Novel Design Catalogue

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/359733727
A Novel Approach to the Design of Geogrid-Reinforced Flexible Pavements
Article in International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering · April 2022

DOI: 10.1007/s40891-022-00373-3
CITATIONS READS
0 208
4 authors, including:
Sayanti Banerjee
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
3 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sayanti Banerjee on 07 July 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-022-00373-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
A Novel Approach to the Design of Geogrid‑Reinforced Flexible

Pavements
Sayanti Banerjee1 · Maj Vikas Kumar Srivastava1 · Bappaditya Manna1 · J. T. Shahu1
Received: 14 October 2021 / Accepted: 12 March 2022 / Published online: 5 April 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
Abstract
In this study, a numerical analysis is carried out for the evaluation of both unreinforced and reinforced flexible pavements for
different California bearing ratio (CBR) values of subgrade and traffic loads using the robust finite-element method-based
software PLAXIS 2D. The behavior of base, sub-base, and subgrade soil has been simulated using a linear elastic model.
First, the numerical results of vertical subgrade strain for unreinforced pavement were validated with the results obtained
from the mechanistic-empirical method based on IITPAVE software. This study has been extended with the inclusion of
geogrid in the base layer of flexible pavement using the validated numerical model. Results obtained from this study showed
considerable improvement in modulus value of the base layer for geogrid-reinforced pavement when compared with the
unreinforced section. Based on the improved modulus value of the base layer for reinforced pavement, the Modulus Improve-
ment Factor (MIF) for geogrid has been derived. This MIF value provides the direct correlation between the stiffness of
different types of geogrids and thickness of the base layer for reinforced pavement. Based on the results obtained from this
study, a design catalogue for geogrid-reinforced pavement has been proposed for different combinations of traffic load and
CBR value of subgrade. This study has also been used to investigate the improvement in life of reinforced pavement layer
when compared with an unreinforced layer.
Keywords Flexible pavement · Geogrid · Modulus improvement factor · Service life ratio · Resilient modulus
Introduction with flexible pavements include rutting and fatigue from a

high volume of traffic [1, 2]. If the subgrade soil is having
The performance of flexible pavements depends on the very low bearing capacity, in comparison to traditional rigid
strength and rigidity of the pavement layers. Normally, flex- reinforcement (i.e., steel, timber), geosynthetics are being
ible unreinforced pavements are constructed from bitumi- used worldwide in the flexible pavement as reinforcement
nous materials and the stress is transmitted to the subgrade [3–7]. Geosynthetics can be applied to alleviate these issues
through the lateral distribution of the traffic load with depth. at the base layer of the pavement structure. Geosynthetic
However, due to fatigue and environmental degradation, the materials in the form of strong flexible sheets woven or non-
bituminous pavement itself used for unreinforced pavement woven, permeable or water-tight, 2D planer or 3D geocell
can also deform under repetitive loading. Major problems have been used for several years to improve soil quality and
performance in different pavement related facts, e.g., base
* Bappaditya Manna and sub-base stabilization, reinforcement, drainage, protec-
[email protected] tion of slopes, and embankments. Specific products, such
Sayanti Banerjee as geotextiles, geogrids, geocells, geomembranes, geocom-
[email protected] posite, etc., have been progressively developed for various
Maj Vikas Kumar Srivastava applications of geotechnical engineering. Several researchers
[email protected] have highlighted the advantageous effects of geogrid rein-
J. T. Shahu forcements on static and cyclic loading of pavement appli-
[email protected] cations [8–22]. The geogrid has the effect of restricting the
lateral movement of the granular soil, and as a result, the
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute use of geogrid in pavement construction may lead to less
of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
29
Page 2 of 15 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29
deformation under repeated loading and may minimize the Design Methodology
thicknesses of base materials required [23–33].
