation function
satisfactorily. It was observed that the subgrade material was firm, dry, and well consolidated.
These findings point to the idea that separation is a useful function while the subgrade is
consolidating. Haliburton and Barron [11] stated that, although the use of fabric for separation
7
does not in itself strengthen the road system, it does allow for the dissipation of excess pore
pressures and subgrade consolidation, which will lead to long-term subgrade strength
improvement. This allows the road to improve, rather than degrade, with time and number of
load repetitions.

2.2 Reinforcement in Unpaved Roads

This section deals specifically with the research on geotextile reinforced unpaved roads that was
conducted by the following four groups:
• Barenberg [1, 3] and Kinney [2] − University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
• Giroud and Noiray [4] − Woodward-Clyde Consultants
• Milligan et al. [5], Burd and Brocklehurst [12], Houlsby and Jewel [13] − Oxford University
• Espinoza [14] and Espinoza and Bray [15] − University of California, Berkeley
A vast amount of research on geotextiles for reinforcement in unpaved roads has
occurred over the last 20 years. A major advancement in this area was the development of an
analytical treatment of unpaved road design with geotextile reinforcement performed by Giroud
and Noiray [4], based on the concept of membrane-type reinforcement. The membrane effect
refers to the reinforcement provided by a geosynthetic when large rutting is permitted, stretching
and allowing the geotextile to provide some vertical (membrane) support.
Giroud and Noiray’s [4] design procedure for geotextile reinforced unpaved roads came
shortly after Kinney [2] completed a study on large deformation soil-fabric-aggregate systems
(commonly referred to as SFA systems), where a so-called fabric tension model was introduced.
This model used the notion that when a fabric is stretched over a curved surface, there is a higher
normal stress on the aggregate side of the geotextile than on the subgrade side. Kinney [2]
defined this difference in normal stresses as the fabric induced normal stress. Giroud and Noiray
[4] defined it as membrane support. Prior to Kinney’s work with SFA systems where large
rutting was permitted, Barenberg [1] developed a design procedure for the use of Mirafi 140 in
SFA systems. Membrane type reinforcement is now commonly recognized and applied to the
design of unpaved haul or access roads where large rutting is permitted. Since it is necessary to
have rutting to generate membrane support, researchers have recently started investigating other
8
possible reinforcing mechanisms that may be present without rutting. Milligan et al. [5] and
Espinoza [14, 15] looked at a possible shear reinforcing mechanism that may be present for
small rut depths and unaffected by anchorage.

2.2.1 Membrane Reinforcement

Barenberg et al. [1] and Bender and Barenberg [16] developed design criteria for the use of
Mirafi 140 and 280 in SFA systems, from which design charts were generated. The design
criterion was based on the results of small-scale laboratory tests on SFA systems (Fig. 2.1).

Load Plate

Aggregate
Geotextile

Subgrade

Figure 2.1: Testing apparatus

For the tests performed using the apparatus shown in Fig. 2.1, no significant difference in
the performance of the systems with Mirafi 140 and 280 was observed. The systems with
fabric tended to reach some level of permanent deformation after which the system stabilized
and further load applications of the same magnitude caused little or no additional permanent
deformation. The critical stress level to cause excessive permanent deformation was found to be
about 3.2cu for systems without fabric and 6cu for systems with fabric, where cu is the undrained
shear strength. It was recommended that if the number of load cycles is greater than 10,000, the
required aggregate depth should be increased by 10% above that calculated using the critical
stress levels given above. This correction factor should be applied for each increment of 10,000
loads above the initial level of excessive loading (that is, the first 10,000 loads). This correction
is purely empirical and based on work performed by the Army Corps of Engineers [17].

9
Barenberg [1] also found that fabrics were effective in preventing the intrusion of subgrade soil
into the aggregate layer and stabilizing the aggregate. For certain conditions, the use of fabric
was found to result in significant aggregate savings, with approximately a one-third reduction in
aggregate thickness.
Kinney [2] developed a so-called fabric tension model, which is a mechanistic
description of the behavior of the geotextile in an SFA system. It included methods for
determining the geotextile induced shear and normal stresses and the strain energy stored in the
geotextile. This model was based on the concept that the outward movement of aggregate and
clay under loading causes outward shear stresses on the fabric, creating tension in the fabric.
Also, when the fabric is stretched over a curved surface higher normal stresses are generated on
the aggregate side of the fabric than on the subgrade side. The fabric resists stretching, causing
inward-directed shear stresses on the gravel and the clay. Hence, the fabric indirectly causes
changes in the behavior of the system.
Expressions were developed for calculating the induced shear and normal stresses
knowing the tension in the geotextile and the deformed shape of the geotextile. The sum of the
shear stresses on the two sides of the fabric was set equal to the rate of change in the tension-per-
unit-width of the fabric along its length. The geotextile-induced shear stresses could only be
determined if the fabric is assumed to be slipping with respect to one or both of the surrounding
materials. If slip is assumed, the shear stress on the slipping side can be set equal to the
maximum available, which is governed by the friction and adhesion between the fabric and the
adjoining material and by the normal stress on that interface. The geotextile induced normal
stress was set equal to the tension in the geotextile per unit width divided by the radius of
curvature.
Kinney’s [2] fabric tension model represented in Eq. 2.1 and 2.2 takes into account the
modulus of the geotextile. Kinney found that the fabric’s modulus significantly affected the
performance of an SFA system. Higher modulus fabrics tended to perform better than lower
modulus fabrics. The normal stress on the geotextile, shear stress developed by the geotextile on
the aggregate and subgrade, and strain energy stored in the geotextile can be determined using
this model.

10
  
E f = ∫  ∫ Tdε dS (2.1)

S  

∫ (T )
W
Ef = 2
p − Ti 2 dL (2.2)
2E s L

where Ef = strain energy stored in geotextile

T = tensile force per unit width
ε = strain
S = geotextile surface area
W = geotextile width being stressed
Tp = tensile force per unit width under peak load
Ti = residual tensile force per unit width between loading
Es = modulus
L = geotextile length

Barenberg’s [1] earlier design procedure for SFA systems was based on the concept of
limiting, to acceptable values, the ratio of vertical stress (σz) transmitted to the subgrade to
subgrade strength (cu). A limitation of Barenberg’s procedure was that it was based on tests
performed on only two fabric types, Mirafi 140 and 280. At the time of Barenberg’s [1] work,
the effect of fabric properties on the behavior and performance of an SFA system was unknown.
Kinney [2] found that the fabric’s modulus significantly affected the performance of an SFA
system with higher modulus fabrics performing better than lower modulus fabrics. This
relationship was incorporated into Kinney’s [2] fabric tension model.
Barenberg’s [3] revised design procedure included the fabric tension model developed by
Kinney [2] with the previously developed design criteria and procedures for using Mirafi140
and 280 in unpaved roads. The revised procedure was developed to also be used with the
Mirafi500X geotextile. Barenberg [3] showed that when a load is applied to an SFA system,
the normal stress transmitted to the subgrade may exceed the allowable stress. As the rut
deepens, the fabric deforms and takes on a permanent tension, and a portion of the load is then
carried by the fabric. Rutting continues to deepen with an increase in the fabric’s tension until
11
the normal stress transmitted to the subgrade is equal to the permissible subgrade stress. At this
point, the system becomes stable and no further rutting occurs. Barenberg [3] recommended that
a permissible stress on the subgrade, σ, be adjusted to compensate for the effect of the fabric
modulus on the failure criterion. This was done by setting σ = A*π*cu where A is a coefficient
related to the confining effects of the fabric on the soil (A equals 1 when no fabric is used and
varies up to 2 when fabric is used), and cu is the undrained shear strength of the soil. In
developing the revised design procedure the geometry of the deflected shape of the fabric was
assumed as a circular arc and the estimated rut depth was calculated based on this assumption.
Design curves have been developed for different wheel loads using this model and assuming an
average contact pressure per wheel of 550 kPa (80 psi).

Barenberg [3] Design Procedure

1. Determine the wheel load and contact pressure anticipated on the surface of the SFA system.
For dual tires as a single load, a contact pressure of 0.7-0.8 times the air pressure can be
assumed. All loaded areas are assumed to have uniform pressure over a circular area.
2. Determine the maximum allowable stress, σall, for the subgrade:
σ all = 3.2 Acu (2.3)
where cu = subgrade undrained shear strength
A = coefficient related to the confining effects of fabric

Recommended Values for Coefficient A

Fabric Coefficient A
None 1.0
Mirafi 140 1.9
Mirafi 500X 2.0

3. Estimate required aggregate layer thickness.

Use 70-75% of aggregate thickness determined for unreinforced system.
4. Establish the rut geometry including width and maximum rut depth both on the aggregate
surface and at the interface.
Subgrade rut depth, d, can for practical purposes be taken as the surface rut depth.
12
 Subgrade rut width, W, can be estimated by the following equation:
W = B + 2X (2.4)
where B = aggregate surface rut width
X = spreading effect of granular layer with and without fabric
Note: X varies from 0 mm up to 178-510 mm (7-20 in.), increasing with an increase in the
amount the geotextile spreads out the rut.
5. Using assumed rut geometry, calculate the strain in the geotextile.
5 d 
θ = 2 tan −1   (2.5)
3W

3 W
R= (2.6)
8 sin θ

 4πRθ 
Percent Strain in Fabric, ε f =  − 2 × 100% (2.7)
 135W 

6. Taking the product of the fabric strain, εf, times the fabric modulus, K, calculate the tension
in the fabric, tf:
t f = Kε f (2.8)

7. Calculate the differential normal stress across the fabric due to the uplifting effect of the
fabric.
The differential normal stress is the normal stress difference between the top and bottom
side of the fabric. The summation of the differential normal stress over the fabric in the
loaded region is the portion of the applied load that is carried by the fabric. For practical
purposes, only the differential stress needs to be calculated and added to the permissible
stress on the subgrade to determine the permissible stress on the surface of the fabric.
tf
∆σ z − f = (2.9)
R
where ∆σz-f = differential normal stress across the fabric
tf = tension in fabric
R = radius of circular deflected shape

13
8. Calculate the permissible vertical stress on the top of the fabric by summing the maximum
permissible stress on the subgrade plus the differential normal stress due to the uplift by the
fabric tension:
σ p − f = ∆σ z − f + 3.2 Acu (2.10)

where 3.2Acu is the allowable stress given in Eq. 2.3

∆σz-f is the differential stress across the fabric given in Eq. 2.9
9. Calculate the maximum vertical stress, σz, on the fabric using the Boussinesq theory. If the
maximum vertical stress on the fabric is greater than the permissible vertical stress on the
fabric, increase the thickness of the granular layer and return to step 4.
 3

  2 

  1  
σ z = p 1 −  2   (2.11)
  a  
   1 +  
   z   

where P = total applied load
p = average contact pressure
z = aggregate layer thickness

P
a = radius of loaded area =
πp
Giroud and Noiray [4] developed a method that enables the engineer to calculate the
required thickness of the aggregate layer and make the proper selection of the geotextile to be
used. The results were presented in the form of design charts and are applicable only to purely
cohesive subgrade soils and roads subjected to light - medium traffic (1-10,000 cycles).
The aggregate was assumed to have a CBR greater than 80. The subgrade soil was
assumed to be saturated and to have low permeability and therefore, under quick loading, behave
in an undrained manner. This means that the subgrade soil is incompressible, and in terms of
total stresses, its friction angle is zero and its shear strength simply equals the undrained shear
strength, cu. It was assumed that the geotextile is rough enough to prevent sliding of the
aggregate layer along the geotextile surface (that is, a no slip condition).

14
 The design of an unpaved road without a geotextile was considered by comparing the
maximum normal stress on the subgrade soil to the bearing capacity. Based on this analysis,
charts were generated for the determination of aggregate thickness when the subgrade soil
strength and the axle load are known. However, the charts were developed for unpaved roads
with very light traffic.
Giroud and Noiray [4] found that for typical geotextiles, the reduction of aggregate
thickness resulting from the use of a geotextile generally ranged from 20-60% for a subgrade soil
with a CBR value of 1 and a number of passages between 1,000 and 10,000. An increase in the
allowable rut depth caused a decrease in the required thickness of the aggregate layer with and
without a geotextile. Furthermore, the smaller the geotextile tensile modulus, the larger the
required thickness of the aggregate layer.

Giroud and Noiray [4] Design Procedure

1. Determine the axle load, P, and contact area, Ac:
P = 4 Ac pc (2.12)
where pc = tire contact pressure.
For dual wheel axle configurations shown in Fig. 2.2:
contact area ≈ 2 Ac

BL ≈ 2 Ac 2 (2.13)

Ac Ac Ac Ac

L L
B B

Figure 2.2: Dual wheel axle configuration

2. Set pc = pec, where pec is the “equivalent contact pressure” between area BxL and the
aggregate layer:

15
 P = 2 LBpec (2.14)
pc
pec = (2.15)
2
3. Typical dual tire print geometry is such that for
B
on-highway trucks: L= (2.16)
2

B
off-highway trucks: L= (2.17)
2

Note: We will look at on-highway trucks; the derivation for off-highway trucks follows the
same procedure.

4. Using Eq. 2.15 and 2.16, L and pec can be eliminated from Eq.2.14:
P
B= (2.18)
pc

5. The relationship between normal stress on top of the aggregate, pec, with normal stress a
distance h or ho below is assumed to be pyramidal (Fig. 2.3):

without geotextile: pec LB = ( B + 2ho tan α o )( L + 2ho tan α o )( po − γho ) (2.19)

with geotextile: pec LB = ( B + 2h tan α )( L + 2h tan α )( p − γh) (2.20)

Figure 2.3: Pyramidal load distribution

6. An expression for stress on top of the geotextile can be generated using Equations (2.14) and
(2.20):
P
p= + γh (2.21)
2( B + 2h tan α )( L + 2h tan α )

16
 Note: tanα is typically taken as 0.5-0.7.

7. The stress at the plastic limit, qp, was assumed to be

q p = ( π + 2 ) cu (2.22)

where cu = undrained shear strength of the subgrade.

8. Due to the assumed failure mechanism with 45o angles in the plastic zone, the depth of the
plastic zone, Hp, (Fig. 2.4) can be expressed as:
Hp = a 2 (2.23)

2a 2a 2a

H
p

Figure 2.4: Plastic zone

From Fig. 2.2, 2a = B + 2htanα, so the plastic zone height can be rewritten as follows:

2a + 2h tan α B + 2h tan α
Hp = 2= (2.24)
2 2

The actual stress on the subgrade, p*, and the stress reduction due to the geotextile, pg, is
given by
p* = p − pg (2.25)

At the limiting condition p*=qp:

p − p g = ( π + 2 ) cu (2.26)

Note: pg is a function of the tension in the geotextile.

10. Determination of pg:

17
Assume that the deformed shape of the geotextile consists of parabolas (Fig. 2.5) and that the
subgrade is incompressible; thus, the volume of the subgrade displaced downwards equals
the volume heaved upwards.

Figure 2.5: Geotextile deformed shape

There are two cases: (1) the parabola horizontal distance between the wheel loads is greater
than that beneath the wheel load (i.e. a ′ > a ); (2) the parabola horizontal distance
underneath the wheel load is greater than that between the wheel load (i.e. a > a ′ ). From the
geometry of a curved geotextile:

2a = B + 2h tan α (2.27)
2a ′ = e − B − 2h tan α (2.28)
ra ′
a′ > a : s= (2.29)
a + a′
2ra 2
a > a′ : s= 2 (2.30)
2a + 3aa ′ − a ′ 2

Geotextile Elongation
s r−s
a ′ > a : Equation (2.29) becomes > and tension in P is greater than in P′. P′ is
a a′
pulled towards P and uniform elongation, ε, is assumed:

b + b′
ε= −1 (2.31)
a + a′

where a, a′= relative chord half-lengths

18
 b, b′= half length of P and P′
r−s s
a > a ′ : Equation (30) becomes > and tension in P′ is greater than in P.
a′ a
Geotextile does not move because of the high normal stresses on P due to the wheel load
generated friction resulting in different amounts of elongation, ε, in P and P′.
Elongation, ε, can be calculated directly using Eq. 2.33 because:
b
ε= −1 (2.32)
a
Elongation, ε, can be calculated using Eq. 2.31 along with the following relationships
between an arc of a parabola and subtended chord (Eq. 2.33 and 2.34) for the a ′ > a
conditions. For the a > a ′ conditions, ε, is given directly by Eq. 2.33:

1  a  2 s
2 
 2 s  
2
b
  2s 
−1= ln + 1+    − 2 + 1+   (2.33)
a 2  2 s  a a  a 
 

  2( r − s) 2 
 2( r − s)    2( r − s)  
2
b′ 1  a′ 
−1= ln + 1+   − 2 + 1+   (2.34)
a′ 2  2( r − s)  a ′  a ′    a′  
 
From Fig. 2.4 and 2.5, the following two expressions can be generated:
ap g = t cos β (2.35)

a
tan β = (2.36)
2s
where pg = pressure reduction on the soil
Knowing the relationship between load, t, and strain, ε, for a geotextile:
t = Kε
the following expression for pg can be derived:
Kε
pg = 2
(2.37)
a
a 1+  
 2s

11. Determination of aggregate layer thickness, h, using Eq. 2.20, 2.28, and 2.37:
19
 P Kε
( π + 2 ) cu = + (2.38)
2( B + 2h tan α )( L + 2h tan α ) a
2

a 1+  
 2s 

By using Eq. (2.38), design charts can be generated for the required aggregate thickness, h, of a
geotextile reinforced unpaved road.
Holtz and Sivakugan [18] used the Giroud and Noiray [4] design procedure to develop
design charts for rut depths of 75, 100, 150, 200 and 300 mm (3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 in.). The
modulus of the geotextile was found to not be as important for smaller rut depths (verses larger
rut depths of 300 mm and larger). This finding was attributed to the small strains induced in the
geotextile at smaller rut depths. It was explained that at smaller rut depths the membrane
resistance assumed in the Giroud and Noiray [4] design procedure is not developed. So, for
smaller rut depths it was claimed that the geotextile acts primarily as a separator between the
gravel and subgrade.
Finally, the tire pressure was shown to have no influence on the required aggregate
thickness when the undrained shear strength of the subgrade was less than about 50 kPa (0.5 tsf).
Holtz and Sivakugan [18] found that for very low undrained shear strength values, a rapid
increase in required aggregate thickness occurred, irrespective of the rut depth and the geotextile
modulus. Thus, a slight increase in the value of shear strength used for design could result in a
significant reduction in the required aggregate thickness.

2.2.2 Shear Reinforcement

A general expression for evaluating the increased bearing capacity due to membrane action was
presented by Espinoza [14]. Assuming the geometry of the deformed geotextile and a no slip
condition, an expression was given for the horizontal and vertical forces at the interface. The
shear stresses along the upper and lower sides of the interface were related by τlower = kτupper.
For a subgrade composed of a soft soil and a base of cohesionless material, it was noted that the
friction along the base-geotextile interface could be higher than the friction along the subgrade-

20
geotextile interface. In such cases, it was found acceptable to assume k = 0 yielding τlower = 0
and τupper = τ. Espinoza [14] derived expressions for a differential element, dl, of geotextile
supporting applied vertical stresses and formulated a simple expression for the additional bearing
capacity due to the membrane effect.
It was shown that in general, for small rutting factors, α (α = r/L, where r is the rut depth
and L is the effective horizontal length of the geotextile providing support), no significant
differences for membrane support values were obtained when assuming a circular verses
parabolic rut geometry. Also, for small α values, no significant differences were calculated for
the additional bearing capacity assuming constant and variable strain. On the contrary, for large
α values the choice of membrane support model significantly influenced the additional bearing
capacity calculated. Espinoza [14] compared his model to other existing models, including
Giroud and Noiray’s [4] model and found that Giroud and Noiray’s [4] model renders the most
conservative results. An outline of the development of Espinoza’s [14] expressions for
determining additional bearing capacity for geotextile reinforced unpaved roads follows.