Raymond and Ismail [34] have shown by experimental The design of geogrid-reinforced pavement is strongly based
studies that, incorporating geogrid in the railway track, high- on the condition of different soil layers, geogrid properties,
way, and runaway embankments on unbound aggregate can and traffic loads, and therefore, each design needs special
enhance the bearing capacity and performance of the trans- analysis and calculations. Various design methodologies
port support system. Perkins et al. [35] carried out cyclic tri- available for reinforced paving are (1) AASHTO R50 [37]
axial tests on geogrid-reinforced and unreinforced granular and (2) IRC: SP:59 [38]. According to this design method-
base materials. The findings revealed that the geosynthetic ology, a geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavement section
reinforcement of granular materials had no major effect on can be designed based on two design approaches, i.e., (1)
the resilient modulus of unbound aggregates. However, a Layer Coefficient Ratio (LCR) and (2) Modulus Improve-
significant reduction was observed in the rutting depth of ment Factor (MIF). However, these design codes are lim-
test specimens when they were reinforced with a layer of ited to the design methodology, and no specific catalogue
geosynthetic. These findings are similar to those observed is available for the design of geogrid-reinforced flexible
by Nejad and Small [36]. pavements. On the other hand, a standard design approach
Several studies have been carried out over the last 2 (Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide) for analy-
decades to analyze the effects of geogrid and its utiliza- sis and design of conventional pavement (i.e., unreinforced
tion in paved and unpaved roads. Numerous studies on pavement) has gained widespread acceptance due to its
pavement design were compiled in various design codes, numerous advantages over the empirical approach. This
i.e., AASHTO R50 [37], IRC: SP:59 [38] for the design mechanistic-empirical technique was used in IRC 37 [40]
of geogrid-reinforced flexible pavements. However, these for analysis and design of unreinforced pavement. Indian
design codes are limited to the design methodology, and roads congress (IRC 37) has specified the design catalogues
no specific catalogue is available for the design of geogrid- for unreinforced flexible pavements based on different traf-
reinforced flexible pavements. Hence, the objective of the fic loads (in terms of million standard axles, msa) and CBR
present study is to investigate the beneficial effect of geogrid values of the subgrade. According to design approach given
reinforcement in terms of MIF and SLR of the reinforced in IRC 37 [40], Tensile strain, εt, at the bottom of the bitu-
pavement layer, and finally, a design catalogue for geogrid- minous layer and the vertical subgrade strain, εv, on the top
reinforced pavement has been proposed for different combi- of the subgrade is considered to be the critical parameters
nations of traffic load and CBR value of subgrade conform- for pavement design to restrict cracking and rutting in the
ing to IRC 37 [40] and IRC: SP:59 [38] specifications. bituminous and non-bituminous layer respectively.
For this study, a numerical model for unreinforced and In this study, a numerical analysis is carried out for both
geogrid-reinforced pavement has been developed using unreinforced and reinforced pavements for different sub-
PLAXIS 2D [39] which is effective FEM-based software grade CBR (3%, 8%, and 10%) and traffic loading conditions
and used to perform the deformation and stability analysis (5 msa, 10 msa, 20 msa, 30 msa, and 50 msa). The flexible
of geotechnical problems. The thickness of various pavement pavements have been modeled as a three-layer structure and
layers such as subgrade, sub-base, base, and bitumen layer stresses and strains at critical locations (i.e., top of the sub-
are taken from the design catalogue given in IRC 37 [40] grade and bottom of the bitumen layer) have been computed
corresponding to CBR value and traffic load. The geogrid is using the linear elastic model. Based on the limiting val-
introduced at the base layer of the pavement. After validating ues of strains against different traffic loads as proposed by
both numerical models of reinforced and unreinforced flex- IRC 37 [40], pavement sections for both unreinforced and
ible pavements, numerical analysis has been carried out using geogrid reinforced have been proposed. However, the ben-
validated numerical models to estimate the vertical compres- eficial effect of geogrid reinforcement is obtained in terms
sive strain on the subgrade and the reduced thickness of base of MIF and SLR of the reinforced pavement layer (using the
layer. Comparing both reinforced and unreinforced flexible formula given in IRC: SP:59 [38]).
pavements, the service life ratio (SLR) of subgrade layer and The detailed design philosophy for the design of geogrid-
modulus improvement factor (MIF) of base layer of pavement reinforced flexible pavement is illustrated as follows.
are estimated. Also, the comparative study between two dif-
ferent types of geogrids (i.e., stiffness of 400 kN/m and 800 Step 1: For the design of geogrid-reinforced flexible pave-
kN/m) in terms of modulus improvement factor (MIF) and ment, the thickness of various pavement layers such as
service life ratio (SLR) is investigated. Finally, design cata- subgrade, sub-base, base, and bitumen layer is taken from
logues for estimation of the most economical pavement sec- the design catalogue given in IRC 37 [40] corresponding
tion with different types of geogrid reinforcement conforming to CBR value and traffic load.
to IRC 37 [40] specifications are proposed in this study.
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2022) 8:29 Page 3 of 15 29
Step 2: Calculation of resilient modulus of subgrade Step 5: Now, to design a geogrid-reinforced pavement,
and different layers of pavement is done based on the the geogrid is introduced at the base layer of the pave-
empirical relation as given in IRC 37 [40], as illustrated ment and numerical analyses have been carried out. The
in Table 1. vertical compressive strain on the subgrade is calculated
Step 3: For unreinforced pavement, stresses, strains, and for the reinforced case and the obtained strain will be less
deflections at the selected critical locations are obtained than the unreinforced section.
from numerical analyses using the input value of modu- Step 6: Based on the vertical compressive strain on sub-
lus of different layers of pavement, their thicknesses, and grade in case of the reinforced and unreinforced pave-
Poisson’s ratio as recommended by IRC 37 [40]. If the ment, service life ratio is obtained
obtained strain values are within the limiting strain val- 𝜀V1
ues, then the pavement composition is considered to be SLR = , (1)
𝜀V2
safe.
Step 4: Now, the limiting strain values are calculated from
the rutting and fatigue model which are given in IRC 37
[40]. Table 2 shows the rutting and fatigue model as given
in IRC 37 [40].
Table 1 Resilient modulus of Pavement layers Resilient modulus

subgrade and different layers of
pavement Bitumen layer MBitumen = 2000MPa, for traffic load upto 20 msa
MBitumen = 3000MPa, for traffic load exceeding 20 msa.
Base/ Subbase MGranular = 0.2 × (h)0.45 × MSupport
( )
2 1 − 𝜇2 pa
MSupport =
𝛿
Subgrade MRS = 10.0 × CBR, for CBR ≤ 5%
MRS = 17.6 × (CBR)0.64 , for CBR > 5%
MRS = Resilient modulus of subgrade soil (in MPa), CBR = California bearing ratio of subgrade soil (%),
h = thickness of the granular layer (sub-base/base) in mm, MGranular = resilient modulus of the granular layer
(sub-base/ base) in MPa, MSupport = effective resilient modulus of the supporting layer (MPa) (i.e., the com-
bination of the subgrade layer and layer of the borrow material), p = contact pressure = 0.56 MPa, a = radius
of circular contact area, which can be calculated using the load applied (40,000 N) and the contact pressure
‘p’ (0.56 MPa) = 150.8 mm, µ = Poisson’s ratio = 0.35, δ = Deflection, MRS = effective resilient modulus of
the supporting layer (MPa), MBitumen = Resilient modulus of Bitumen layer
Table 2 The rutting and fatigue Proposed model Empirical relation

model as proposed by IRC 37
[40] Rutting model [ ]4.5337
NR = 4.1656 × 10−08 1∕𝜀v (for 80% reliability)
−08
[ ] 4.5337
NR = 1.41 × 10 1∕𝜀v (for 90% reliability)
Fatigue model Nf = 1.6064 ∗ C ∗ 10 −04
[
1∕𝜀t
]3.89 [
∗ 1∕MRm
]0.854