21
Espinoza [14] Bearing Capacity Equation
1. Development of expressions for the horizontal and vertical components of tension (Fig. 2.6):
dy
tan β ( x ) = (2.39a)
dx
Th = T ( x ) cos β ( x ) (2.39b)

Tv = T ( x ) sin β ( x ) (2.39c)

dx
x Section of
Granular Fill T(x) Undeformed
τu p p e r β(x) Fabric
y
β(x)
Soft Soil dy
τl o w e r
dl
Section of
Deformed Fabric Deformed
y Fabric
Figure 2.6: Section of stretched geotextile

Relationship between shear stresses on the upper and lower sides of the geotextile:
τ lower = kτ upper (2.40)

Assuming that the friction is significantly larger on the geotextile’s upper side:
k =0
τ lower = 0
τ upper = τ

3. Force equilibrium in the horizontal direction:

dTh + τdl cos β = dTh + τdx = 0 (2.41)

which yields:
dTh
τ =− (2.42)
dx

22
4. Force equilibrium in the vertical direction:
dTv − (q ap − q s )dx + 2τdl sin β = 0 (2.43)

where qap = load intensity or stress at depth d

qs = soil reaction
5. Dividing Eq. 2.43 by dx and regrouping:
dTv
q ap = + q s + τ tan β (2.44)
dx
6. Dividing Eq. 2.39b by 2.39c and taking the first derivative of the resulting expression:
dTv dTh
= y ′( x ) + Th y ′′( x ) (2.45)
dx dx
7. Substituting Eq. 2.45 and 2.43 into 2.44 and using q ap = q s + q g where qg is the additional

bearing capacity due to the membrane effect, we get

d 2 y(x )
q g = Th ( x ) (2.46)
dx 2
8. A similar expression was developed by Sellmeijer et al. [18] using the theory of linear
elasticity:
T ( x ) = Eε ( x ) (2.47)
where E = fabric stiffness (Young’s modulus)
ε(x) = fabric strain
9. Substituting Eq. 2.47 into 2.39b:
Th = εE cos β (2.48)

β can be written in terms of the first derivative of the fabric deflection:

1
cos β = (2.49)
2
 dy 
1+  
 dx 
10. Substituting Eq. 2.49 into Eq. 2.48 and the resulting expression into Eq. 2.46, an equation for
the additional bearing capacity due to membrane effect is obtained:
Eε ( x ) y ′′( x )
q g (x ) = (2.50)
1 + ( y ′( x ))
2

23
11. It is convenient to define an average membrane effect, qavg, as follows:

L
2

∫q g
( x ) dx L

d 2 y( x )
L 2
− 1
∫ Th ( x )
2
q avg = = dx (2.51)
L L L dx 2
−
2

2E 2
ε ( x ) y ′′( x )
q avg = ∫ dx (2.52)
L 1 + ( y ′( x ) )
2
0

Note: This expression holds true if no slip occurs along the soil-geotextile interface (i.e.
tensile failure occurs first).
12. The fabric can be assumed to have constant strain or variable strain:
CONSTANT STRAIN
Integrating Eq. 2.52 assuming ε(x) is constant:

( )
q avg
= ε ln tan βo + 1 + tan 2 βo (2.53)
2E
L
where βo = deflection angle at L/2
Geotextile strain for an assumed parabolic deformation:

1 ln( tan βo + sec βo ) 

ε= sec βo +  (2.54a)
2  tan βo 

tan βo = 4α , sec βo = 1 + ( 4α ) , and α is the rutting

2
where (2.54b)
factor defined as r/L.

24
 Geotextile strain for an assumed circular deformation:

1 + ( 2α )
2

ε= tan −1 βo − 1 (2.55a)
4α

4α 1 + ( 2α )
2

where tan βo = , sec βo = (2.55b)

1 − ( 2α ) 1 − ( 2α )
2 2

Note: Eq. 2.54 and 2.55 can be substituted into Eq. 2.52 to obtain an expression for
average membrane support for a parabolic or circular geotextile deformation under
constant strain.
VARIABLE STRAIN
Assuming that any point on the geotextile remains on the same vertical plane prior to
deflecting:
2
dl − dx  dy 
ε= = −1 +   + 1 (2.56)
dx  dx 
Substituting Eq. 2.56 into Eq. 2.52 and integrating an expression for average membrane
support for a geotextile experiencing variable strain:
q avg
2E
(
= tan β o − ln tan β o + 1 + tan 2 β o ) (2.57)

L
If it is assumed that the geotextile is experiencing constant strain then, depending on the
assumed geotextile deformed shape, either Eq. (2.54) or (2.55) can be substituted into Eq. (2.52)
to determine the average membrane support. If it is assumed that the geotextile is experiencing
variable strain, then Eq. (2.57) can be used to calculate the average membrane support (Eq. 2.56
has already been substituted into Eq. 2.52).
A procedure for evaluating the load capacity of single-layer reinforced soils was
presented by Espinoza and Bray [15]. Slip between the reinforcement and the granular fill was
considered. The analysis incorporated two important membrane support contributions, namely
normal stress and interfacial shear stress membrane support. It was demonstrated that a
significant membrane contribution could be developed even for cases in which proper anchorage
was not provided.

25
 Bearing capacity considerations often govern the design of these systems. The inclusion
of a single geotextile within a two-layer soil system increases the bearing capacity due to three
important soil-structure interaction effects:
1. Membrane support due to the deformed geotextile sustaining normal stresses.
2. Increased shear resistance due to the geotextile sustaining shear stresses.
3. Subgrade bearing capacity improvement due to reduction of shear stresses on the subgrade
surface.
Many of the design procedures mentioned rely heavily upon the benefit of only one of
these three effects, and this has often led to contradictory findings. Espinoza and Bray [15]
introduced a bearing capacity equation that satisfies both vertical and horizontal force
equilibrium and incorporates all three of the above mentioned effects. It was shown that the
development of tensile forces in the membrane due to the transmission of shear stresses from the
deforming fill to the underlying membrane (effect 2) is the main component of the membrane
support contribution, and this effect does not require anchorage. In addition, the subgrade shear
stress reduction (effect 3) is often the most significant benefit when including a single geotextile
within a two-layer system.
A vertical surface traction, p, induces additional stresses to those created by the self-
weight of the granular fill. The additional forces per unit area above the geotextile, qap, are
balanced by the vertical soil reaction, qs, and the support provided by the geotextile, qg. From
vertical force equilibrium of a differential geotextile element of unit area, it follows that the
forces per unit area, qap(x), qs(x), and qg(x) are related by qap(x) = qs(x) + qg(x). The actual
distribution of qs(x), qap(x), and qg(x) depends on the geometric characteristics and material
properties of the granular fill, subgrade soil and geotextile, and their interrelations. A number of
design procedures have been proposed that are based on simplified deformation mechanisms that
do not capture the interrelation between the different material components, that employ some
empiricism, or that do not strictly satisfy equilibrium. The proposed design procedure was based
on a closed form solution of the equilibrium equation that has less restrictive assumptions than
existing designs, and incorporates all three primary benefits due to the inclusion of the geotextile
[14].

26
 The modified bearing capacity equation can be used to reconcile some contradictory
findings that have been reported regarding the contribution of geotextile stiffness to single-layer
reinforcement of granular road bases. It is generally believed that soils reinforced with high
modulus geotextiles perform better. Yet, in a series of full-scale road section tests performed by
Douglas and Kelly [20], results indicated that despite the large range in geotextile modulus,
nearly identical performances were obtained for geotextiles that were fully anchored or
completely free at the outside edges. Thus, a higher geotextile modulus was found to not
necessarily result in higher road stiffness and, regardless of whether the geotextile edges are
fixed or free, the geotextile should have similar performance. Furthermore, interfacial shear
stress support depends on the applied load itself, qap, and the mobilized interface friction.
The interfacial shear stress was found to be independent of the conditions at the
geotextile edges and the geotextile stiffness for typical fill and geotextile properties [20]. So, for
the tests performed by Douglas and Kelly [20] it was likely that most of the bearing capacity
improvement was due to interfacial shear stress support (effect 2) and the membrane induced
reduction of applied shear stresses on the surface of the cohesive subgrade (effect 3). Moreover,
the only tests that gave some differences in performance were those obtained using a
polyethylene film separator. This type of material is likely to have smaller interface friction than
woven and nonwoven materials and therefore, a difference in performance should be expected.
Similarly, Bakker [21] discussed the reinforcement of embankments and gravel roads and
presented a model for the calculation of the bearing capacity of the subsoil underneath a layer of
aggregate and geotextile. The bearing capacity equation was modified to take into account a
geotextile. The friction at the geotextile-aggregate interface and at the geotextile-subsoil was
neglected. Based on the modified bearing capacity equation and the geometry of the deformed
subgrade, a relationship between the modulus of elasticity of the geotextile and the rut-depth for
a set of given soil properties was calculated.

27
Espinoza and Bray [15] Bearing Capacity Equation
1. The expression for average membrane support (Eq. 2.52) was developed earlier by Espinoza
[14]:
L
2

∫q g
( x ) dx L

d 2 y( x )
L 2
− 1
∫LTh ( x ) dx 2 dx
2
q avg = = (2.58)
L L
−
2

This expression satisfies vertical and horizontal force equilibrium at the global level.
2. Derivation of an expression for the subgrade bearing capacity, q s , where the geotextile

outside of the effective length (i.e. AB and DE in Fig. 2.7) exerts a vertical stress, q lat , due

to membrane support, reducing the heave of the subgrade soil.

q s = cN c + γh + q lat (2.59)
L
Lc +
2
1
q lat =
L ∫q
L
g
( x ) dx (2.60)
2

π
Nc = 1+ + a + sin a (2.61)
2
τ 
where a = cos −1  c 
 cu 

τc = shear applied to the soft soil surface

cu = undrained shear strength
Nc = bearing capacity factor
h = granular fill thickness
γ = aggregate unit weight
Lc = length of geotextile preventing heave

28
 b

Load
Granular Fill
Deformed Geotextile h
Reinforcement θ
β o

A B r D E
Geotextile
Reinforcement L=b+2htanθ L
c

L
a

Soft Soil
Figure 2.7: Geometry of deformed geotextile

3. An expression for the stress applied to the geotextile, q ap , can be developed by looking at the
vertical stress within the aggregate layer, σv(z):

pb
σ v ( z ) = γz + (2.62)
b + 2 z tan θ

According to Eq. 2.62, the pressure applied to the geotextile can be expressed as:
q ap = γh + ab p (2.63)

where ab = b/L
L = b+2htanθ
4. By substituting Eq. 2.58, 2.59, and 2.63 into Eq. 2.46:
a b = cu N c + q t (2.64)

where q t = total membrane support, including both normal stress membrane support

(effect 1) and interfacial shear stress support (effect 2).

L L
Lc +
2 2
2 1
qt =
L0∫ q g ( x )dx +
L ∫q
L
g
( x ) dx (2.65)
2

29
 dTh
5. The shear stress along the interface, τx, equals − . The extreme points A and E (Fig. 2.7)
dx

were chosen such that the geotextile is horizontal (i.e. y ′( Lc + L 2) = 0 ). Assuming the

shear stress,τx, is constant along BD, Eq. 2.65 becomes:

  L
y 
 2

1 
q t = To sin βo + 2 ∫ τ ( x ) dy  (2.66)
L y ( 0) 
 

for To ≤ min(γhLa tan ψ , Tmax ) and τ ( x ) ≤ q ap tan ψ (2.67)

where To = geotextile tensile force

βo = angle of inclination at point D (Fig. 2.7)
ψ = interface friction angle
La = geotextile anchorage length
Tmax = geotextile maximum tension
Note: Eq. 2.66 allows for slip to be taken into consideration when the upper limits set by
Eq. 2.67 are exceeded. The first term in Eq. 2.67 represents the membrane contribution
obtained from outside the effective length (normal stress membrane support, effect 1) and
depends on proper anchorage outside the effective length. The second term in Eq. 2.67
represents the interfacial shear stress support (effect 2) within the effective length and
depends upon the applied load and the mobilized interface friction.
6. From limit equilibrium with a Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion, the shear stress along the
effective length can be estimated as
τ ( x ) = q ap tan ψ m = (γh + ab p) tan ψ m (2.68)

where ψm = mobilized interface friction angle

7. Assuming that ψm is constant along L, Eq. 2.67 reduces to

qt =
1
[T sin βo + 2r (γh + ab p) tan ψ m
L o
] (2.69)

where r = rut depth

30
8. Substituting Eq. 2.69 into Eq. 2.64, an expression for the admissible surface stress, padm, can
be estimated:

(c N
u c + To sin βo / L + 2a r γh tan ψ m )
padm = (2.70)
ab (1 − 2a r tan ψ m )

where ar = αr (from earlier) = r/L = rutting factor

Note: In many practical situations, proper anchorage cannot be ensured at all times. In such
cases, To = 0 should be used to estimate the admissible stress. Even in cases where proper
anchorage is provided, its effect will not be felt until large deformations are induced.
9. Using Eq. 2.62 to represent the vertical stresses and assuming that the horizontal stresses are
proportional to the vertical stress (σh = Kσv), the following derived expression can be used to
compute the total horizontal force exerted on face HC in Fig. 2.8:
h
 γh 2 ηpb  ln( L b) tan θ θ ≠ 0
PHC = ∫ σ h dz = K  +  η= (2.71a)
0  2 2  2h b θ=0

(pb/2)tanδm

HG F
2

h θ Km γh /2
P H C

B C D

τm L/2
L=b+2htanθ
Figure 2.8: Load distribution through aggregate

10. Assuming that the applied load pushes the fill outward (Fig. 2.8), a passive pressure is
developed on face DF. The corresponding force is computed as
γK pm h 2 2 (2.71b)

where Kpm = the passive earth pressure coefficient

31
 K pm = tan 2 (π 4 + φm 2)

φm = the soil friction angle

Allowing for friction force ( pb 2) tan δ m on the footing base, where δm is the mobilized

interface friction angle, the horizontal force equilibrium of the block CDFH yields:

 pb  L 1 pb 1 pb 
 γh +  tan ψ m + K pmγh 2 + tan δm = K  γh 2 + η  (2.72)
 L 2 2 2 2 2 
Solving Eq. 2.72 for the interface mobilized friction, ψm gives

(
a K − K + pb
 h pm ) γhL (ηK − tan δm )

tan ψ m = (2.73)
 1 + pb 
 γhL

where a h = h L = dimensionless parameter

11. The mobilized friction angle on the base of the footing, δm, is expected to be quite small even
for rough footings and, thus, it can be omitted from Eq. 2.73. Assuming that the fill tends to
move outward from beneath the footing, the value of K in equation (2.71a) can be assumed to
φ
be equal to the active earth pressure coefficient (i.e. K am = tan 2  π 4 − 2  ). Replacing p in

Eq. 2.73 with padm from 2.70, an expression of the mobilized interface friction, ψm, is

tan ψ m =
[a ( K − K ) + M (ηK − tan δ )]
h pm c m

(1 + M + 2a ( a ( K − K ) − ηK + tan δ ))
(2.74)
c r h pm m

cu N c + To sin βo L
Mc = (2.75)
γh
Note: Eq. 2.72 and 2.74 have been derived based on equilibrium between the membrane and
the sliding block above it, and are only valid for the situation shown in Fig. 2.8. The
reinforcement should be checked for tension failure:
q ap L tan ψ m
< Tu (2.76)
2
2.2.3 Factors Affecting Reinforced Unpaved Roads

32
Many factors affect how a geotextile performs in an SFA system:
• fabric stiffness
• fabric creep
• fabric location (placement somewhere other than the interface)
• fabric anchorage
• fabric texture
• aggregate type and shape
• subgrade and interface properties
The performance of an SFA system is greatly affected by so-called interface friction, which can
be seen as a function of many of the above listed factors, including fabric stiffness and texture,
aggregate type and geometry, and the subgrade properties. However, the interface properties are
often expressed as a relationship between the aggregate and geotextile in reference to how the
load is transferred. The information presented in this section pertains to research that has been
performed to look specifically at one or more factors affecting the performance of an SFA
system.
The effects of fabric stiffness, texture, creep, and location have been investigated. Some
of the findings of the research pertaining to these issues are included in the following sections.
The effects of fabric texture and aggregate type and shape on the interface friction properties and
the overall effect of interface friction properties on the performance of the SFA system have not
been closely examined. Subgrade properties are important to the performance of the SFA
system; for example, for subgrades stronger than 90 kPa (CBR > 3), geotextiles are generally not
required for reinforcement in unpaved roads, although geotextiles may provide other functions.
A small displacement finite element program was used by Burd and Brocklehurst [12] to
investigate the reinforcement mechanisms in a geotextile reinforced unpaved road where large
rutting is not permitted. The geotextile stiffness was varied. Results of the modeling showed
that fabric stiffness has a modest effect on the load-deformation response of the road, but a
substantial effect on the magnitude and nature of the shear stresses acting at the reinforcement-
soil interface.
Work performed by and Milligan et al. [5] involved looking at the horizontal stresses that
develop in the fill layer due to a vertical load. These horizontal stresses were found to generate
shear stresses at the base of the fill layer. If reinforcement was absent, then these shear stresses
33
were sustained directly by the subgrade and in some instances were found to have a detrimental
effect on the subgrade’s bearing capacity. In the reinforced case, the shear stresses were
sustained by the reinforcement. The presence of the reinforcement caused a reduction in the
outward acting shear stresses on the surface of the subgrade and increased the bearing capacity
of the subgrade.
Finite element studies of Zeevaert [23], Burd [24], and Burd and Houlsby [25] were
based on calculations in which the only parameter that was varied was the reinforcement
stiffness. It was assumed that no slip occurred at the soil/reinforcement interface. From these
studies, it was clear that the reinforcement stiffness had little effect on the initial slope of the
load-displacement response. But, in each case an approximate limit load was reached that
increased with an increasing value of reinforcement stiffness (increased at most by 15%). It was
shown that for each value of reinforcement stiffness, the shear stresses at the base of the fill
reached a peak at a distance of about 0.7B from the footing centerline, where B is the footing
width. As the reinforcement stiffness increased the magnitude of the shear stresses also
increased. The shear stresses applied to the surface of the clay immediately beneath the
reinforcement followed a similar pattern to the shear stresses at the fill base. Outward shear
stresses were found to act underneath the footing and reached a peak value at a distance of about
0.7B from the footing centerline. The outward shear stresses decayed to zero at about 2.5B from
the footing centerline. For the stiffest reinforcement, the direction of the shear stresses reversed
and acted inwards. Lateral movement of the clay was thought to be restrained by the
reinforcement.
The presence of outward shear stresses can reduce a soil’s bearing capacity to as little as
one-half of the value for purely vertical loading. If reinforcement is introduced, these shear
stresses are picked up by the reinforcement, which is put into tension, and purely vertical forces
are transmitted to the clay below, allowing the capacity of the clay to be realized. This helps
explain why reinforcement is able to provide an improvement in road performance even at small
rut depths.
The problem of soft subgrades, extremely heavy design axle loads, very low traffic
volumes, and very low cost tolerances associated with access roads have led engineers to adopt
designs using geotextiles. A number of design methods have been put forward, where the basis