(for 80% reliability)
]3.89 [ ]0.854
Nf = 0.5161 ∗ C ∗ 10−04 1∕𝜀t
[
∗ 1∕MRm (for 90% reliability)
( )
Vbe
where, C = 10M , M = 4.84 − 0.69
Va + Vbe
NR = subgrade rutting life in number of standard axles, εv = vertical compressive strain at the top of the sub-
grade calculated using linear elastic layered theory Va = Percent volume of air void in the mix used in the
bottom bituminous layer, Vbe = Percent volume of effective bitumen in the mix used in the bottom bitumi-
nous layer, Nf = Fatigue life of bituminous layer in number of standard axles, εt = Maximum horizontal ten-
sile strain at the bottom of the bottom bituminous layer, MRm = Resilient modulus (MPa) of the bituminous
mix used in the bottom bituminous layer
13
29
where, 𝜀V1 = Vertical compressive strain on the subgrade inputs such as the layer thicknesses, moduli, Poisson's
in unreinforced case, 𝜀V2 = Vertical compressive strain on ratio values, the standard axle load of 80 kN distributed on
the subgrade in reinforced case. four wheels (20 kN on each wheel), and tyre pressure as
Step 7: By repeated trials and back calculations method, 0.56 MPa. Since the analysis is performed for the standard
in case of reinforced pavement, the height of base layer axle of 80 kN, an effective single-wheel load of 40,000 N is
is reduced based on the equal subgrade strain value of given as an input parameter. The estimation of resilient sub-
unreinforced pavement model. Using the value of reduced grade modules for different pavement layers is done based on
base layer thickness, the resilient modulus of the base the empirical relationship, as illustrated in Table 1.
layer for reinforced pavement is determined as per the Once all the required parameters are given as input, the
formulae given in Table 1. program is executed using the RUN option. After the execu-
Step 8: Furthermore, using the same base layer thick- tion of the program, output has been displayed with strain
ness for both the unreinforced and reinforced pavement and displacement values at various locations. For example,
sections as given in IRC 37 [40] for different values of the tensile strain and vertical subgrade strain are evaluated
CBR and traffic loads, the surface deflection was obtained for CBR of 10% and traffic load of 10 msa. The obtained
through numerical analyses. Then, the effective resilient value of tensile strain is 0.2550 × 10–3 and vertical subgrade
modulus of the supporting layer is computed using the strain is 0.4490 × 10–3. For 80% reliability, the limiting value
obtained deflection values as explained in Table 1. Then, of tensile strain is 0.326 × 10–3 and the vertical subgrade
resilient modulus of both reinforced and unreinforced strain is 0.673 × 10–3. It is clear that the obtained values
base layers is again calculated with the value of sup- are within the permissible limit, so the pavement section is
porting layer. Based on the obtained value of resilient safe. IITPAVE only gives the design methodology for the
modulus of base layer for reinforced and unreinforced design of unreinforced flexible pavement. However, there is
pavement, a modulus improvement factor is derived as no provision for the design of reinforced flexible pavement
in IITPAVE.
Modulus of base layer for reinforced pavement
MIF = .
Modulus of base layer for unreinforced pavement Numerical Modeling of Unreinforced and Reinforced
(2) Pavement with Geogrid
This procedure is repeated for a different combination of The finite-element (FE) modeling for unreinforced and rein-
CBR values and traffic loads to get a new design catalogue forced flexible pavements is described in detail.
for geogrid-reinforced flexible pavement.