34
of the method is the relationship between rut depth, traffic and geosynthetic characteristics.
Douglas and Valsangkar [26] pointed out that overall transportation costs and efficiencies are
linked to the relationship between roads and vehicles. Because of the impact that road stiffness
has on fuel consumption and therefore vehicle operating costs, it was stated that stiffness rather
than permanent rut depth should be adopted as the key design criterion for access roads. The
range of road stiffness to be expected and how it is affected by geotextile inclusions was
investigated by cycled-load testing of a large-scale model of a permanent structure consisting of
different granular bases with various geotextiles placed on a peat subgrade. Surprisingly, the
improvement in the stiffness of the model pavement over that for the subgrade itself was not
great.
The scope of Douglas’ test program included an investigation of the possible variation in
pavement stiffness with cycled loading and a simulation of the low-frequency load cycling
appropriate to slow-speed travel of heavy vehicles on low-volume roads. The tests were carried
out in a 3 m x 4 m x 2 m pit with the loads applied through a 300 mm diameter plate. The loads
were cycled at a frequency of 0.5 Hz, corresponding to a steady stream of axles spaced at 4 m,
traveling at about 7 km/h. The subgrade CBR was much less than one; the gravel was a pit run
gravel and crushed greywacke. Two geotextiles were used: a nonwoven geotextile at the
interface in all cases and in some cases a geogrid was placed at the mid-depth of the gravel base.
Sinusoidal loading was applied with peak to trough loads of 4.5 kN (1012 lb) and 0.1 kN (22.5
lb). The test ran up to 30,000 cycles and it was shown that the stiffness continued to gradually
increase with cycled loading. The stiffness for a compacted, crushed rock model road with a
depth ratio H/D=0.5 and a geogrid inclusion at the mid-depth, was approximately 3.6 times that
of the peat subgrade itself for the same number of cycles at a peak stress of 62 kPa (9 psi).
Fatigue tests were performed using an SFA system and a soil-aggregate system [20]. The
reinforcement was placed at the base-subgrade interface and in other cases at both the interface
and the base mid-depth. The lateral anchorage was also varied between a long lateral anchorage
(7.0 m geotextile width) and a short lateral anchorage (4.5 m geotextile width). The clay
subgrade had an undrained shear strength of between 30 and 50 kPa (0.3 and 0.5 tsf). The
subbase used was a crushed limestone with zero cohesion and a friction angle of 47o. Four types
of geotextiles were used: Bidim U 24, Bidim U 34, Scotlay (100 g) and the Scotlay (200 g).

35
The loading system consisted of a truck with an axle weight of 130 kN (29,000 lb) moving at 20
km/hr (12.5 miles/hr).
The rut evolution confirmed the following. (1) Rutting was less for the stiffer geotextile.
(2) Anchorage of 7 m resulted in better conditions than an anchorage of 4.5 m. (3) The use of
two geotextiles, one at the interface the other at the base mid-depth, provided better behavior
than the use of one geotextile for unpaved roads with small strains.

2.3 Separation in Unpaved Roads

There are many factors that affect the amount of pumping at the gravel-subgrade interface of
unpaved roads. These factors include the number of cycles, mean stress, stress amplitude,
standing water, frequency, aggregate thickness, over-consolidation ratio, confining pressure, and
size of gravel particles. A laboratory assessment of the ability of fabrics to prevent soil
migration under conditions of dynamic loading was performed by Hoare [28].
The effects of varying the volume of water used to simulate the effects of the ponded
water on the subgrade surface seemed to have little effect on the amount of subgrade
contamination in the gravel (soil contamination value, SCV), provided there was sufficient
moisture available for the soil. The SCV was found to increase linearly with the logarithm of the
number of applied cycles. The soil was found to migrate through the fabric at points where the
gravel particles were in contact with the subgrade. The moisture content of the soil at the points
of contact with a gravel particle increased to a value close to its liquid limit. This was thought to
possibly be a result of soil suction and local shearing caused by the high stresses at the contact
points. The phenomenon of clay pumping was thought to be caused by the wet (and hence soft)
soil on the surface of the subgrade squeezing through the fabric.
The SCV may be reduced by decreasing the stresses at the contact points of the gravel
particles on the subgrade. This may be achieved by either reducing the applied stress levels or
by using a gravel with a finer grading or higher fines content, which will increase the number of
contact points and hence reduce the stresses at each point of contact. The SCV was found to be
insignificantly reduced by the use of a heavier needle-punched fabric rather than a light melt-
bonded fabric.
36
 Alobaidi and Hoare [29] performed a laboratory investigation into the factors that have
an important influence on the pumping phenomenon in an SFA system. One specific subgrade
soil and geotextile were chosen for the tests. Alobaidi and Hoare [29] found that the amount of
pumping was directly related to the cyclic deformation of the system and it suggested that this
finding would be of great significance in the design and development of materials to minimize
pumping.
Tests showed that the rate of pumping could be determined from the rate of permanent
deformation. Tests also indicated that the rate of pumping decreased with the number of cycles.
Factors that may have caused this decrease in the pumping rate included the formation of a self-
induced filter at the back of the geotextile, decreased contact stress, clogging of the geotextile,
and increased viscosity of the slurry. Tests were performed where the stress amplitude remained
constant and the mean stress was varied. Results showed that the increase in mean stress led to a
decrease in cyclic deformation.
Tests also showed that an increase in the stress amplitude led to (1) an increase in the rate
of permanent deformation, (2) an increase in the cyclic deformation of the system, and (3) a
consequent rise in the amount of pumping at every stage in the pumping test. The amount of
pumped fines increased with the amount of standing water on top of the subgrade. The effect of
frequency was more pronounced in the series with the greater amount of standing water. The
ELT (equivalent loss of thickness from the subgrade surface) due to pumping was affected to a
large extent by the concentration of fines in the standing water. The cyclic history seemed to
have no effect on the ELT (this conclusion must be restricted to the particular materials used in
this test). The ELT decreased significantly with increase of the over-consolidation ratio.
Finally, the permanent deformation of the system decreased with an increase in the confining
pressure during all stages of a pumping test and the amount of pumped fines was less for small-
size particles.
Bell et al. [30] found that subbase clay pumping in model tests under dynamic cyclic
loading was dependent mainly on stress level, soil moisture content, and clay content of the
subgrade soil. Geotextiles with effective opening sizes of less than 100 µm reduced clay
pumping significantly when used as separating membranes between the clay subgrade and stone
subbase. The mechanism of clay pumping was found to arise mainly from slurry filled
37
depressions formed by stone penetration into the clay subgrade surface. The thick geotextiles
were most successful in reducing clay pumping over a wide range of moisture contents and soils.
The cushioning effect of the geotextiles thickness seemed to reduce stone point penetration into
the subgrade. Slurry penetration through the fabric was found to only occur between the stone-
point depressions, where the fabric was relatively uncompressed. The thin geotextiles were
found to not perform as well as the thicker geotextiles in reducing clay pumping. However, all
the geotextiles tested performed a useful separating function in reducing the stone penetration
down into the soft clay subgrades and in preventing the plastic flow of the clay up into the stone
interstices. Subbase contamination and geotextile clogging were found to be related to the ratio
between the geotextile equivalent opening size, O95, and the subgrade particle size, D85.
Lafleur and Rollin [31] noted that geotextiles must satisfy two criteria. The first relates
to its punching resistance: it must be able to contain the individual coarse particles without
tearing, in the range of the applied stresses. The second criterion bears on its filtering capacity:
it must be able to prevent fine subgrade particles from migrating upward into the subbase. Under
dynamic stresses, the filtering conditions are more severe since alternating flow can take place at
the subgrade-geotextile interface, preventing the development of self-filtration and arching of the
particles.
Nishida and Nishigata [32] investigated the relationship between the reinforcement and
separation functions in road construction. A distinct relationship was found between the opening
size of woven geotextiles and the total weight of the soil mass through the geotextile. However,
for the nonwoven geotextiles, this relationship was unclear. The excess pore pressure in each
case increased as the number of loadings increased. Separation was found to be the primary
function when σ/cu < 8 and reinforcement was the primary function when σ/cu > 8, where σ is
the vertical stress on the subgrade and cu is the subgrade’s undrained shear strength.

38
2.4 Case Studies
Austin and Coleman [33] presented the results of a full-scale field study conducted to evaluate
the effectiveness of various geosynthetics as the primary reinforcement in aggregate layers
placed over very soft subgrades. A test road containing several test sections was constructed.
Each test section contained a different geosynthetic with three unreinforced sections as controls.
A two-axle dump truck was used with a rear axle of 80 kN (18,000 lb). The tires were
inflated to 550 kPa (80 psi). The test road was cycled with traffic until a 75 mm (3 in.) rut
occurred. This rut depth was considered failure. All failed sections exhibited similar
characteristics of severe rutting with adjacent upheaval. Contamination of the subbase was
apparent where geotextile separators were not used. The results of the field evaluation were
compared with the theoretical design procedures proposed by Giroud et al. [34] and the results
correlated fairly well. The number of axle load passes actually achieved for a given thickness of
a geosynthetic-reinforced aggregate subbase over soft subgrade soils was less than the expected
number of passes calculated. It was believed that the difference was due to the fact that higher
in-place aggregate strengths are assumed in the theoretical design procedure than those actually
achieved during the construction of haul roads.
The long-term separation and drainage performance of 22 geotextile separators installed
between 1978 and 1991 and exhumed from permanent roadways in Washington state was
evaluated [35]. The geotextiles exhumed consisted of heat-bonded nonwovens, needle-punched
nonwovens, and woven slit films. The exhumed geotextile pieces showed that the short-term
separation and drainage functions were more critical to the pavement system than their long-term
performance, due to consolidation and subsequent strength gain of the subgrade soils. It also
appeared that geotextile retention might not be as critical in separation applications as previously
thought.
Several of the sites had very soft subgrades upon installation of the geotextile. However,
upon exhuming the geotextiles, the subgrade was found to be consolidated and strong with no
free water, where if today the subgrade were being built on, no geotextile would be necessary;
the soil was fully competent. It was noted that even if the geotextile separators become
somewhat blinded or clogged in the short-term but were still capable of separating materials and
39
dissipating excess pore pressures until the subgrade consolidated, there was little need for a
functioning separator for the remainder of the roadway design life.
The primary purpose of the geotextile separator is to prevent mixing of aggregate and
subgrade materials. However, in order for the geotextile to be an effective separator during the
life of the pavement system, it is generally recognized that the geotextile must also provide
secondary functions of filtration and drainage at the soil/geotextile interface. A geotextile can
prevent migration, but it can be adversely affected by soil particles blocking and clogging/caking
pore openings.
Page [36] reported on eight sites that involved exhuming geotextiles from existing
roadways. It was noted that the required strength needed to maintain separation over the design
life of a project was relatively small compared to the strength required to resist damage during
construction. Of the eight sites chosen for the investigation, five were considered useful for
further study. Four sites utilized a woven slit film material with mass per area of approximately
135 g/m2 (4 oz/yd2) and one site utilized a nonwoven needle punched material with a mass per
area of 180 g/m2 (5.3 oz/yd2). Minor puncture damage was found at all locations. This damage,
however, did not seem to affect the geotextile’s performance as a separator. Grain size
distributions were determined for the base material at different heights above the geotextiles,
showing slightly higher fines content directly above the geotextile. Index strength tests were
performed on the exhumed geotextile and indicated that all the geotextiles appeared to have
survived reasonably well with an average percent of strength retained for the grab tensile test,
trapezoidal tear test, puncture test and burst test between 72-99%.
It was pointed out that the increase in the amount of fines in the base course was so small
in all cases that it was hard to say with certainty that the fines migrated up from the subgrade.
Blinding was observed in varying degrees, with the worst blinding observed in the woven slit
film. It was apparent from the tests performed that, for the woven slit film geotextiles, only a
small amount of contamination of the material by fine-grained soil particles was required to
cause a significant drop in permittivity.
Slit film woven geotextiles would be adequate for separation applications over most
subgrade soils. However, they tend to become blinded more readily than the nonwovens when
used over clayey-slit subgrades. The use of a heavier geotextile with large grab elongation

40
would help to minimize the damage during installation. Lightweight (120 g/m2) nonwoven
geotextiles should not be used for any separation application regardless of the subgrade type or
initial base course lift thickness. Puncture holes were present in many of the woven slit film
geotextiles, where gravel-sized particles were present on the subgrade surface. The use of a
heavier geotextile (270 g/m2), which meets the high survivability strength criteria and has a high
grab elongation, would help to minimize damage during installation. However, the heavier
geotextiles are more expensive and there was no evidence from this study that the presence of
moderate construction damage to the geotextile separator significantly affected the performance
of the roadway.

41
2.5 Summary
A summary table has been prepared from the literature review of geotextiles for reinforcement
and separation in unpaved roads. Included in the summary table are condensed procedures, key
findings, and assumptions.

Table 2.1: Summary of literature review findings

Author(s) and Overview of Work Key Assumptions

Reference Number and Findings
Barenberg • Developed reinforced unpaved road • Deflected shape of
[1] design criteria geotextile was a
• Found geotextile properties have a circular arc
significant effect on behavior of SFA • No slip
system−specifically, the geotextile
modulus
• Permissible values for allowable
subgrade stress were found to be:
with geotextile: σ = 6cu
without geotextile: σ = 3.2cu
Kinney • Developed the fabric tension model • No slip
[2] (FTM)
• Included methods for determining
geotextile shear and normal stresses
and geotextile strain energy
• FTM was basis for Barenberg’s
(1980) revised SFA design procedure

42
 Author(s) and Overview of Work Key Assumptions
Reference Number and Findings
Barenberg Developed procedure using Kinney’s • Developed for Mirafi
[3] (1979) FTM 140 and 500X
Procedure: • Deflected shape of
1. σ all = 3.2 Acu geotextile was a
A = 1.0-2.0 circular arc
2. Estimate gravel thickness • No slip
3. Establish rut geometry:
depth, d, chosen
width, W: W=B+2X
B = gravel rut width
X = spreading effect
4. Geotextile strain:
 4πRθ 
εf =  − 2 × 100%
 135W 
3 W
R = , θ = 2 tan −1  5 d 
8 sin θ 3W
5. Fabric tension, tf: tf=Kεf
6. Differential stress across fabric,
∆σz-f :
∆σ z − f = t f R
7. Permissible stress on fabric:
σ p− f = ∆σ z − f + 32
. Acu
8. Using Boussinesq equation,
calculate vertical stress on fabric
and check to see if less than
permissible.

43
 Author(s) and Overview of Work Key Assumptions
Reference Number and Findings
Bell et al. • Performed laboratory tests to • Separation function
[30] investigate subbase contamination only
• Found relatively thick geotextiles with
small pore sizes to be effective in
limiting contamination
• High pore water pressure dissipation
rates were associated with high
contamination and low dissipation
rates with low contamination
• Nonwoven geotextiles found to be
ineffective in preventing clayey fines
contamination but more successful in
preventing subbase penetration
• Geotextiles with effective opening
sizes less than 100 mm reduced clay
pumping significantly
• Cushioning effect of thick geotextiles
reduced stone penetration into soil
• All geotextiles tested performed a
useful separation function
Giroud and Noiray • Developed an equation to determine • No slip of geotextile
[4] the required aggregate layer thickness, relative to aggregate
h, as a function of loading, subgrade and subgrade
undrained shear strength, and • <10,000 cycles
geotextile properties. • Aggregate CBR of 80
• Purely cohesive
Analytic expression: subgrade soils
P Kε • Membrane action
( π + 2) cu = +
2( B + 2h tanα)( L + 2h tanα)  a
2

a 1+  
 2s

44
 Author(s) and Overview of Work Key Assumptions
Reference Number and Findings
Hoare • Performed lab tests to investigate • Separation function
[28] subgrade pumping only
• Used soil contamination value, SCV
(weight of subgrade soil passing the
fabric per unit area of fabric) to
measure pumping
• Soil found to migrate through fabric at
contact points between subbase and
subgrade
• SCV found to be insignificantly
reduced by the use of a heavier
needle-punched fabric rather than a
light melt-bonded fabric
Haliburton and • Investigated effect of fabric location • Observations from
Barron on SFA performance field and lab tests
[11] • Optimum placement depth found to be
1/3 the width of the loaded area
• At large deformations, membrane
support (even for high modulus
fabrics) was small compared to total
load capacity
• Separation seen as allowing pore
pressure dissipation and consolidation
Douglas an Kelly • Performed fatigue tests on SFA • Based on
[20] systems performance tests
• Rutting found to be less for stiffer
geotextiles
• More anchorage resulted in better
conditions
• Use of two geotextiles-one at the
interface the other at the base
middepth-performed better than one
geotextile at interface

45
 Author(s) and Overview of Work Key Assumptions
Reference Number and Findings
Page • Reported on 8 sites where • Findings based on tests
[36] geotextiles were exhumed and observations
• Worst blinding was observed in the
woven slit films
• It was recommended that
lightweight (3.5 oz/yd2) nonwoven
geotextiles not be used for
separation
Espinoza • Developed an expression for • No slip
[14] evaluating the increase in bearing • τlower = 0, τupper = τ
capacity due to membrane action. • Constant strain
• Allowable applied stress, qap:
q ap = q s + q avg
qs = soil reaction
qavg = additional capacity
due to geotextile
2E
(
• qavg = ε ln tan βo + 1+ tan 2 βo
L
)
Parabolic Deformation:
1 ln( tan βo + sec βo ) 
ε = sec βo + 
2  tan βo 
Circular Deformation:
1 + ( 2α )
2

ε= tan −1 βo − 1
4α
Nishida and • Investigated relationship between • Results not applicable
Nishigata reinforcement and separation in to nonwovens
[32] geotextile reinforced unpaved roads
• Separation found to be primary
function when σ cu < 8 and
reinforcement found to be primary
function when σ cu > 8
σ = vertical stress on subgrade
cu = subgrade undrained shear
strength

46
 Author(s) and Overview of Work Key Assumptions
Reference Number and Findings
Espinoza and Bray • Developed procedure for evaluating • Slip considered
[15] the load capacity of reinforced soils
• Analysis incorporated two
important membrane support
contributions: normal stress and
interfacial shear stress support
• An expression for admissible
surface stress, padm, was developed
based on a modified bearing
capacity equation
(c N
u c + To sin βo / L + 2ar γh tanψ m )
padm =
ab (1 − 2ar tanψ m )
where:

tanψm =
[a ( K − K ) + M (ηK − tanδ )]
h pm c m

(1+ M +2a ( a ( K − K ) −ηK + tanδ ))

c r h pm m

Metcalfe et al. • Investigated the performance of 22 • Separation function

[35] geotextile separators installed only
between 1978 and 1991
• Short-term separation and drainage
functions were found to be more
critical than their long-term
performance due to subgrade
strength gain due to consolidation
• Subgrades of excavated sites found
to be consolidated and strong
• Even if geotextiles became blinded
or clogged in short-term still able to
perform while subgrade
consolidated
• Found to be little need for long-
term separation

47
48
 Chapter 3
Direct Shear Tests

It has been widely recognized and accepted that interface friction is a very important parameter
in designing geotextile reinforced unpaved roads. Shear stress, τr, develops at the base of a
gravel layer under a wheel load (Fig. 3.1). Due to this shear stress, the interface friction of the
soil-fabric-aggregate (SFA) system becomes a critical design parameter.
Assuming similar stiffness characteristics, it is anticipated that larger interface friction
will be associated with better performance, as the shear stress applied to the subgrade may be
reduced if slip does not take place. To quantify interface friction and deformation behavior, 18
direct shear tests were performed on SFA systems. Three types of geotextiles were used: a
lightweight slit film, heavyweight woven, and a nonwoven. The soil was a clay material with a
plasticity index of 11, liquid limit of 34, and plastic limit of 23. The aggregate was a crushed
gravel material with a significant amount of fines and a diameter at 85% passing of 19 mm (0.75
in.). For each normal load used, the test was performed twice, once with the geotextile attached
to the top box (clay sliding relative to the geotextile), the other with it attached to the bottom box
(gravel sliding relative to the geotextile).