I. Boundary Conditions and Mesh Discretization
Two-dimensional finite-element analyses for both the
Numerical Modeling unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced flexible pavements
are performed using PLAXIS 2D which is an effective
This section briefly discusses the numerical analysis of unre- FEM-based software, used to perform the deformation
inforced and reinforced (i.e., geogrid) flexible pavements and stability analysis of geotechnical engineering activi-
using finite-element method (FEM) based software, PLAXIS ties. For both the design of unreinforced and reinforced
2D [39]. Whereas, for evaluation of the results based on flexible pavements, the thickness of various pavement
numerical analysis, a mechanistic-empirical software pro- layers, such as subgrade, sub-base, base, and bitumen
gram IITPAVE is used as the benchmark for the problems. layer, is taken from the design catalogue given in IRC
37 [40] corresponding to CBR value and traffic load.
Multilayer Elastic Linear Analysis of Pavement According to IRC 37 [40], the flexible pavement was
modeled as a multilayer structure. The model prepared
IITPAVE software, developed by IIT Kharagpur, is an for an unreinforced case for CBR of 10% and traffic load
elastic multilayer linear analysis tool that is used to design of 10 msa is shown in Fig. 1a. The model prepared for a
unreinforced pavements using the FPAVE subroutine [41]. reinforced case for geogrid stiffness of 400 kN/m, CBR
The stresses, strains, and deflection for a standard axle load of 10%, and traffic load of 10 msa is shown in Fig. 1b.
were computed using this software at the critical points for At the boundaries, a standard fixity is used, which means
unreinforced pavement, as recommended by IRC 37 [40]. In that only horizontal displacement is restricted in the ver-
this simulation, structural analysis of unreinforced pavement tical boundaries, whereas both vertical and horizontal
is carried out using this IITPAVE software, with required displacements are restricted at the bottom boundary.
13
Table 3 Properties of pavement material and geogrid used in the

numerical modelling for CBR of 10% and traffic load of 10 msa
Parameters Values
Bitumen layer
Thickness of pavement layer (mm) 80
Resilient modulus (MPa) 3000
Poisson’s ratio 0.35
Base
Subbase
Subgrade
Geogrid
Material Model Elastic
Stiffness, EA (kN/m) 400, 800
cular with a tyre pressure of 565 kPa. The radius of the

circular load was taken as 150 mm.
II. Material Properties
The axisymmetric linear elastic model was consid-
ered for both unreinforced and reinforced flexible pave-
ments. Axisymmetric modelling was chosen in this
study, because it could simulate circular loading [15, 17,
42, 43]. A model of with or without reinforced flexible
pavement section contains bituminous layer, granular
base layer, granular sub-base layer, and subgrade layer.
In the analysis, the different pavement layers were mod-
eled using the 15-noded structural solid element. For
different CBR values and traffic loads, the estimation of
resilient modulus or elastic modulus for separate pave-
ment layers is done based on the empirical relation-
Fig. 1 Finite-element modelling for CBR of 10% and traffic load
ship, as illustrated in Table 1. For the flexible pavement
of 10 msa: a unreinforced pavement; b pavement reinforced with
geogrid having stiffness of 400 kN/m design, the thickness of various layers and the resilient
modulus or elastic modulus of different layers have been
calculated from IRC 37 [40] guidelines. For example,
Mesh discretization has been done using 15-noded the required input parameters for CBR of 10% and traf-
triangular elements. For all the analysis, mesh with a fic load of 10 msa are shown in Table 3. As suggested
relative element size of 0.333 has been adopted. Addi- in IRC 37 [40], the Poisson’s ratio for every layer was
tional mesh refinement was also carried out at the inter- taken as 0.35. Geogrid was modeled by placing geogrid
faces of different layers of the pavement and also near element at the base layer of pavement. For geogrid-
the geogrid. Analysis with ‘fine mesh’ gives results in reinforced pavement, biaxial elastic geogrid has been
higher accuracy but of course with the cost of reason- considered in the model and only the value of axial stiff-
able computational time. According to IRC 37 [40], the ness ‘EA’ is given as an input parameter, as illustrated
responses of the pavement were analyzed under static in Table 3. The shear strength of the interface element is
loading conditions. The loading was assumed to be cir- represented in PLAXIS 2D by specifying an ‘Interface
13
29
Reduction Factor,’ i.e., ‘Rint,’ which captures the inter- this study was to validate the finite-element model of both
face strength as a proportion of the shear strength of the unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced pavement sections done
surrounding soil mass. The status of the soil at the soil– in PLAXIS, so that further study can be carried out using
structure interface determines the value of the reduc- the validated numerical models. The details of the validation
tion factor for interface elements. To provide a smooth process are given below.