Load

Aggregate P A
P P
τ B`
r

T
τ B`
Fabric r

P
Soil V

Figure 3.1: Section of reinforced unpaved road

49
3.1 Apparatus and Setup

3.1.1 Apparatus Description

The large-scale direct shear tests were performed using a Brainard-Kilman™ LG-113 direct
shear machine (Fig. 3.2). The top box dimensions were 305 x 305 x 102 mm deep (12 x 12 x 4
in.). The bottom box dimensions were 406 x 305 x 102 mm deep (16 x 12 x 4 in.) allowing for a
maximum of 102 mm (4 in.) of travel by the lower box. The overall dimensions of the machine
were 965 x 609 x 660 mm (38 x 24 x 26 in.) weighing 272 kg (600 lb). The bottom box could
move at a rate varying from 0.127-6.35 mm/min (0.0001-0.20 in./min).
The direct shear machine generated normal load through a bladder connected to an air
pressure line. Pressure within the bladder produced movement of a piston and loaded the 19 mm
(0.75 in.) thick rigid load platen (Fig. 3.2). The maximum normal load and corresponding
pressure the bladder could provide was 45 kN (10,000 lbf) and 689 Pa (100 psi) with a maximum
shear force of 45 kN (10,000 lbf).

Data acquisition system:

vertical displacements

Bladder Air
pressure
DT DT
Piston

Rigid platen
305 mm 102 Geotextile
Gravel mm clamp

406 mm 102
Geotextile Clay mm
clamp
Box movement
Data acquistion system:
normal force
horizontal displacement
shear force

Figure 3.2: Direct shear box

50
3.1.2 Apparatus Setup

The direct shear machine was placed on a firm surface and leveled by adjusting feet attached to
the base of the machine. The gap between the top and bottom box was set at 19 mm (0.75 in.).
This gap was set according to ASTM D 5321, which calls for the distance between the upper
surface of the geosynthetic specimen and the lower surface of the upper box to be at least equal
to the D85 of the upper soil.
A pressure line was connected directly to the bladder. The pressure in the line was
monitored by a pressure gauge. The direct shear machine digital readout provided corresponding
load values. Before conducting any tests, the bladder loading system was calibrated (Fig. 3.3).
A linear variable differential transformer and a load cell were attached to the bottom box to
measure horizontal displacement and shear force.
700

600

500
Pressure (kPa)

400

300

200

100 Pressure = 71.859(Load) + 1.5676

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Load (kN)

Figure 3.3: Bladder calibration curve

Vertical displacement of the rigid load platen was monitored during the tests by two
displacement transducers (DT in Fig. 3.2) so as to record any volume change or rotation of the
load platen during testing. Readings were recorded at a two second interval by a data acquisition
system.

51
3.2 Test Materials and Test Setup
3.2.1 Test Materials

The bottom box was filled with a silty-clay subgrade material taken from Sibley County,
Minnesota. The optimum moisture content, wopt, was 20% (Fig. 3.4), with a maximum dry unit
weight, γdmax, of 16.5 kN/m3 (105 pcf); the soil was classified according to AASHTO as A-6 (9).
The plasticity index was 11, with a liquid limit of 34 and plastic limit of 23.
Class 5 gravel, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications,
was placed in the top box. The crushed gravel contained a significant amount of fines (Fig. 3.5)
and had a uniformity coefficient of 16 and coefficient of curvature of 0.24. The diameter of the
gravel at 85% passing was 19 mm (0.75 in.) with a friction angle, found using the direct shear
apparatus of about 42o (Fig. 3.6).

17.0
zero air
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

16.5 voids
compaction
16.0 curve

15.5

15.0

14.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Water Content (%)

Figure 3.4: Silty-clay compaction curve

52
 100

80

Percent Finer
60

40

20

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 3.5: Gravel gradation curve

100

80
Shear Stress (kPa)

60

40

20 42o

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Normal Stress (kPa)

Figure 3.6: Results of gravel direct shear tests

A geotextile was placed on the subgrade material at the interface of the direct shear box.
By either clamping the geotextile to the top or bottom box, the material in the top box or bottom
box moved relative to the geotextile. To examine the potential effects of the clamping
configuration on test results, all tests were performed twice: first with the silty-clay sliding
relative to the geotextile (geotextile clamped to the top box) and then with the gravel sliding
relative to the geotextile (geotextile clamped to the bottom box) (Fig. 3.2).

53
 Three different geotextiles were used: Synthetic Industries Inc. Geotex 200ST
lightweight woven slit film, Amoco Fabrics & Fibers Co. 4553 nonwoven and 2016 heavyweight
woven. All three fabrics are polypropylene based. Physical and mechanical properties of these
fabrics can be found in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Physical and mechanical properties of the geotextiles

Geotextile lightweight heavyweight

Properties\ slit film woven
nonwoven

mass (g/m2) 150 270 340

apparent opening size1 0.425 0.425 0.15
(mm)
Permittivity2 (sec-1), flow 0.07/240 0.55/1625 1.5/4470
rate (l/min/m2)
puncture3 (kN) 0.445 0.530 0.575
4
mullen burst (kPa) 3100 5510 2750
trapezoid tearing5 (kN) 0.330 0.53 0.355
grab tensile/elongation6 0.890/15 1.4/15 0.9/50
(kN/%)
Notes:
1. ASTM D 4751, 2. ASTM D 4491, 3. ASTM D 4833, 4. ASTM D 3786
5. ASTM D 4533, 6. ASTM D 4632

3.2.2 Test Setup

The normal stress that could be applied to the direct shear box was controlled by the maximum
amount of pressure that could be generated through the line (about 690 kPa), which generated a
normal stress of 103 kPa (15 psi). This maximum normal stress corresponded well with the
normal stress applied to an unpaved road by a typical dual-wheel load. Since this value
represented the high end of the normal stresses used for the direct shear tests, two other normal
stresses were chosen for the tests by using three-quarters and one-half the maximum pressure,
corresponding to a normal stress of 76 and 52 kPa (11 and 7.5 psi). By performing three direct
shear tests, one at each normal stress, three different values for the shear stress at failure were
obtained.
54
3.3 Test Matrix
3.3.1 Clay Placement

The weight of clay needed to fill the box at 95% of modified Proctor was determined knowing
the volume of the bottom box. At 95% Proctor, γd = 15.7 kN/m3 (99.9 pcf). The volume of the
bottom box was calculated to be 0.0125 m3 (0.44 ft3). Therefore, the weight of soil needed to fill
the bottom box was 0.196 kN (44.0 lb) and 39.2 N (8.8 lb) of water was mixed with the dry soil
to achieve a 20% moisture content.
The mixed clay was placed in two lifts. Each lift was compacted with 100 blows of a
Marshall stability hammer. To aid in the compaction process, a wood frame was built to fit over
the bottom box such that the inside walls of the box and frame were flush with respect to one
another. The compacted clay specimen appeared to experience only minor surface scratching
after each test. Due to the significant amount of work required to remove, remix, replace, and
compact the clay specimen, only two clay specimens were used in the series of tests with the first
being replaced when cracking/tearing appeared at the clay surface. Tests 1-12 were conducted
using the first clay specimen, which had a moisture content of 23.5%. The second clay specimen
had a moisture content of 23.6% and was used for tests 13-18 (Table 3.2).

3.3.2 Geotextile and Gravel Placement

The geotextile could either be clamped to the top or bottom box (Fig. 3.7). For each test a
geotextile approximately 400 x 500 mm (16 x 20 in.) was used. One of the shorter ends of the
geotextile was cut such that it would easily fit into the clamp (Fig. 3.8). For this series of tests it
was decided to place the clay in the bottom box and the gravel in the top box. When the
geotextile is clamped to the bottom box the gravel is sliding relative to the geotextile. It was
decided to run all tests twice; once with the geotextile clamped to the top box and once with it
attached to the bottom box. A new section of fabric was used for each test.

55
 Gravel Gravel

Clay Clay

a) Geotextile clamped to bottom box: b) Geotextile clamped to top box:

gravel sliding relative to geotextile clay sliding relative to geotextile

Figure 3.7: Geotextile clamping and sliding schematic

Geotextile

Bolts

Clamp

Figure 3.8: Geotextile clamping system on the direct shear

machine (Fig. 3.2)

For the first test, the lightweight slit film geotextile was used. The geotextile was
clamped to the top box causing the clay to slide relative to the geotextile. The top box was then
placed in position, the geotextile was held taught and approximately 76 mm (3 in.) of gravel was
placed in the top box. The gravel was placed using a small scoop to assure that the gravel stayed
properly graded. Once the gravel was placed the surface was smoothed using a trowel and the
19 mm (0.75 in.) thick load platen was placed upon the gravel.
With the load platen in place, a distance of approximately 6.5 mm (0.25 in.) existed
between the top of the rigid load platen and the top of the shear box. This allowed for corner
measurements to be taken with a caliper to verify that the rigid platen was seated level relative to
the shear box. Upon satisfactory seating of the load platen, the load cell was fastened by four
bolts to the top box of the direct shear apparatus. The bolts were tightened and a level was used

56
to make sure that the plate attached to the top of the load cell was horizontal. The valve
connecting the air hose to the bladder was closed and the air pressure increased to the required
amount.
For the first test in each series, a normal stress of 52 kPa (7.5 psi) was used. Once the
correct pressure was reached the valve was opened and the normal stress was applied to the
direct shear box compressing the SFA system. When the vertical digital displacement
transducers attached to the rigid load platen remained constant, the two data acquisition systems
were activated and the direct shear apparatus was set for a shear displacement of 51 mm (2 in.) at
a rate of 5 mm/min (0.2 in./min). A total displacement of 51 mm (2 in.) was chosen because
practice tests indicated that the maximum shear stress was achieved at this displacement. The
displacement rate of 5 mm/min. (0.2 in./min) was chosen simply because it was the fastest rate
possible by the machine.
During the test the load platen was closely monitored to make sure that it stayed
relatively horizontal. With the shearing motion of the bottom box, some gravel was lost through
the 19 mm (0.75 in.) gap at the interface of the two boxes. The amount of loss was reduced by
careful placement of the gravel so as to create a wall of gravel at the gap. Also, the amount of
gravel loss was significantly reduced for the tests where the clay was sliding relative to the
geotextile versus the tests where the gravel was sliding.
Upon completion of the test, the data acquisition systems and pressure were turned off.
With the pressure off, the system unloads allowing the load cell to be unbolted and removed.
The gravel was scooped out of the top box and weighed to record the amount of gravel lost
during the test. The geotextile was then unclamped and removed from the apparatus leaving the
clay surface exposed. Both the geotextile and clay surfaces were inspected for any damage
caused during testing. For all of the tests performed, the amount of damage (i.e. tearing/ripping)
to the geotextile was negligible. After completing 12 direct shear tests, tearing/cracking of the
clay surface was noticed. Because of this, the clay was removed and the bottom box was refilled
with clay following the same procedure as followed for the initial placement of clay.
This procedure was followed for 18 tests. The first test was performed as described,
using the lightweight slit film geotextile attached to the top box, allowing the clay to slide
relative to the geotextile with a normal stress of 52 kPa (7.5 psi). The second test was the same

57
as the first except that the nonwoven geotextile was used. For the third test the slit film
geotextile was attached to the bottom box, allowing the gravel to slide relative to the geotextile.
The normal stress remained the same. The tests continued in a similar pattern and are listed in
Table 3.2 as 1, 2, and so on in test order.

Table 3.2: Direct shear test order

Test Normal Material Test Normal Material

Geotextile Stress (kPa) Geotextile1 Stress (kPa)
No. 1 Sliding2 No. Sliding2
1 slit film 52 clay 10 nonwoven 103 clay
2 nonwoven 52 clay 11 slit film 103 gravel
3 slit film 52 gravel 12 nonwoven 103 gravel
4 nonwoven 52 gravel 13 woven 52 clay
5 slit film 77 clay 14 woven 52 gravel
6 nonwoven 77 clay 15 woven 77 clay
7 slit film 77 gravel 16 woven 77 gravel
8 nonwoven 77 gravel 17 woven 103 clay
9 slit film 103 clay 18 woven 103 gravel
Notes:
1. Slit film corresponds to Synthetic Industries Inc. Geotex 200ST, nonwoven to Amoco Fabric &
Fibers Co. 4553, and woven to Amoco Fabric & Fibers Co. 2016.
2. When the geotextile is clamped to the top box the clay slides relative to the geotextile. When
clamped to the bottom box, the gravel slides relative to the geotextile.

58
3.4 Results

For each direct shear test, a plot of the shear stress verses shear displacement was generated
displaying a maximum shear stress for that test (Fig. 3.9). By performing three direct shear tests
at three different normal stresses for each SFA system, three points could be plotted on a shear
stress verses normal stress diagram (Mohr’s stress plane) allowing for a range of interface
friction values to be determined. The results of the 18 direct shear tests are given in Table 3.3.
The corresponding shear stress verses normal stress diagrams are shown in Figures 3.10a, b, and
c. The failure envelopes were forced through the origin (zero cohesion/adhesion) because a soil-
fabric-aggregate system has no tensile strength.

100

80
Shear Stress (kPa)

60

40

20

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Shear Displacement (mm)

Figure 3.9: Results from slit film sliding on gravel (test number 11)

59
 100
clay sliding
80 gravel sliding

Shear Stress (kPa)

60

40

20
o
34
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Normal Stress (kPa)

(a) lightweight slit film

100
clay sliding
80 gravel sliding
Shear Stress (kPa)

60

40

20
45o
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Normal Stress (kPa)

(b) nonwoven

100
clay sliding
80 gravel sliding
Shear Stress (kPa)

60

40

20
34o
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Normal Stress (kPa)

(c) heavyweight woven

Figure 3.10: Results from direct shear tests on the SFA systems
60
 Table 3.3: Summary of shear tests

Lightweight slit film- Nonwoven- heavyweight woven-

clay sliding clay sliding clay sliding
normal shear normal shear normal shear
stress stress stress stress stress stress
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
52 37 52 63 52 35
77 57 77 82 77 50
103 68 103 99 103 65
lightweight slit film- nonwoven- heavyweight woven-
gravel sliding gravel sliding clay sliding
normal shear normal shear normal stress shear stress
stress stress stress stress
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
52 35 52 69 52 40
77 57 77 67 77 57
103 67 103 99 103 72

The results show that the best-fit line gives a 45o interface friction angle for the
nonwoven geotextile system, and a 34o best-fit interface friction angle for the slit film and woven
geotextile systems (Table 3.4). The gravel for the SFA system tests may have been placed at a
greater unit weight than the tests run on the gravel alone. This could result in a friction angle for
the nonwoven reinforced systems greater than the 42o generated by running tests on the systems
with gravel alone (Fig. 3.6). Nevertheless, it may be stated that the interface friction angle for
the nonwoven geotextile system is similar to the friction angle of the gravel alone. The texture
of the nonwoven geotextile may allow for interlocking at the interface. The woven materials
tended to decrease the friction of the system to a value less than that of the gravel alone.

Table 3.4: Interface friction angles

Geotextile φbest-fit

Lightweight slit film 34o

Nonwoven 45o
Heavyweight woven 34o
Although the tensile strength of the woven geotextile is much larger than that of the slit
film (Table 3.1), both the lightweight woven (slit film) geotextile and the heavyweight woven
61
geotextile are similar in that they are both relatively thin and incompressible. The inability of
these materials to be compressed under the gravel load may result in less ability of the gravel to
interlock with the geotextile resulting in the similar results for system interface friction for these
fabrics.
The two digital displacement transducers attached to the rigid load platen (Fig. 3.2) were
primarily used to access whether or not the load remained uniformly distributed. However, the
displacement transducer data gathered by the attached data acquisition system was also used to
monitor the loss of gravel during testing. For each test, the gravel was compacted by the
application of the normal load prior to starting the direct shear test. As the bottom box moved
horizontally a small amount of aggregate was lost due to the 19 mm (0.75 in.) gap between the
top and bottom box. In most of the normal load cases, the tests with the clay sliding relative to
the geotextile generated the least amount of aggregate loss with the aggregate volume loss
actually decreasing to close to zero as each test progressed (Fig. 3.11). In all cases where the
gravel was sliding relative to the geotextile the volume loss continued to occur throughout the
tests.

62
 350
300 σn=77 kPa

Volume Loss (10-3mm3)

σn=103 kPa
250
σn=52 kPa
200
σn=103 kPa
σn=77 kPa
150
σn=52 kPa
100
50 Gravel Sliding
Clay Sliding
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Displacement (mm)

a) lightweight slit film

350
300
Volume Loss (10-3mm3)

250 σn=103 kPa

σn=77 kPa
200 σn=103 kPa
σn=52 kPa
150 σn=52 kPa
σn=77 kPa
100
50 Gravel Sliding
Clay Sliding
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Displacement (mm)

b) nonwoven
350
300
Volume Loss (10-3mm3)

σn=77 kPa
250 σn=52 kPa

200
150 σn=103 kPa
σn=77 kPa
100 σn=52 kPa

50 Gravel Sliding
Clay Sliding
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Displacement (mm)

c) heavyweight woven

Figure 3.11: Change in aggregate volume for three geotextiles: gravel

and clay sliding
63
3.5 Summary
Interface friction in a geotextile reinforced unpaved road allows for the transfer of shear stresses
from aggregate to geotextile, relieving the subgrade of these potentially damaging stresses. By
performing direct shear tests on soil-fabric-aggregate systems, interface friction values were
obtained for three different geotextiles: lightweight slit film, heavyweight woven, and
nonwoven.
For the direct shear test series, two tests were performed at each of three normal loads:
one with the geotextile attached to the top box, the other with it attached to the bottom box
resulting in either the clay or gravel sliding relative to the geotextile. Little difference was seen
in the values for interface friction for these two testing scenarios. However, the aggregate loss
through the box gap decreased to close to zero as the clay sliding tests progressed, while the
aggregate loss during the tests with the gravel sliding continued to occur throughout the duration
of the test.
The direct shear test series performed on the soil-fabric-aggregate systems indicated that
the nonwoven geotextile developed an interface friction comparable to that of the gravel alone,
while the lightweight and heavyweight woven geotextiles generated 20% lower interface friction
angles. The results showed that the best-fit line (assuming zero cohesion) gives a 45o interface
friction angle for the nonwoven geotextile system and a 34o interface friction angle for the
lightweight slit film and heavyweight woven geotextile systems. The higher interface friction of
the nonwoven geotextile may be a result of its texture and compressibility, which could result in
interlocking between the gravel and geotextile.