interfacial interaction between the various pavement
layer elements, ‘Rint’ is considered as 1. In the pavement Validation of the Unreinforced 2D‑Numerical Model
response model, full contact between the geogrid and
the layer of the pavement is considered. On paved roads The unreinforced flexible pavement is modeled and analysis
with a limited amount of permissible surface rutting, the is done using FE method-based software using the same
chances of slippage are minimal unless excessive rutting input parameters (i.e., pavement layer thicknesses, mod-
occurs [44]. uli, Poisson’s ratio values of different pavement layers as
III. Analysis 0.35, the standard axle load of 80 kN, and tyre pressure as
Various phases are considered to represent the differ- 0.56 MPa) which are adopted in IITPAVE. For the flexible
ent states of construction in the actual field scenario. The pavement design, the thickness of various layers and the
study is conducted in four steps: resilient modulus or elastic modulus of different layers have
a. Initial phase: In this phase, stresses are generated within been calculated from IRC 37 [40] guidelines. For a case of
the soil volume by Ko-procedure which takes into CBR 8% and traffic load ranging from 5 to 50 msa, the ver-
account the stress history of soil; tical compressive strain values on subgrade obtained from
b. Phase 1: In this phase, subgrade and sub-base layers of FE analyses are compared with the same obtained from IIT-
pavement are activated from the explorer window; PAVE software. Table 4 represents the comparison of verti-
c. Phase 2: In this phase, base and bituminous layers of cal compressive strain on subgrade obtained from both the
unreinforced pavement are activated from the explorer IITPAVE and PLAXIS 2D [39]. Also, the vertical compres-
window, and for reinforced pavement, geogrid layer is sive strain values on subgrade obtained from FE analyses
also activated from the explorer window; are compared with the limiting vertical strain values (i.e.,
d. Phase 3: In this phase, the loading condition is activated obtained from the Equation given in Table 2) for the CBR of
simulating the deformation of the pavement section. 8% and traffic load ranging from 5 to 50 msa, as illustrated
e. The displacements are applied to the nodes of the pave- in Table 4.
ment subgrade layer using a displacement control func- Table 4 indicates that the obtained strain values of the
tion available in PLAXIS 2D. current FE analysis are within the permissible limit, so
the pavement section is safe. Also, from Table 4, it can be
concluded that the obtained numerical results showed very
Validation good agreement with the results of IITPAVE software with
an average 5.2% variation in the results. Therefore, this
In this section, the FE model of unreinforced flexible pave- validated 2D FE model is used to investigate the response
ment obtained from PLAXIS 2D [39] was validated with the of unreinforced flexible pavement under static loading
results obtained from IITPAVE, and later on, the 2D-numeri- conditions.