64
 Chapter 4
Model Tests

Geotextile reinforced unpaved roads were modeled in the laboratory to evaluate the performance
of an unpaved road with and without geotextile at the subgrade-geotextile interface. A series of
11 model tests along with 2 practice tests were conducted. Both geotextile type and gravel
thickness were varied. The moisture content of the clay subgrade was monitored so as to remain
3-7% above optimum (w = 23-27%).
The model test apparatus consisted of a 560 mm (22 in.) diameter thin-walled steel
cylinder that was filled with clay. The inside cylinder wall was covered with plastic foam to
reduce the effects of the boundaries by allowing displacement at the cylinder wall. Two types of
geotextiles were used in the model tests: a woven slit film (150 g/m2) and a nonwoven (340
g/m2). The geotextile was placed unanchored on the clay surface and covered with either 100,
150, or 200 mm (4, 6, or 8 in.) of gravel. Approximately 10,000 cycles were applied to each
modeled system; due to large deformation some tests experienced fewer cycles.

4.1 Apparatus and Setup

A full-scale geotextile reinforced unpaved road design was performed in order to model the soil-
fabric-aggregate (SFA) system in the laboratory. The full-scale design was then scaled down for
the laboratory model tests. Finally, the cylindrical model test apparatus was designed to
minimize boundary effects.

4.1.1 Determination of SFA System

A geotextile reinforced unpaved road was designed for an 80 kN (18,000 lb) dual tire axle load,
P, following the suggestion of Giroud and Noiray [4]. A typical tire pressure, pc, of 480 kPa (70
psi) was used resulting in an effective tire contact pressure, pec (Eq. 4.1a), of 339 kPa (49.2 psi).

65
The area, LxB, was calculated according to Eq. 4.1b to be 0.118 m2 (183 in.2). The contact area,
Ac, was determined by calculating L and B (substitute 4.1c into 4.1b) to be 0.122 m2 (189 in.2).
An area this size would produce a circle with a 0.40 m (15.5 in.) diameter. Knowing pec and Ac,
an effective dual tire load, Fec, of 41.4 kN (9300 lb) was calculated.

Ac Ac Ac Ac

L L
B B

Figure 4.1: Tire print configuration

2
p ec = pc Ì P = 2 LBpec (4.1a)
2
LB
knowing: P = 4 Ac p c Ac =
2 2

LB ≈ 2 Ac 2 (4.1b)

L=B 2 (4.1c)

The undrained shear strength, cu, of the subgrade material to be used in the model tests
was conservatively taken as 40 kPa (5.8 psi). Knowing the effective dual tire load and contact
area, the Federal Highway Administration [22] design procedure was used to complete the
geotextile reinforced unpaved road design. The design procedure recommended a bearing
capacity factor of five for the reinforced unpaved road design when the permissible rutting
would be less than 50 mm (2 in.). A factor of six was recommended if rut depths greater than
100 mm (4 in) were permitted. The average of these two factors was used resulting in a required
gravel thickness of 200 mm (8 in.).

66
 P

D t

p in te rfa c e

Figure 4.2: Interface pressure

Assuming a circular tire print of 0.40 m (15.5 in.) and a 31o load distribution angle (the
2:1 approximation) through the gravel, 200 mm (8 in.) of gravel and a 41.4 kN (9300 lb) dual tire
load would produce a 130 kPa (18.8 psi) vertical stress at the gravel-geotextile interface over a
0.64 m (25.1 in.) diameter area (Fig. 4.2). However, the size of the model test apparatus was
controlled by the testing machine, which could only handle an apparatus 0.61 m (24 in.) wide.
Considering the potential boundary effects, the loading area at the clay surface was too large for
the size of the test apparatus. Because the conditions at the geotextile interface were of interest,
it was decided to keep the vertical stress at the base of the gravel layer constant during scaling.
By reducing the load to 7.34 kN (1650 lb), the aggregate layer thickness to 100 mm (4
in.), and the load-plate diameter to 146 mm (5.75 in.), the vertical stress at the interface remained
at 130 kPa (18.8 psi) but over a smaller diameter area of 0.27 m (10.6 in.). This smaller diameter
area minimized the effects of the apparatus boundaries.
Pressure isobars (Fig. 4.3) for a square footing were used to determine what the subgrade
layer thickness should be for the model tests [37]. Assuming that all the vertical stress is
transferred to the clay surface (a frictionless interface), the area of the distributed pressure at the
clay surface of the scaled model was determined to be 270 mm (10.6 in.). A container 600 mm
(24 in.) in diameter and 600 mm (24 in.) in height encompassed the 13 kPa (1.88 psi) pressure
isobar (Fig. 4.3), which represented 10% of the vertical stress.
67
 p in te rfa c e
= 130 kPa (18.8 psi)
interface

600 mm (24 in.)

13 kPa (1.88 psi)

600 mm (24 in.)

Figure 4.3: Pressure isobar

4.1.2 Cylinder Design

The average radial displacement, ur, and radial stress, σr, along the proposed cylinder wall
boundary were determined using the CIRCLY program [38]. Values for the modulus of
elasticity, E, and Poisson’s ratio, υ, were estimated for the granular material as 35 MPa (5000
psi) and 0.3, and for the clay material as 7.8 MPa (1125 psi) and 0.5 [39]. The average values
for σr and ur along the cylinder wall were determined to be 159 kPa (23 psi) and 5.3 mm (0.21
in.).
A 560 mm (22 in.) diameter-55 gallon steel drum was an inexpensive solution for the
model test apparatus. Knowing the average radial stress and displacement values at the proposed
apparatus wall, an attempt was made to design the walls such that this displacement could take
place. In addition, to evaluate the structural integrity of the steel drum, it was simply treated as a
pressure vessel (Fig. 4.4) and the minimum wall thickness was estimated.

68
 u r

σ r

σ θ
σ θ

Figure 4.4: Loading of a cylindrical pressure vessel

In performing this analysis, Eq. 4.2 and 4.3 were used assuming an E of 207 GPa (30,000
ksi), υ of 0.285, and an ultimate strength of 248 MPa (36 ksi) for steel. A 55-gallon steel drum
has an approximate thickness of 0.8 mm (0.03125 in.). A cylinder this thick easily meets the
strength requirements. However, walls this thick would be extremely stiff relative to the field
conditions. Little wall displacement would occur.
ur σθ υ
εθ = Ì εθ = + (− σ r − σ z ) (4.2)
r E E
pi r
σθ = (4.3)
t
To allow for continuous displacement of the clay subgrade material at the cylinder wall,
two layers of 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) thick plastic sheet foam were glued to the wall using a spray
adhesive. These sheets were removed and replaced between tests if they lost their
compressibility. The final cylinder design is depicted schematically in Figure 4.5.

69
 560 mm (22 in.)

150 mm (6 in.)

0.8 mm
(0.03125 in.)

560 mm (22 in.)

6.35 mm
(0.25 in.)

610 mm
(24 in.)

Figure 4.5: Schematic of cylinder design

4.1.3 Testing System and Configuration

A closed-loop, servo-controlled testing machine was used for the experiments (Fig. 4.6). An
existing test program was modified to produce a haver-sine loading within a specified load
range. The program input parameters included upper and lower load limits, loading frequency,
sleep time (time between cycles), number of cycles, number of cycles between data acquisition,
and time between data samples. The data file generated for each test included time, load, and
displacement information.

70
 load
conditioner
frame

specimen

data/control closed
processor loop actuator

hydraulic
servovalve
power

feedback servo valve

selector controller driver

Figure 4.6: Operation of closed-loop, servo-controlled testing machine

To accommodate the scaled tire load of 7.34 kN (1650 lb) to be used for the model test,
an upper load limit of 8.9 kN (2,000 lb) was used. Since problems can occur if the load plate
loses contact with the apparatus, 10% of the upper load limit, 0.89 kN (200 lb), was specified as
the lower load limit.
At higher frequencies the testing machine was unable to follow the specified load path.
Therefore, a frequency of 0.2 Hz was used. Even with this low frequency the machine had
difficulty keeping up with the specified load path prior to stiffening of the soil-fabric-aggregate
system. A sleep time of 5 seconds was used for the tests. This time length was chosen for
symmetry: haver-sine loading over 5 seconds with a seating load of 0.89 kN (200 lb) over the 5
second sleep time (Fig. 4.7).

8.9 kN
(2000 lb)
Load

sleep
time
0.89 kN
(200 lb) 5 10 20 25 30
Time (s)

Figure 4.7: Loading history

71
 All tests were programmed for 10,000 cycles. To obtain information over a load step,
five data samples at a one second time interval were taken per cycle. With 10,000 cycles, data
could only be recorded every 50th cycle due to limitations of the data file size. Initially, 10-20
cycles were applied to each soil-fabric-aggregate system with data taken every other cycle. This
procedure provided information about the initial deformation of the SFA system. After
completing the initial cycles, the test was started again and programmed for 10,000 cycles.

4.2 Materials
As in the direct shear tests, the SFA system model tests were performed using a silty-clay
subgrade material taken from Sibley County, Minnesota. The optimum moisture content was
20% (Fig. 3.4), with a maximum dry unit weight of 16.5 kN/m3 (105 pcf). The soil plasticity
index was 11, with a liquid limit of 34 and plastic limit of 23 and could be classified according to
AASHTO as A-6 (9). The moisture content of the silty-clay during all 11 model tests varied
from 3.4% to 7.1% over optimum, with moisture content values between 23.4 % and 27.1%.
Class 5 gravel, according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications,
was used. The crushed gravel contained a significant amount of fines (Fig. 3.5) and had a
uniformity coefficient of 16 and coefficient of curvature of 0.24. The friction angle of this
material was tested using the direct shear apparatus (Fig. 3.2) and found to be 42o (Fig. 3.6).
Because the interface friction angles of the lightweight slit film and heavyweight woven
were similar, it was decided to eliminate the heavyweight woven from the model tests resulting
in the use of Synthetic Industries Geotex 200ST lightweight woven slit film and Amoco Fabrics
& Fibers 4553 nonwoven. Both fabrics are polypropylene based. Physical and mechanical
properties of these fabrics can be found in Table 3.1.
The bottom portion of the cylinder was designed to hold the clay subgrade; the
removable top contained the gravel, with the geotextile resting at the (gravel-subgrade) interface
between the two cylinders (Fig. 4.8). The bottom cylinder had volume of 0.14 m3 (4.83 ft3).
However, there was not enough silty-clay to fill this volume. Therefore, fill materials were used
in the bottom half of the cylinder. The fill placed at the bottom was a silty-sand with an
optimum moisture content and dry unit weight of 10% and 21 kN/m3 (134 lb/ft3) (Fig 4.9). The

72
soil was classified according to AASHTO as an A-2-4 material with 32% passing the #200 sieve,
28% silt, and 3% clay. The top fill material was a low plasticity clay with an optimum moisture
content and dry unit weight of 18.5% and 15 kN/m3 (96 lb/ft3) (Fig. 4.10). The top fill was
classified according to AASHTO as an A-6 material with 62% passing the #200 sieve: 41% silt
and 22% clay.

Gravel

Geotextile

Subgrade
Liner

Figure 4.8: Geotextile location for model tests

23
22
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

zero air
compaction
21 voids
curve
20
19
18
17
16
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Water Content (%)

73
 Figure 4.9: Bottom fill compaction curve
20

Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

19 zero air
voids
18
compaction
17 curve
16

15

14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Water Content (%)

Figure 4.10: Top fill compaction curve

A total of 460 N (110 lb) of the silty-sand plus 71 N (15.8 lb) of water were mixed to
create a fill with a 14% moisture content. This material was placed in the bottom of the cylinder.
This fill could be classified as a low-strength subgrade material due to its 14% moisture content.
A total of 400 N (89 lb) of the low plasticity clay plus 110 N (24.6 lb) of water were mixed to
create a fill with a 27.7% moisture content. This low plasticity clay was placed on top of silty-
sand and could be classified as a low-strength subgrade material due to its large (27.7%)
moisture content. Neither fill material could be compacted due to their extremely weak
conditions.
The silty-clay comprised the top third of the subgrade soil profile. The optimum
moisture content of this material was estimated to be around 20% (Fig. 3.4). To generate a weak
subgrade it was determined that a moisture content approximately 5% over optimum be used.
The material was then placed in the apparatus in three lifts. Each lift was compacted with 80
blows of a Proctor hammer allowing each lift to be compacted without overlapping the
compaction blows. The silty-sand plus the low plasticity clay filled the bottom 400 mm (1.3 ft)
or 71% of the cylinder. The silty-clay material filled the top 160 mm (0.5 ft) or 29% of the
cylinder.
Before and after each test, the moisture content of the silty-clay was checked. If
necessary, more water was added so that the material would remain at about 2-5% above

74
optimum. Between model tests the silty-clay was removed and remixed due to compaction from
the load cycles. When the material was removed, an effort was made to avoid any mixing of the
fill material with the silty-clay.
With the clay subgrade in-place a 1 m2 (12 ft2) square piece of geotextile was placed
directly on the subgrade and the top cylinder rested on the geotextile and bottom cylinder. The
gravel was placed in the top portion of the cylinder. The top cylinder was not clamped to the
bottom cylinder. Three different gravel thicknesses were used: 100, 150, or 200 mm (4, 6, or 8
in.). For tests with 100 and 150 mm (4 and 6 in.) of gravel, compaction was performed by
applying 2 rounds of 22 blows with the Marshall stability hammer (44 blows total) to the gravel
surface. With 200 mm (8 in.) of gravel, 22 additional blows were applied.
After completing the model test series, compaction tests were rerun on the silty-clay (Fig.
4.11). This test was performed to evaluate whether the amount of mixing that occurred between
the silty-clay and the underlying fill material was significant. The compaction curve for the
silty-clay showed no apparent change relative to the compaction curve generated prior to the
model tests. Therefore, any mixing that occurred can be interpreted as minor.
18
Dry Unit Weight (kN/m3)

zero air
17 voids
compaction
curve
16

15

14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Water Content (%)
Figure 4.11: Compaction curve for silty-clay after completion of
model tests

4.3 Practice Tests

75
Two practice tests were performed prior to beginning the series of 11 model tests. One test was
performed with the slit film geotextile reinforcement located at the subgrade-gravel interface and
the other with the nonwoven reinforcement. The practice tests were performed to make sure that
the apparatus functioned properly and to investigate geotextile anchorage. Two anchorage
scenarios were considered: constant stiffness and constant force (Fig. 4.12).

F(t),u F(t),u

gravel gravel

k clay k W clay W

a) constant stiffness, k b) constant force, W

Figure 4.12: Anchorage scenarios

4.3.1 Anchored Slit Film Reinforcement

The first practice test was performed using the slit film geotextile reinforcement and 100 mm (4
in.) of gravel. The gravel was not compacted. The geotextile was clamped to the outer
circumference of the bottom barrel using a large hose clamp. The silty-sand was placed in the
bottom of the cylinder with a 14% moisture content and the low plasticity clay was placed on top
with a 28% moisture content. Neither fill material was compacted because of their extremely
weak states. The silty-clay was placed on top of the clay so that it would be the material in
contact with the geotextile. The silty-clay was mixed to a 40% moisture content so as to produce
saturated conditions.
The test was programmed to run 5,000 cycles at a frequency of 0.1 Hz with a 3 second
sleep time cycles. A set of 10 data was taken every 50th cycle in order to capture the full loading
and unloading sequence. The upper and lower load range limits were specified as 8.9 kN (2,000
lb) and 0.89 kN (200 lb).
The test ran 600 cycles before it was terminated. The upper load plate, which was 254
mm (10 in.) in diameter, punched into the gravel during the test causing the gravel layer to fail.
76
The final rut depth at the clay surface was 89 mm (3.5 in.). The clay was pushed down under the
load area and moved up outside this area seemingly the result of a bearing capacity failure (the
clay subgrade was extremely weak for this test). The geotextile was fully tensioned, anchored
by the hose clamp. Moisture traveled through the geotextile, into the gravel, and could be seen
within a 38 mm (1.5 in.) thick gravel region directly above the geotextile. The average moisture
content of the gravel in this region was 4.7% (the gravel was initially dry).

4.3.2 Unanchored Nonwoven Reinforcement

The moisture content of the silty-clay was decreased prior to the second practice test as a result
of the performance of the first practice test. The silty-clay material was removed from the
apparatus and allowed to dry in bins. It was determined that the clay material should be
approximately 5-8% above optimum (wopt = 20%). The clay was dried to a 30% moisture
content; then dry material was mixed in to obtain the desired moisture content of 26%. This
material was placed in the apparatus in three lifts. Each lift was compacted by approximately 70
blows with the compaction hammer. Nonwoven geotextile and 100 mm (4 in.) of gravel were
used in the second practice test. The geotextile was left unanchored but marked so as to monitor
any movement of the geotextile relative to the cylinder wall.
The test was programmed to run 10,000 cycles at a frequency of 0.2 Hz with a 5 second
sleep time between cycles. A set of 10 data was taken every 50th cycle. The upper and lower
load range limits were specified as 8.9 kN (2,000 lb) and 0.89 kN (200 lb). The total running
time for this test was approximately 27.8 hours. Again, the gravel was not compacted.
During testing the geotextile did not move relative to the cylinder wall−the geotextile
was not “pulled-in” by the 140 mm (5.5 in.) deep and 292 mm (11.5 in.) rut diameter that
formed. By inspecting the geotextile, it appeared that the geotextile stretched only within the
distributed load area at the geotextile interface. No water movement occurred from the clay
through the geotextile and into the gravel.
Due to punching failures that seemed to occur within the gravel for both practice tests,
the gravel for all future model tests was compacted prior to testing. The first model test
performed was similar to the practice test just discussed in that the clay material had the same

77
moisture content and nonwoven reinforcement was used along with 100 mm (4 in.) of gravel.
The model test experienced 58 mm (2.3 in.) of rutting relative to the 140 mm (5.5 in.) that
occurred in the practice test with uncompacted gravel. Compaction reduced the rutting by
approximately 89 mm (3.5 in.).

4.4 Test Matrix

Eleven model tests were performed. The variables of the model tests were the gravel thickness
(100, 150, 200 mm) and geotextile type (slit film and nonwoven). The moisture content of the
silty-clay varied from test to test by a range of 3.4-7.1% over the optimum moisture content (Fig.
3.4, Table 4.1).
The 11 model tests are listed in Table 4.1. The tests are named according to the type of
geotextile reinforcement used, if any (S=slit film, N=nonwoven, and X=no geotextile
reinforcement), gravel thickness (100, 150, 200 mm), and a digit representing the number of tests
run with the same reinforcement and gravel thickness configuration (1,2, or 3). Italicized tests in
Table 4.1 are those with lower moisture contents. Because of the seemingly low moisture
contents for these tests (S42 and S81), moisture was added to the silty-clay and these tests rerun
(S43 and S82). The tests S41 and N41 were the practice tests previously discussed.

Table 4.1: Eleven model tests and their moisture contents

Test Moisture Test Moisture

Name Content, % Name Content, %
X41 27.0 S42 24.2
X61 26.3 S43 25.6
X81 25.7 S61 26.3
N42 25.9 S81 23.4
N61 24.6 S82 25.0
N81 24.2

The moisture content of the silty-clay was monitored closely during the model test series.
After each test, the clay was removed, remixed, and the moisture content checked. If the

78
moisture content was acceptable the silty-clay was placed back in the cylinder for the next test.
The clay was always placed in three lifts, each lift receiving approximately 90 blows with the
compaction hammer. After placing all of the clay in the cylinder, ridges left in the surface by the
hammer were leveled. The geotextile was placed on top of the clay unanchored. The top
cylinder was then placed on the bottom cylinder and the geotextile marked so as to monitor any
movement. Finally, the gravel was placed in one lift. For 100 or 150 mm (4 or 6 in.) of gravel,
compaction was performed by covering the surface with 22 blows of the Marshall Hammer two
times (a total of 44 blows). For 200 mm (8 in.) of gravel, the same compaction procedure was
followed, although this procedure reduced the gravel thickness to something less than 200 mm (8
in.). Therefore, more gravel was added and 22 more blows applied such that a 200 mm (8 in.) of
gravel thickness existed.
After completion of a test, the gravel and top cylinder were removed along with the
geotextile. The geotextile was inspected for movement along the cylinder circumference as well
as for stretching and damage. The geotextile did not move relative to the cylinder circumference
for any of the tests. However, it did appear to have stretched in the approximate region of the
distributed load area at the gravel-geotextile interface.
The rut depths for the slit film reinforced models were always greater than those for the
nonwoven reinforced models. However, the slit film geotextile appeared to deform more
elastically than the nonwoven. The nonwoven fibers, which are random in orientation, seemed
to have stretched inelastically and appeared restructured. For each test, a new section of
geotextile was used. No damage occurred to any of the geotextile test sections.
The clay surface was mapped after testing by removing the geotextile and partitioning the
surface into eight wedges so as to take the following surface measurements (Fig. 4.13):
1. rut depth
2. rut diameter
3. rut curve length
4. distance from cylinder wall to the start of the rut
After mapping the rutted clay surface, three core samples were taken near the rut center. The
cores were tested under uniaxial compression to obtain an estimate of the (final) undrained shear
strength.

79
 Cylinder Wall

4
Clay Surface Rut

2 3 2

4 1
3

Start of Rut Center of Rut

a) Plan view b) Cross-section view

Figure 4.13: Rut mapping measurements

4.5 Results
4.5.1 Test Parameters and Final Rut Depths

As mentioned earlier, the moisture contents varied slightly from one model test to another. This
is important to keep in mind when analyzing the test data. Other test parameters varied,
including the number of cycles applied to the model and the maximum load achieved. In
general, the number of cycles was approximately 10,000. However, for the tests with 100 and
150 mm (4 in. and 6 in.) of gravel and no geotextile reinforcement (X41, X61), the number of
cycles was less. Only 330 cycles were applied to the model with 100 mm (4 in.) of gravel and
only 2,200 cycles to the model with 150 mm (6 in.). The number of cycles was less due to
rutting close to the capacity of the testing machine.
The maximum load was near the specified value (8.9 kN or 2,000 lb), but some tests
actually surpassed the maximum load value (X81, S81, S82, and N81). The maximum load
achieved was a function of the model properties such as gravel thickness, presence of geotextile
reinforcement, and moisture content (system stiffness) and the gain setting of the servo-hydraulic
load frame. The tests with 200 mm (8 in.) of gravel were exposed to the highest loads.
A summary of the final rut depth of the clay subgrade, moisture content, number of
cycles, maximum load, and final undrained shear strength for each test are shown in Figure 4.14.

80
The rut depth values for X41 and X61 were extrapolated for 10,000 cycles (Fig. 4.15). The
actual rut depths for X41 and X61 after 330 cycles and 2200 cycles were 90 mm (3.5 in.) and
100 mm (4 in.).

81
 w 27 26.3 25.7 24.2 25.6 26.3 23.4 25.0 25.9 24.6 24.2
n 330 2220 10010 10010 10010 10010 10010 10010 10006 10010 10012
L 5.2 5.14 9.3 5.3 6.7 6.5 10.4 9.7 5.0 6.9 9.5
cu 57.2 62.0 104.8 60.0 70.3 70.3 104.8 90.3 51.0 75.2 100.0
140
w = moisture content, %
120
n = number of cycles
L = maximum load, kN
Clay Surface Rut Depth (mm)

100
cu = undrained shear, kPa

80

60

40

20

0
X41* X61* X81 S42 S43 S61 S81 S82 N42 N61 N81

Figure 4.14: Rut depth histogram with table of test parameters

(*extrapolated rut depth values)

140

120
X41: Rut Depth = 7.9259Ln(Cycle Number) + 55.448
100
Rut Depth (mm)

80
X61: Rut Depth = 4.0468Ln(Cycle Number) + 58.578
60

40

20

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Cycle Number

Figure 4:15: Extrapolated rut depths for X41 and X61

82
4.5.2 Shape of Rut

The shape of the rut was observed to be cubic in character and symmetric about the base. The
following expression was used to plot the (half) geometry of the rut’s cross-section (Fig 4.16)
and was based on the parameters and coordinate system shown in Figure 4.17:
2 H 3 3H 2
y=− x + 2 x (4.4)
R3 R
with boundary conditions y′(0) = 0, y′(R) = 0, y(0) = 0, and y(R) = H. Eight measurements of
the rut curve length, S (Fig. 4.17), were taken for each test along with four diameter (2R) and
four rut depth (H) measurements. The recorded values for S, R, and H were averaged to arrive at
one value for each. The value S was calculated in a piecewise linear fashion for every 2.5 mm
(0.1 in.) in the horizontal direction (x). The calculated value for S corresponded well with the
measured value (Table 4.2). The rut geometries were plotted using Eq. 4.4 and are shown in Fig.
4.18 and 4.19.

Gravel Geotextile

rut
radius

Subgrade
Displacement
“Rut Depth”

Clay
Figure 4.16: Rut geometry interpretation

83
 R

S x
H

y
Figure 4.17: Coordinate system used to develop Eq. 4.4

Table 4.2: Comparison of measured and calculated values for S

Test Measured S Calculated S %

Name values, cm values, cm Difference
X41 15.2 15.6 2.4
X61 16.2 16.6 2.5
X81 15.2 15.5 1.6
S42 13.1 13.5 2.7
S43 13.6 14.0 3.1
S61 14.6 14.7 0.7
S81 12.6 12.0 4.9
S82 14.6 14.9 2.5
N42 13.5 13.8 2.1
N61 12.3 12.3 0.3
N81 12.3 12.1 1.3

From Fig. 4.19, it is apparent that for all gravel thicknesses the model tests with
nonwoven reinforcement out-performed the slit film reinforced and unreinforced model tests in
terms of rut depths (excluding S42 and S81 due to their lower moisture contents). For the
reinforced model tests, an increased load-spread angle through the gravel was observed by
comparing the rut diameters for the different model tests at a certain rut depth value (Fig. 4.19).
It is apparent that the reinforced models tended to have larger rut diameters, indicating an
increase in the load-spread angle through the gravel most likely due to geotextile-gravel
interlock.

84
 Rut Radius (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

20

Rut Depth (mm)

40

60
X81
80
X61
100 X41

120
a) no geotextile

Rut Radius (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

20 S81
S82
Rut Depth (mm)

40
S42
60 S61
S43
80

100

120
b) slit film

Rut Radius (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

20
N81
Rut Depth (mm)

40 N61
60 N42

80

100

120
c) nonwoven

Figure 4.18: Rut geometry as a function of reinforcement

85
 Rut Radius (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

20

Rut Depth (mm)

40
N42
60
S42
80 S43

100 X41

120
a) 100 mm (4 in.) gravel

Rut Radius (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

20
Rut Depth (mm)

40 N61

60 S61
80
X61
100

120
b) 150 mm (6 in.) gravel
Rut Radius (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0

20 S81
N81
Rut Depth (mm)

40 S82
60
X81
80

100

120
c) 200 mm (8 in.) gravel
Figure 4.19: Rut geometry as a function of gravel thickness

86
4.5.3 Equivalency Charts

Time, displacement, and load values were recorded during testing. For approximately the first
20 cycles, data was collected every other cycle. For the rest of the test, data was collected every
50th cycle. A seating load equivalent to the lower load range value of 0.89 kN (200 lb) was
applied to the soil-fabric-aggregate system prior to testing. Depending on the model being
tested, sometimes the displacement was quite large for the seating load. The initial displacement
information was not acquired, resulting in differences between the acquired and measured values
for final displacement. In all cases, the measured values of the rut depth were greater than the
displacement recorded by the data acquisition system due to this initial deformation. To
determine the rut geometry at any load, it was assumed that the gravel thickness remained
constant during testing and that the recorded displacement, or stroke, equaled the measured rut
depth at the clay surface. A correction was applied to the stroke value such that these values
would be equal for each test. The corrections are shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Correction for stroke

Test Rut Depth, Stroke, Stroke Correction,

Name mm (in.) mm (in.) Mm (in.)
X41 99 (3.9) 26 (1.0) 73 (2.9)
X61 89 (3.5) 24 (0.9) 65 (2.6)
X81 66 (2.6) 58 (2.3) 8 (0.3)
S43 72 (2.8) 5 (0.2) 67 (2.6)
S61 64 (2.5) 35 (1.4) 29 (1.1)
S82 36 (1.4) 30 (1.2) 6 (0.2)
N42 58 (2.3) 44 (1.8) 14 (0.6)
N61 41 (1.6) 33 (1.3) 8 (0.3)
N81 29 (1.1) 14 (0.5) 15 (0.6)

The values for the rut depth at different cycles are shown in Table 4.4 and are plotted
verses gravel thickness for each system tested (Fig. 4.20). These plots are referred to as

87
equivalency charts because, for a certain rut depth the gravel thickness can be determined.
Using the equivalency chart at 10,000 cycles (Fig. 4.20d), the system with nonwoven
reinforcement and 100 mm (4 in.) of gravel generated the same amount of rutting as the slit film
system with 150 mm (6 in.) of gravel and the unreinforced system with 200 mm (8 in.) of gravel.
In terms of rut depths, the nonwoven reinforcement resulted in a 50% aggregate saving. It is
important to note that these equivalency charts are performance-based charts for specific
conditions with initial subgrade undrained shear strengths estimated to be between 40 and 50 kPa
(5.8-7.25 psi).

From Table 4.4, it is observed that the nonwoven and slit film geotextile reinforced
systems tended to stiffen at the same rate with 86-91% of the total deformation occurring by the
1,000th cycle. The system with 100 mm (4 in.) of gravel and reinforced with the slit film
geotextile achieved 99% of its total deformation by the 1,000th cycle. The system stabilized with
72 mm (2.8 in.) of deformation.

Table 4.4: Rut depths at different cycle intervals

Test Rut Depth After, mm (in.)...

Name 10 cycles 100 cycles 1,000 cycles 10,000 cycles
X41 75 (3.0) 93 (3.7) 110 (4.3) 128 (5.0)*
X61 67 (2.6) 77 (3.0) 87 (3.4) 96 (3.8)*
X81 28 (1.1) 46 (1.8) 61 (2.4) 66 (2.6)
S43 69 (2.7) 70 (2.8) 72 (2.8) 72 (2.8)
S61 33 (1.3) 48 (1.9) 58 (2.3) 64 (2.5)
S82 17 (0.7) 23 (0.9) 32 (1.3) 36 (1.4)
N42 26 (1.0) 42 (1.7) 53 (2.1) 58 (2.3)
N61 24 (0.9) 32 (1.3) 38 (1.5) 41 (1.6)
N81 9 (0.4) 19 (0.75) 25 (1.0) 29 (1.1)
*
extrapolated values

88
 160

120
Rut Depth (mm)

no geotextile
80
slit film

40
nonwoven

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Gravel Thickness (mm)

a) 10 cycles

160

120
Rut Depth (mm)

no geotextile

80
slit film

nonwoven
40

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Gravel Thickness (mm)

b) 100 cycles

89
 160

120
no geotextile
Rut Depth (mm)

80 slit film
nonwoven
40

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Gravel Thickness (mm)

c) 1,000 cycles

160

120
Rut Depth (mm)

no geotextile
80

slit film

40 nonwoven

0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Gravel Thickness (mm)

d) 10,000 cycles
Figure 4.20: Equivalency charts after 10, 100, 1,000, and 10,000 cycles for
subgrade with average (final) shear strength of 75 kPa
90
4.5.4 Bearing Capacity

A bearing capacity factor for a footing resting on a saturated clay (undrained behavior) is simply
the ratio between the maximum applied normal stress and the undrained shear strength. For the
design of an unpaved road, a similar factor can be defined. For a given gravel thickness, a
bearing capacity factor, Nc, was calculated for each model test, where Nc equaled the maximum
applied stress (the bearing capacity) divided by the final shear strength. The bearing capacity
was assumed to occur at 40 mm (1.6 in.) of deformation, so the stress at this rut depth was used.
The undrained shear strength was conservatively taken as the final shear strength. For different
gravel thicknesses, the ratio of Ncrein for reinforced systems verses Ncno rein for the systems with
no fabric are plotted (Fig. 4.21). According to Fig. 4.21, a bearing capacity factor approximately
1.6 times that used for designing unpaved roads with no reinforcement can be used for design.

4
3.5 slit film
3 nonwoven
Nc rein/Nc no rein

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
Gravel Thickness (mm)
Figure 4.21: Bearing capacity factors for the unreinforced, slit film
reinforced, and nonwoven reinforced tests

Rigorous solutions for computing the bearing capacity of a strip footing in a φ = 0

condition can be expressed as:

qult = (2 + π )cu cu = undrained shear strength (4.5)

91
Equation 4.5 was modified by Skempton [41] to account for geometric loading and depth
influence factors:

qult = (2 + π )cu [1 + 0.2(width length )] (4.6)

Similarly, Rodin [42] found that the ultimate bearing capacity for a static circular or square
footing resting on clay is given by

qult = 6.2cu (4.7)

The ultimate bearing capacity is the stress condition necessary to produce plastic flow in
a soil without a surcharge or other constraint. At a stress less than that required for complete
failure, however, local over-stressing may occur and cause a localized shear failure. According
to Rodin [42], plastic deformation of a flexible loaded area begins when the stress, q, reaches the
level:

q = πcu (4.8)

Barenberg [3] found that the allowable stress on an unreinforced system was 3.3cu or
approximately πcu, which is the value at which Rodin [42] suggested that localized plastic strains
were initiated. For the reinforced systems, Barenberg [3] found that the allowable stress was 6cu,
which is the level at which plastic flow would normally occur. Steward et al. [7] drew very
similar conclusions for allowable stress values for unreinforced and reinforced systems as to
those generated by the model tests (Table 4.5). Giroud and Noiray [4] suggested allowable
stress levels for unreinforced and reinforced systems of 3.13cu and 5.14cu, and De Groot et al.
[43] found levels of 3cu and 5cu. These allowable stress levels would result in a ratio of bearing
capacity factors for reinforced verses unreinforced systems ratios of approximately 1.6-2.0, the
range of values similar to that determined from the model tests.

The increase in the bearing capacity factor for gravel roads with reinforcment is directly
related to the interaction of shear stress and normal stress existing at the surface of the subgrade.
If shear stress is absent, then the full value of the bearing capacity (the maximum normal stress)
can be realized. If shear stress is then added to the loading, a reduction in bearing capacity
occurs. With the maximum shear stress of the undrained shear strength present, the bearing
92
capacity factor reduces to one half of the value for purely vertical loading. Thus, if
reinforcement is introduced, these shear stresses can be carried by the fabric, which is put into
tension, and the full bearing capacity of the clay can be mobilized.

Table 4.5: Results from Steward et al. [7]

Traffic Allowable Performance

Level Stress
High 2.8cu Very little rutting Without Fabric
Low 3.3cu Deep rutting Without Fabric
High 5cu Very little rutting With Fabric
Low 6cu Deep rutting With Fabric
High traffic level: >1,000 passes of an 18 kip (80 kN) axle load; low
traffic: <100 passes.

4.6 Summary

The results of a series of 13 model tests with and without geotextile reinforcement at the gravel-
subgrade interface showed that, in terms of rut depths, the nonwoven geotextile performed better
than the slit film for all gravel thicknesses. The nonwoven reinforced system with 100 mm (4
in.) of gravel was equivalent to the slit film reinforced system with 150 mm (6 in.) of gravel and
the unreinforced system with 200 mm (8 in.) of gravel in terms of rut depths, which was 60 mm
(2.4 in.). Obviously, a gravel thickness of 100 mm (4 in.) is insufficient for most practical
applications and other factors would need to be considered before extrapolating the conclusion to
the field. The improved performance on the part of the nonwoven geotextile was most likely due
to the nonwoven’s frictional characteristics.
The bearing capacity factor for the model tests reinforced with the nonwoven fabric was
1.6 times greater than that for the model tests without reinforcement. These results agreed well
with the results of previous work performed by Steward et al. [7], Barenberg [3], Giroud and

93
Noiray [4], and De Groot et al. [43]. The bearing capacity factor for the slit film reinforced
systems changed with gravel thickness.
The rut diameters for the slit film and nonwoven geotextile reinforced systems tended to
be larger than those of the unreinforced systems, indicating that interlocking of the gravel and
geotextile produced confinement on the gravel resulting in an increased load-spread angle
through the gravel. Other significant observations were that geotextile anchorage was
unimportant, as the geotextile appeared to only be stretched and pulled within the distributed
load area at that location. Outside of this area, no stretching of the geotextile was observed. It
was shown from practice tests that gravel compaction was important for developing interlock
between the gravel and geotextile. For the nonwoven reinforced system with 100 mm (4 in.) of
gravel, a rut reduction of 89 mm (3.5 in.) was recognized by performing gravel compaction.
Finally, no damage to the geotextile was observed in any of the tests.

94
 Chapter 5
Conclusions

When a vertical load from a vehicle is applied to an unpaved road involving a gravel aggregate-
clay subgrade system, horizontal and vertical stresses are generated. The horizontal stresses in
the aggregate result in outward shear stresses on the surface of the subgrade. These shear
stresses reduce the bearing capacity of the clay to as little as one half the value for purely vertical
loading. If fabric is present, these shear stresses can possibly be carried by the reinforcement
(depending on interface friction), allowing the full bearing capacity of the clay to be mobilized.
A series of 18 direct shear tests and 13 unpaved road model tests were performed to
evaluate how system properties such as interface friction affect performance. Interface friction
values were obtained for three different geotextile types−lightweight slit film (150 g/m2),
heavyweight woven (270 g/m2), and nonwoven (340 g/m2)−by performing direct shear tests on
soil-fabric-aggregate systems. The nonwoven geotextile developed an interface friction
comparable to that of the gravel alone (42o), while the lightweight and heavyweight woven
geotextiles generated 20% lower interface friction angles (around 34o). The interface friction of
the nonwoven geotextile may be a result of its texture, which could generate increased interlock
between the gravel and geotextile, when compared to the slit film and woven geotextile systems.
Little difference was seen in the values for interface friction for the clay sliding relative to the
geotextile and the gravel sliding relative to the geotextile.
Results of the unpaved road model test series performed with and without geotextile
reinforcement at the gravel-subgrade interface showed that in terms of rut depths, the nonwoven
performed better than the slit film geotextile for all gravel thicknesses. The nonwoven
reinforced system with 100 mm (4 in.) of gravel was equivalent to the slit film reinforced system
with 150 mm (6 in.) of gravel and the unreinforced system with 200 mm (8 in.) of gravel,
although a significant rut depth of approximately 60 mm (2.4 in.) was observed. The improved
performance on the part of the nonwoven geotextile was most likely due to the nonwoven’s
frictional characteristics shown by the direct shear tests.
95
 Allowable stress levels for the unreinforced and nonwoven reinforced systems were
determined to differ by a factor of about 1.6. These results agreed well with the results of
previous work. The load-spread angle through the gravel tended to be larger for the reinforced
systems than for the unreinforced systems indicating that interlocking of the gravel and
geotextile produced confinement on the gravel resulting. Other significant observations were
that geotextile anchorage was unimportant, as the geotextile appeared to only be stretched and
pulled within the distributed load area at that location. Outside of this area, no stretching of the
geotextile was observed as present. Finally, no damage to the geotextile was observed in any of
the tests.

96
 References

[1] Barenberg, E.J., Dowland, J.H. Jr., and Hales, J.H. (1975). Evaluation of soil aggregate
systems with Mirafi fabric. Civil Engineering Studies, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. August.
[2] Kinney, T.C. (1979). Fabric induced changes in high deformation soil-fabric-aggregate
systems. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. January.
[3] Barenberg, E.J. (1980). Design procedures for soil-fabric-aggregate systems with
Mirafi 500X fabric. Civil Engineering Studies, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Illinois. October.
[4] Giroud, J.P. and Noiray, L. (1981). Geotextile-reinforced unpaved roads. Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers. 107(GT 9):
1233-1254, September.
[5] Milligan, G.W.E., Jewell, R.A., Houlsby, G.T., and Burd, H.J. (1989). A new approach
to the design of unpaved roads. Ground Engineering. 22(3), 22(8).
[6] ASTM (1994). Annual Books of ASTM Standards. American Society for testing and
Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[7] Steward, J., Williamson, R., and Mohney, J. (1977). Guidelines for the use of fabrics in
construction and maintenance of low-volume roads. US Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service. Portland, Oregon. Also published as Report No. FHA-TS-78-205 (1978).
[8] Douglas, R.A. and Kelly, M.A. (1986). Geotextile reinforced unpaved logging roads: the
effect of anchorage. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 4(2): 93-106.
[9] Yoder, E.J. (1959). Principles of pavement design. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New
York. 21-32.
[10] Brorsson, I. and Eriksson, L. (1986). Long-term properties of geotextiles and their
function as a separator in road construction. Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on Geotextiles. Vienna, Austria. April 7-11, 1986. Industrial Fabrics
Association International, St. Paul, Minnesota. 1: 93-98.

97
[11] Haliburton, T.A. and Barron, J.V. (1983). Optimum-depth method for design of fabric
reinforced unsurfaced roads. National Research Council and Transportation Research
Board. Washington, D.C. Report No. 916: 26-32.
[12] Burd, H.J. and Brocklehurst, C.J. (1990). Finite element studies of the mechanics of
reinforced unpaved roads. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes, and Related Products. The Hague, Netherlands. May 28-
June 2, 1990. Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, Minnesota. 217-221.
[13] Houlsby, G.T. and Jewell, R.A. (1990). Design of reinforced unpaved roads for small rut
depths. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes, and Related Products. The Hague, Netherlands. May 28-June 2, 1990.
Industrial Fabrics Association International, St. Paul, Minnesota. 171-176.
[14] Espinoza, R.D. (1994). Soil-geotextile interaction: evaluation of membrane support.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Elsevier Applied Science. 13(5): 281-293.
[15] Espinoza, R.D. and Bray, J.D. (1995). An integrated approach to evaluating single-layer
reinforced soils. Geosynthetics International. Industrial fabrics Association
International, St. Paul, Minnesota. 2(4): 723-739.
[16] Bender, D.A. and Barenberg, E.J. (1978). Design and behavior of soil-fabric-aggregate
systems. National Research Council and Transportation Research Board. Washington,
D.C. Report No. 671: 64-75.
[17] Ahlvin, R.G. (1962). Flexible pavement design criteria. Journal of the Aerospace
Transport Division. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineers. 88(AT 1).
[18] Holtz, R.D. and Sivakugan, N. (1987). Design charts for roads with geotextiles.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Elsevier Applied Science. 5: 191-199.
[19] Sellmeijer, J.B., Kenter, C.J., and Van Den Berg, C. (1982). Calculation method for a
fabric reinforced road. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Geotextiles. Las Vegas, Nevada. August 1-6, 1982. Industrial Fabrics Association
International, St. Paul, Minnesota. 2: 393-398.
[20] Douglas, R.A. and Kelly, M.A. (1986). Geotextile ‘reinforced’ unpaved logging roads:
the effect of anchorage. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. Elsevier Applied Science.
4(2): 93-106.

98
[21] Bakker, J.G. (1977). Mechanical behavior of membranes in road foundations.
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Geotechnics. Paris, France. April.
1: 139-142.
[22] Holtz, R.D. Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R.R. (1995). Geosynthetic design and
construction guidelines. FHWA, NHI and USDOT Publication No. FHWA HI 95-038.
May.
[23] Zeevaert, A.E. (1980). Finite element formulation for the analysis of interfaces,
nonlinear and large displacement problems in geotechnical engineering. Ph.D. thesis,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia.
[24] Burd, H.J. (1986). A large displacement finite element analysis of a reinforced unpaved
road. D.Phil thesis, University of Oxford, Oxford, England.
[25] Burd, H.J. and Houlsby, G.T. (1986). A large strain finite element formulation for one
dimensional membrane elements. Computers and Geotechnics, 2(1): 3-22.
[26] Douglas, R.A. and Valsangkar, A.J. (1992). Unpaved geosynthetic-built resource access
roads: stiffness rather than rut depths as the key design criteria. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes. Elsevier Applied Science. 11(1): 45-59.
[27] Douglas, R.A. (1993). Stiffness of geosynthetic-built unpaved road structures:
experimental programme, analysis and results. Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’93.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Industrial Fabrics Association International, St.
Paul, Minnesota. 1: 21-32.
[28] Hoare, D.J. (1982). A laboratory study into pumping clay through geotextiles under
dynamic loading. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Geotextiles.
Las Vegas, Nevada. August 1-6, 1982. Industrial Fabrics Association International. St.
Paul, Minnesota. 2: 423-428.
[29] Alobaidi, I. and Hoare, D. (1994). Factors affecting the pumping of fines at the subgrade
subbase interface of highway pavements: a laboratory study. Geosynthetics
International. Industrial Fabrics Association International. St. Paul, Minnesota. 1(2):
221-225.
[30] Bell, A.L., McCullough, L.M., and Snaith, M.S. (1982). An experimental investigation
of sub-base protection using geotextiles. Proceedings of the Second International
99
 Conference on Geotextiles. Las Vegas, Nevada. August 1-6, 1982. Industrial Fabrics
Association International. St. Paul, Minnesota. 2: 435-440.
[31] Lafleur, J., Rollin, A.L., and Mlynarek, J. (1990). Clogging of geotextiles under
pumping loads. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes, and Related Products. The Hague, Netherlands. May 28-June 2, 1990.
Industrial Fabrics Association International. St. Paul, Minnesota. 189-192.
[32] Nishida, K. and Nishigata, T. (1994). The evaluation of separation function for
geotextiles. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes, and Related Products. Singapore. Sept. 5-9, 1994. Industrial Fabrics
Association International. St. Paul, Minnesota. 1: 139-142.
[33] Austin, D.N. and Coleman, D.M. (1993). A field evaluation of geosynthetic-reinforced
haul roads over soft foundation soils. Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’93. Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada. Industrial Fabrics Association International. St. Paul,
Minnesota. 1: 65-80.
[34] Giroud, J.P., Ah-Line, C., and Bonaparte, R. (1984). Design of unpaved roads and
trafficked areas with geogrids. Polymer Grid Reinforcement. Conference Proceedings.
Thomas Telford Limited. London. 116-127.
[35] Metcalfe, R.C., Holtz, R.D., and Allen, T.M. (1995). Field investigation to evaluate the
long-term separation and drainage performance of geotextile separators. Proceedings of
Geosynthetics ’95. Nashville, Tennessee. Industrial Fabrics Association International.
St. Paul, Minnesota. 3: 951-962.
[36] Page, M.W. (1990). Performance of geotextile separators.” Master Thesis. University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington.
[37] Cernica, J.N. (1995). Geotechnical engineering: soil mechanics. John Wiley & Sons.
206.
[38] Wardle, L.J. (1976). Program CIRCLY-a computer program for the analysis of multiple
complex circular loads on layered anisotropic media-user’s manual. Geomechanics
Computer Program No.2, CSIRO Division of Applied Geomechanics.
[39] Das, B.M. (1990). Principles of foundation engineering. Second Edition. PWS
Publishing Company. Boston. 161.

100
[40] Prandtl, L. (1921). Penetrating strengths of plastic construction materials. Mathematical
Mechanics. 1: 15-20.
[41] Skempton, A.W. (1951). The bearing capacity of clays. Proceedings of the British
Building Research Congress. 1: 180-189.
[42] Rodin, S. (1965). Ability of a clay fill to support a construction plant. Journal of
Terramechanics. 1(4): 51-68.
[43] De Groot, M., Janse, E., Maagdenberg, T.A.C., and Van den Berg, C. (1986). Design
method and guidelines for geotextile applications in road construction. Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Geotextiles. Vienna, Austria. 3: 741.

101
102
 Appendix A
Vendor Recommended Design Procedures

1
Vendor Recommended Design Procedures
In unpaved road design, a geotextile can be included to reinforce the aggregate-subgrade system
and/or to separate the aggregate from the subgrade. An unpaved road with a geotextile is
commonly referred to as a soil-fabric-aggregate (SFA) system due to the three main components.
When designing an SFA system, it is necessary to obtain product information from the geotextile
vendor. Some vendors include a procedure for designing SFA systems with their products. The
following three design procedures were predominately recommended by vendors:
1. FHWA Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines [22]
• Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Company
• Contech Construction Products Inc.
• Synthetics Industries
2. U.S. Forest Service Guidelines for Use of Fabrics in Construction and Maintenance of Low-
Volume Roads [7]
• Linq Industrial Fabrics, Inc.
3. Design Procedure for SFA Systems with Mirafi 500X [3]
• Mirafi
Included in this report is a brief outline of these three design procedures. When
permitted, design charts were reproduced and included in this report. Both the Holtz et al. [22]
and Steward et al. [7] design procedures assume the separation function as the primary function
in SFA systems. Barenberg’s [3] design procedure assumes that there is significant rutting in the
road and assumes a rut geometry so as to determine the vertical force carried by the geotextile.

2
A.1 FHWA Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines [22]

FHWA sponsored the development of a manual that included a procedure for the design of
unpaved roads with geotextile [22]. The procedure is widely used and is recommended by
Amoco Fabric and Fibers Company, Contech Construction Products Inc., and Synthetic
Industries when designing with their geotextile products. The procedure assumes that the
geotextile’s main function is as a separator; no geotextile tensile reinforcing mechanism is
considered. If a tensile reinforcing mechanism is generated then an additional benefit will exist.
Simply considering the separation function is deemed conservative and acceptable.
The use of a geotextile in an unpaved road is recommended for the following subgrade
conditions according to the FHWA manual:
• poor soils
USCS: SC, CL, CH, ML, MH, OL, OH, and PT
AASHTO: A-5, A-6, A-7-5, and A-7-6
• low undrained shear strength
cu < 90 kPa (13 psi) cu = undrained shear strength
CBR < 3
resilient modulus ≈ 30 MPa (4350 psi)
• high water table
Similarly, the following geotextile functions are considered appropriate for the following
subgrade strengths:
Undrained Shear Subgrade Functions
Strength, kPa CBR
60 – 90 2 -3 filtration and possibly separation
30 –60 1 -2 filtration, separation, and possibly reinforcement
< 30 <1 all functions including reinforcement

For a geotextile to perform its intended function, it is first necessary for the geotextile to
survive the construction operations. The FHWA manual includes a survivability criteria (Tables
A.1 and A.2) developed by Task Force 25 [46]. Table A.1 relates the elements of construction

3
such as equipment, aggregate characteristics, subgrade preparation, and subgrade shear strength
to the severity of the loading imposed on the geotextile. The geotextile strength required to
survive the most severe conditions anticipated during construction can then be determined using
Table A.1.

Table A.1: Construction survivability ratings [Task Force 25, 46]

Site Soil CBR at Installation1 <1 1 to 2 >3

Equipment Ground Contact > 350 < 350 > 350 < 350 > 350 < 350
Pressure (kPa)
Cover Thickness2
(compacted, mm)
1003,4 NR5 NR H5 H M5 M
150 NR NR H H M M
300 NR H M M M M
450 H M M M M M
Notes:
1. Assume saturated CBR unless construction scheduling can be controlled.
2. Maximum aggregate size not to exceed one-half the compacted cover thickness.
3. For low-volume, unpaved roads (ADT<200 vehicles).
4. The 100 mm minimum cover is limited to existing road bases and is not intended for
use in new construction.
5. NR = not recommended; M = moderate; and H = high.

4
 Table A.2: Physical property requirements1

Grab Strength4, (N) Puncture Resistance4, (N) Tear Strength4, (N)

ASTM D 4632 ASTM D 4833 ASTM D 4533

Survivability
Level < 50 % > 50 % < 50 % > 50 % < 50 % > 50 %
Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile
Elongation Elongation Elongation Elongation Elongation Elongation

Moderate 801 512 311 178 311 178

High 1201 801 445 334 445 334

Additional Requirements: Test Method

Apparent Opening Size ASTM D 4751

1. < 50 % soil passing 0.075 mm sieve, AOS < 0.6 mm
2. > 50 % soil passing 0.075 mm sieve, AOS < 0.3 mm

Permeability ASTM D 4491

K of the geotextile > k of the soil

Ultraviolet Degradation ASTM D 4355

At 150 hours of exposure, 70% strength retained

Geotextile Acceptance ASTM D 4759

Notes:
1. For the index properties, the first value of each set is for geotextiles that fail at less than 50% elongation,
while the second value is for geotextiles that fail at greater than 50% elongation. Elongation is
determined by ASTM D 4632.
2. Values shown are minimum roll average values. Strength values are in the weakest principal direction.
3. The values of the geotextile elongation do not relate to the allowable consolidation properties of the
subgrade soil. These must be determined by a separate investigation.
4. Numeric values are hard conversions of English units.

5
 The following design method considers the separation function as the primary function.
The method was developed by Steward et al. [7] for the U.S. Forest Service and allows the
designer to consider vehicle passes, equivalent axle loads, axle configurations, tire pressures,
subgrade strengths, and rut depths. It is assumed in the method that the aggregate is cohesionless
and has a CBR of 80, the number of vehicle passes is less than 10,000, and the subgrade
undrained shear strength is less than 90 kPa (13 psi, CBR < 3).

Procedure

1. Determine subgrade undrained shear strength, cu.

empirical relationships:
cu = 30 * CBR
cu = the WES cone penetrometer index divided by 10

2. Determine wheel loading for design period.

• maximum single wheel load

• maximum dual wheel load
• maximum dual tandem wheel load

3. Estimate maximum amount of traffic anticipated for each design vehicle class.

4. Establish amount of tolerable rutting during the road’s design life.

50 - 75 mm (2-2.5 in.) of rutting is generally acceptable during construction

5. Obtain the appropriate bearing capacity factor (Table A.3).

Table A.3: Bearing capacity factors

Traffic
Ruts Bearing Capacity
(Passes of 80 kN
(mm) Factor, Nc
axle equivalents)
< 50 > 1000 2.8
Without Geotextile
>100 < 100 3.3
< 50 > 1000 5.0
With Geotextile
>100 < 100 6.0

6
6. Determine the required aggregate thickness for each maximum loading (Fig. A.1,
A.2, A.3).

7. Select design thickness. The thickness should be given to the next higher 25 mm (1 in.)

8. Check geotextile drainage and filtration requirements (Table A.4).

Table A.4: Drainage and filtration requirements

Requirements: Definitions:

AOS ≤ D85 (wovens) AOS = apparent opening size of geotextile

(specified by geotextile manufacturer)
AOS ≤ 1.8D85 (nonwovens)
D85 = gravel diameter for 85% passing
kgeotextile ≥ ksoil kgeotextile = geotextile permeability
(specified by geotextile manufacturer)
ψ ≥ 0.1 sec-1
ksoil = soil permeability
ψ = geotextile permittivity
(specified by geotextile manufacturer)

9. Check survivability requirements (Table A.1).

10. Specify geotextile properties such that they meet or exceed survivability requirements.

7
Figure A.1: Thickness design curve for single wheel loads [7]

8
Figure A.2: Thickness design curve for dual wheel loads [7]

9
Figure A.3: Thickness design curve for tandem wheel loads [7]

10
A.2 U.S. Forest Service [7]

The U.S. Forest Service [7] developed guidelines for the use of geotextiles in the construction
and maintenance of low-volume roads. The guidelines included a procedure for unpaved low-
volume road design with geotextiles for separation or reinforcement. This design procedure is
recommended by Linq Industrial Fabrics, Inc. for use when designing unpaved roads with their
geotextile products.
The design procedure developed by Steward et al. [7] was based on work by Barenberg
[1], who later developed a design and installation procedure for the use of Mirafi 500X and
600X [3]. The design procedure developed by Steward et al. [6] for the use of geotextiles in
low-volume unpaved roads is the basis for the procedure generated by Holtz et al. [22].
Therefore, to avoid redundancy, the procedure developed by Steward et al. will not be outlined.
Steward et al. [7] also developed a procedure for estimating the cost effectiveness of
fabric as a separation layer. By placing the geotextile at the subgrade-gravel interface, the
geotextile can prevent the migration of small subgrade particles into the gravel as well as the
pushing of the gravel down into the subgrade. By preventing this “mixing”, the geotextile may
be cost effective. The procedure for estimating geotextile cost-effectiveness is as follows.
Procedure
1. Estimate contamination zone thickness.
Make test excavations in existing roads with similar construction, soils, and traffic to the
project being designed.

2. Assign a structural value (“a” value) to the contaminated and uncontaminated layers.
3. Calculate the required structural section thickness with and without contamination.
4. Calculate the structural cost of the contamination, Cc:
Cc = thickness difference between the system with and without contamination
5. Include in conventional design the additional aggregate thickness required by contamination
as either subbase or base material.
6. Assume in the geotextile design that 75% of contamination is prevented. Geotextile system
consists of geotextile plus 25% additional subbase/base and the originally designed structural
section.
11
7. Perform a cost analysis of system with and without geotextile.
An unpaved road can be designed with geotextile according to the method developed by
Steward et al. [7] as presented in the FHWA manual [Holtz et al., 22]. This design can be
compared to a conventionally designed unpaved road without geotextile. By performing this
comparison, savings can often times be recognized when designing over poor subgrades where
drainage and filtration at the aggregate-subgrade interface are important.

12
A.3 Barenberg [3]

Barenberg [3] developed a design procedure for using Mirafi 500X and 600X to reinforce
unpaved roads. This procedure was the result of research performed at the University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana [2]. To use this design procedure a permissible rut depth for the road must
be decided so as to develop the rut geometry. Knowing the rut geometry and assuming no slip at
the interface tension in the geotextile can be calculated. The tensioning of the geotextile results
in reduction of the vertical stresses transferred to the subgrade. The design procedure developed
by Barenberg [3] is summarized in the main body of this report. Included here is a design
example and design charts based on this procedure. It is important to mention that the design
procedure and design charts (Fig. A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7) were developed for use with Mirafi 500X
and Mirafi 600X. However, once this procedure is understood it can easily be applied when
designing unpaved roads with other geotextiles.
Example
1. Determine wheel load and contact pressure anticipated on the soil-fabric-aggregate system
surface.
10 kips 10 kips
• dual wheel load = 44.5 kN (10 kips)
per dual tire print
• tire pressure = 460 kPa (67 psi)

assume contact pressure = 0.75(400 kPa) = 345 kPa (50 psi)

2. Determine the maximum allowable stress, σall, on the subgrade.

σ all = 3.2 Acu

• soil undrained shear strength, cu, determined from soil evaluations

(assume 21 kPa or 3 psi)
• coefficient A is often taken as 2

σall = 132 kPa (19.2 psi)

13
3. Determine the rut geometry.
rut width, W, estimated as 1270 mm (50 in.) for track width of the dual-tire set plus “wander”
W= 1270 mm (50 in.)
allowable rut depth, d, for this particular haul road set by engineer as 150 mm (6 in.)
d = 150 mm (6 in.)
rut radius, R:
9W 2 5 9(1270 )
2
5
R= + d R= + (150 )
80d 16 80(150 ) 16
R = 1240 mm (48.8 in.)
arc, θ, for the rut geometry
 10d   10(150 ) 
θ = 2 tan −1   θ = 2 tan −1  
 6W   6(1270) 
θ = 22.6o
4. Determine the strain in the fabric, εf.
 4πRθ   4π 1240(22.6 ) 
εf =  − 2  × 100% ε f =  − 2 × 100%
135W   135(1270 ) 
εf = 5.32%
5. Determine the tension in the fabric, tf.
tf is calculated by multiplying the fabric modulus (stiffness), K, by the fabric strain, εf.
K = 260 N per mm (1500 lb/in) for Mirafi 600X
K = 193 N per mm (1100 lb/in.) for Mirafi 500X
K values can be obtained from the manufacturer
tf = Kεf tf = 260 (0.0532)
tf = 14 N per mm (79.8 lb/in.)
6. Determine the differential normal stress carried by the fabric, ∆σz-f.
tf 14
∆σ z − f = ∆σ z − f =
R 1240
∆σz-f = 11.3 kPa (1.64 psi)

14
7. Determine the permissible stress on the fabric, σp-f.
σ p − f = ∆σ z − f + A3.2cu σp-f = 143 kPa (20.8 psi)

8. Determining the required aggregate thickness, z.

actual vertical stress, σz, imposed on the fabric by the wheel load:
   
3/ 2
1
σ z = p 1 −   
  1 + (a z )  
2
 

p = average surface contact pressure from wheel load

a = radius of loaded area = L πp
L = applied load
required aggregate layer thickness, z:
setting the permissible stress on the fabric, σp-f, equal to the actual vertical stress, σz, the
following expression for the required aggregate layer thickness, z, can be developed:

1/ 2
 
 44.5 π (345) 
1/ 2
 L πp 
z= z =  
( ) 
( ) 
2/3
1 1− σ p − 1  1 1 − 143
2/3
− 1 
 p− f

z = 312 mm (12.3 in.)

9. Comparison to conventional method without fabric.
from step 2:
σ all = 3.2 Acu
set A =1.0 without fabric
σall = 239 kPa (9.42 psi)
from step 8:
z = 523 mm (20.6 in.)
add 75 mm (3 in.) of aggregate to account for subgrade intrusion
z = 523 + 75 = 598 mm (23.66 in.)
10. Conclusion:
Use of Mirafi 600X fabric with 330 mm (13 in.) of aggregate results in an 280 mm (11 in.)
or 48% savings in aggregate.

15
Figure A.4: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a
22 kN (5,000 lb) wheel load [3]

16
Figure A.5: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a
44.5 kN (10,000 lb) wheel load [3]

17
Figure A.6: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a
67 kN (15,000 lb) wheel load [3]

18
19
Figure A.7: Haul-road stabilization design
curves for a 90 kN (20,000 lb) wheel load
[3]Appendix A
Vendor Recommended Design Procedures

20
Vendor Recommended Design Procedures
In unpaved road design, a geotextile can be included to reinforce the aggregate-subgrade system
and/or to separate the aggregate from the subgrade. An unpaved road with a geotextile is
commonly referred to as a soil-fabric-aggregate (SFA) system due to the three main components.
When designing an SFA system, it is necessary to obtain product information from the geotextile
vendor. Some vendors include a procedure for designing SFA systems with their products. The
following three design procedures were predominately recommended by vendors:
4. FHWA Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines [22]
• Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Company
• Contech Construction Products Inc.
• Synthetics Industries
5. U.S. Forest Service Guidelines for Use of Fabrics in Construction and Maintenance of Low-
Volume Roads [7]
• Linq Industrial Fabrics, Inc.
6. Design Procedure for SFA Systems with Mirafi 500X [3]
• Mirafi
Included in this report is a brief outline of these three design procedures. When
permitted, design charts were reproduced and included in this report. Both the Holtz et al. [22]
and Steward et al. [7] design procedures assume the separation function as the primary function
in SFA systems. Barenberg’s [3] design procedure assumes that there is significant rutting in the
road and assumes a rut geometry so as to determine the vertical force carried by the geotextile.

21
A.1 FHWA Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines [22]

FHWA sponsored the development of a manual that included a procedure for the design of
unpaved roads with geotextile [22]. The procedure is widely used and is recommended by
Amoco Fabric and Fibers Company, Contech Construction Products Inc., and Synthetic
Industries when designing with their geotextile products. The procedure assumes that the
geotextile’s main function is as a separator; no geotextile tensile reinforcing mechanism is
considered. If a tensile reinforcing mechanism is generated then an additional benefit will exist.
Simply considering the separation function is deemed conservative and acceptable.
The use of a geotextile in an unpaved road is recommended for the following subgrade
conditions according to the FHWA manual:
• poor soils
USCS: SC, CL, CH, ML, MH, OL, OH, and PT
AASHTO: A-5, A-6, A-7-5, and A-7-6
• low undrained shear strength
cu < 90 kPa (13 psi) cu = undrained shear strength
CBR < 3
resilient modulus ≈ 30 MPa (4350 psi)
• high water table
Similarly, the following geotextile functions are considered appropriate for the following
subgrade strengths:
Undrained Shear Subgrade Functions
Strength, kPa CBR
60 – 90 2 -3 filtration and possibly separation
30 –60 1 -2 filtration, separation, and possibly reinforcement
< 30 <1 all functions including reinforcement

For a geotextile to perform its intended function, it is first necessary for the geotextile to
survive the construction operations. The FHWA manual includes a survivability criteria (Tables
A.1 and A.2) developed by Task Force 25 [46]. Table A.1 relates the elements of construction

22
such as equipment, aggregate characteristics, subgrade preparation, and subgrade shear strength
to the severity of the loading imposed on the geotextile. The geotextile strength required to
survive the most severe conditions anticipated during construction can then be determined using
Table A.1.

Table A.1: Construction survivability ratings [Task Force 25, 46]

Site Soil CBR at Installation1 <1 1 to 2 >3

Equipment Ground Contact > 350 < 350 > 350 < 350 > 350 < 350
Pressure (kPa)
Cover Thickness2
(compacted, mm)
1003,4 NR5 NR H5 H M5 M
150 NR NR H H M M
300 NR H M M M M
450 H M M M M M
Notes:
6. Assume saturated CBR unless construction scheduling can be controlled.
7. Maximum aggregate size not to exceed one-half the compacted cover thickness.
8. For low-volume, unpaved roads (ADT<200 vehicles).
9. The 100 mm minimum cover is limited to existing road bases and is not intended for
use in new construction.
10. NR = not recommended; M = moderate; and H = high.

23
 Table A.2: Physical property requirements1

Grab Strength4, (N) Puncture Resistance4, (N) Tear Strength4, (N)

ASTM D 4632 ASTM D 4833 ASTM D 4533

Survivability
Level < 50 % > 50 % < 50 % > 50 % < 50 % > 50 %
Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile Geotextile
Elongation Elongation Elongation Elongation Elongation Elongation

Moderate 801 512 311 178 311 178

High 1201 801 445 334 445 334

Additional Requirements: Test Method

Apparent Opening Size ASTM D 4751

3. < 50 % soil passing 0.075 mm sieve, AOS < 0.6 mm
4. > 50 % soil passing 0.075 mm sieve, AOS < 0.3 mm

Permeability ASTM D 4491

k of the geotextile > k of the soil

Ultraviolet Degradation ASTM D 4355

At 150 hours of exposure, 70% strength retained

Geotextile Acceptance ASTM D 4759

Notes:
5. For the index properties, the first value of each set is for geotextiles that fail at less than 50% elongation,
while the second value is for geotextiles that fail at greater than 50% elongation. Elongation is
determined by ASTM D 4632.
6. Values shown are minimum roll average values. Strength values are in the weakest principal direction.
7. The values of the geotextile elongation do not relate to the allowable consolidation properties of the
subgrade soil. These must be determined by a separate investigation.
8. Numeric values are hard conversions of English units.

24
 The following design method considers the separation function as the primary function.
The method was developed by Steward et al. [7] for the U.S. Forest Service and allows the
designer to consider vehicle passes, equivalent axle loads, axle configurations, tire pressures,
subgrade strengths, and rut depths. It is assumed in the method that the aggregate is cohesionless
and has a CBR of 80, the number of vehicle passes is less than 10,000, and the subgrade
undrained shear strength is less than 90 kPa (13 psi, CBR < 3).

Procedure

2. Determine subgrade undrained shear strength, cu.

empirical relationships:
cu = 30 * CBR
cu = the WES cone penetrometer index divided by 10

5. Determine wheel loading for design period.

• maximum single wheel load

• maximum dual wheel load
• maximum dual tandem wheel load

6. Estimate maximum amount of traffic anticipated for each design vehicle class.

7. Establish amount of tolerable rutting during the road’s design life.

50 - 75 mm (2-2.5 in.) of rutting is generally acceptable during construction

6. Obtain the appropriate bearing capacity factor (Table A.3).

Table A.3: Bearing capacity factors

Traffic
Ruts Bearing Capacity
(Passes of 80 kN
(mm) Factor, Nc
axle equivalents)
< 50 > 1000 2.8
Without Geotextile
>100 < 100 3.3
< 50 > 1000 5.0
With Geotextile
>100 < 100 6.0

25
9. Determine the required aggregate thickness for each maximum loading (Fig. A.1,
A.2, A.3).

10. Select design thickness. The thickness should be given to the next higher 25 mm (1 in.)

11. Check geotextile drainage and filtration requirements (Table A.4).

Table A.4: Drainage and filtration requirements

Requirements: Definitions:

AOS ≤ D85 (wovens) AOS = apparent opening size of geotextile

(specified by geotextile manufacturer)
AOS ≤ 1.8D85 (nonwovens)
D85 = gravel diameter for 85% passing
kgeotextile ≥ ksoil kgeotextile = geotextile permeability
(specified by geotextile manufacturer)
ψ ≥ 0.1 sec-1
ksoil = soil permeability
ψ = geotextile permittivity
(specified by geotextile manufacturer)

11. Check survivability requirements (Table A.1).

12. Specify geotextile properties such that they meet or exceed survivability requirements.

26
Figure A.1: Thickness design curve for single wheel loads [7]

27
Figure A.2: Thickness design curve for dual wheel loads [7]

28
Figure A.3: Thickness design curve for tandem wheel loads [7]

29
A.2 U.S. Forest Service [7]

The U.S. Forest Service [7] developed guidelines for the use of geotextiles in the construction
and maintenance of low-volume roads. The guidelines included a procedure for unpaved low-
volume road design with geotextiles for separation or reinforcement. This design procedure is
recommended by Linq Industrial Fabrics, Inc. for use when designing unpaved roads with their
geotextile products.
The design procedure developed by Steward et al. [7] was based on work by Barenberg
[1], who later developed a design and installation procedure for the use of Mirafi 500X and
600X [3]. The design procedure developed by Steward et al. [6] for the use of geotextiles in
low-volume unpaved roads is the basis for the procedure generated by Holtz et al. [22].
Therefore, to avoid redundancy, the procedure developed by Steward et al. will not be outlined.
Steward et al. [7] also developed a procedure for estimating the cost effectiveness of
fabric as a separation layer. By placing the geotextile at the subgrade-gravel interface, the
geotextile can prevent the migration of small subgrade particles into the gravel as well as the
pushing of the gravel down into the subgrade. By preventing this “mixing”, the geotextile may
be cost effective. The procedure for estimating geotextile cost-effectiveness is as follows.
Procedure
2. Estimate contamination zone thickness.
Make test excavations in existing roads with similar construction, soils, and traffic to the
project being designed.

5. Assign a structural value (“a” value) to the contaminated and uncontaminated layers.
6. Calculate the required structural section thickness with and without contamination.
7. Calculate the structural cost of the contamination, Cc:
Cc = thickness difference between the system with and without contamination
8. Include in conventional design the additional aggregate thickness required by contamination
as either subbase or base material.
9. Assume in the geotextile design that 75% of contamination is prevented. Geotextile system
consists of geotextile plus 25% additional subbase/base and the originally designed structural
section.
30
10. Perform a cost analysis of system with and without geotextile.
An unpaved road can be designed with geotextile according to the method developed by
Steward et al. [7] as presented in the FHWA manual [Holtz et al., 22]. This design can be
compared to a conventionally designed unpaved road without geotextile. By performing this
comparison, savings can often times be recognized when designing over poor subgrades where
drainage and filtration at the aggregate-subgrade interface are important.

31
A.3 Barenberg [3]

Barenberg [3] developed a design procedure for using Mirafi 500X and 600X to reinforce
unpaved roads. This procedure was the result of research performed at the University of Illinois,
Champaign-Urbana [2]. To use this design procedure a permissible rut depth for the road must
be decided so as to develop the rut geometry. Knowing the rut geometry and assuming no slip at
the interface tension in the geotextile can be calculated. The tensioning of the geotextile results
in reduction of the vertical stresses transferred to the subgrade. The design procedure developed
by Barenberg [3] is summarized in the main body of this report. Included here is a design
example and design charts based on this procedure. It is important to mention that the design
procedure and design charts (Fig. A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7) were developed for use with Mirafi 500X
and Mirafi 600X. However, once this procedure is understood it can easily be applied when
designing unpaved roads with other geotextiles.
Example
4. Determine wheel load and contact pressure anticipated on the soil-fabric-aggregate system
surface.
10 kips 10 kips
• dual wheel load = 44.5 kN (10 kips)
per dual tire print
• tire pressure = 460 kPa (67 psi)

assume contact pressure = 0.75(400 kPa) = 345 kPa (50 psi)

5. Determine the maximum allowable stress, σall, on the subgrade.

σ all = 3.2 Acu

• soil undrained shear strength, cu, determined from soil evaluations

(assume 21 kPa or 3 psi)
• coefficient A is often taken as 2

σall = 132 kPa (19.2 psi)

32
6. Determine the rut geometry.
rut width, W, estimated as 1270 mm (50 in.) for track width of the dual-tire set plus “wander”
W= 1270 mm (50 in.)
allowable rut depth, d, for this particular haul road set by engineer as 150 mm (6 in.)
d = 150 mm (6 in.)
rut radius, R:
9W 2 5 9(1270 )
2
5
R= + d R= + (150 )
80d 16 80(150 ) 16
R = 1240 mm (48.8 in.)
arc, θ, for the rut geometry
 10d   10(150 ) 
θ = 2 tan −1   θ = 2 tan −1  
 6W   6(1270) 
θ = 22.6o
5. Determine the strain in the fabric, εf.
 4πRθ   4π 1240(22.6 ) 
εf =  − 2  × 100% ε f =  − 2 × 100%
135W   135(1270 ) 
εf = 5.32%
6. Determine the tension in the fabric, tf.
tf is calculated by multiplying the fabric modulus (stiffness), K, by the fabric strain, εf.
K = 260 N per mm (1500 lb/in) for Mirafi 600X
K = 193 N per mm (1100 lb/in.) for Mirafi 500X
K values can be obtained from the manufacturer
tf = Kεf tf = 260 (0.0532)
tf = 14 N per mm (79.8 lb/in.)
7. Determine the differential normal stress carried by the fabric, ∆σz-f.
tf 14
∆σ z − f = ∆σ z − f =
R 1240
∆σz-f = 11.3 kPa (1.64 psi)

33
8. Determine the permissible stress on the fabric, σp-f.
σ p − f = ∆σ z − f + A3.2cu σp-f = 143 kPa (20.8 psi)

9. Determining the required aggregate thickness, z.

actual vertical stress, σz, imposed on the fabric by the wheel load:
   
3/ 2
1
σ z = p 1 −   
  1 + (a z )  
2
 

p = average surface contact pressure from wheel load

a = radius of loaded area = L πp
L = applied load
required aggregate layer thickness, z:
setting the permissible stress on the fabric, σp-f, equal to the actual vertical stress, σz, the
following expression for the required aggregate layer thickness, z, can be developed:

1/ 2
 
 44.5 π (345) 
1/ 2
 L πp 
z= z =  
( ) 
( ) 
2/3
1 1− σ p − 1  1 1 − 143
2/3
− 1 
 p− f

z = 312 mm (12.3 in.)

10. Comparison to conventional method without fabric.
from step 2:
σ all = 3.2 Acu
set A =1.0 without fabric
σall = 239 kPa (9.42 psi)
from step 8:
z = 523 mm (20.6 in.)
add 75 mm (3 in.) of aggregate to account for subgrade intrusion
z = 523 + 75 = 598 mm (23.66 in.)
11. Conclusion:
Use of Mirafi 600X fabric with 330 mm (13 in.) of aggregate results in an 280 mm (11 in.)
or 48% savings in aggregate.

34
Figure A.4: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a
22 kN (5,000 lb) wheel load [3]

35
Figure A.5: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a
44.5 kN (10,000 lb) wheel load [3]

36
Figure A.6: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a
67 kN (15,000 lb) wheel load [3]

37
Figure A.7: Haul-road stabilization design curves for a
90 kN (20,000 lb) wheel load [3]

38