cal results of geogrid-reinforced flexible pavement were vali-
dated with the experimental results obtained in large-scale
accelerated paved models [45]. The preliminary purpose of
Table 4 Comparison of vertical Traffic in msa Thickness of pavement layers Strain (allowable value Strain (using Strain (using
subgrade strain values for CBR (mm) (as per IRC 37 [40]) as per IRC 37 [40]) IITPAVE) FE analysis)
of 8%
Subbase Base Bitumen
5 150 250 80 7.84 × 10‾4 6.39 × 10ˉ4 6.43 × 10ˉ4

10 200 250 90 6.73 × 10‾4 4.96 × 10ˉ4 5.02 × 10ˉ4
20 200 250 120 5.77 × 10‾4 4.21 × 10ˉ4 4.26 × 10ˉ4
30 200 250 135 4.16 × 10‾4 3.58 × 10ˉ4 3.64 × 10ˉ4
50 200 250 155 3.90 × 10‾4 3.19 × 10ˉ4 3.24 × 10ˉ4
13
Validation of the Geogrid‑Reinforced 2D‑Numerical kN/m). In this analysis, the loading state was simulated
Model by adding a contact pressure of 700 kPa, which was also
used in laboratory experiments. The radius of the load-
The precision of the numerical simulation is validated by ing area was taken as 60 mm. With regard to the loading
comparing the results of the numerical analyses with the mode, Faheem and Hassan [46] checked that for low-
large-scale model testing results obtained by Correia [45]. stress amplitudes, dynamic loading had no major impact
Correia [45] carried out a large-scale model testing on on the geogrid-reinforced pavement behavior.
geogrid-reinforced paved road where the model was loaded The findings obtained from the numerical analysis were
using wheel tracking facility to evaluate the beneficial effect compared with experimental results. Figure 2 represents the
of geogrid reinforcement. comparison of vertical surface displacement obtained from
In the present study, considering the symmetry, just both the experiment and PLAXIS 2D [39]. The 2D-numeri-
one-half of the geogrid-soil structure was modeled cal results of maximum vertical surface displacement under
numerically. In the simulation, the bituminous layer has the wheel load area showed very good agreement with the
been designed as linear elastic model, while subgrade results of experimental study. Moreover, the numerical simu-
and base layers have been designed as Mohr–Coulomb lations would not accurately capture the trend found in the
model. The unit weight, Young’s modulus, and Poisson’s experimental findings in the area of upheaval zone along the
ratio of the bituminous layer were reported as 25 kN/m3, wheel track [47]. Comparing the results of numerical and
2500 MPa, and 0.35, respectively. For the base layer, the experimental large-scale pavement model, similar vertical
unit weight, Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion, surface displacement behavior was observed by Saevars-
and Friction angle were reported as 22 kN/m3, 100 MPa, dottir [48]. Ling and Liu [49] reported that linear elastic
0.30, 0.01 kPa, and 45°, respectively. The unit weight, models were constrained to replicate volumetric changes in
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohesion, and Friction the bituminous layer and the sometimes nonlinear behavior
angle of the subgrade layer were reported as 18 kN/m3, of geogrids. However, in the present study, the maximum
10 MPa, 0.40, 46 kPa, and 26°, respectively. Geogrid was vertical surface displacement was required to obtain a spe-
modeled by placing the geogrid element in the bituminous cific design catalogue for the geogrid-reinforced flexible
layer of pavement. The geogrid element was considered pavements and the numerical model was able to accurately
as linearly elastic, defined by axial stiffness, EA (i.e., 900 estimate the maximum vertical displacement behavior on the
surface layer. Thus, by placing the geogrid at the base of the
pavement layer in the same validated FE model, numerical
analysis of the geogrid-reinforced case has been carried out
to investigate the response of reinforced flexible pavement
under static loading.
Results and Discussion
To evaluate the improvement achieved by the geogrid

reinforcement, two cases were analyzed, namely, the unre-
inforced flexible pavement and the geogrid-reinforced
pavement. Also, the comparative study between different
types of geogrid (i.e., stiffness of 400 kN/m and 800 kN/m)
reinforced pavement based on modulus improvement fac-
tor (MIF) and service life ratio (SLR) is discussed in this
section.
Unreinforced Pavement
The vertical compressive strain on subgrade of unreinforced

flexible pavement for different CBR values and traffic load
cases was obtained using the validated PLAXIS 2D [39]
model. For example, the allowable vertical subgrade strain
Fig. 2 Comparison of experimental and numerical surface vertical values obtained from the Equation (i.e., given in Table 2)
displacements given in IRC 37 [40] and the subgrade strain values obtained
13
29
Table 5 Comparison of design thickness of pavement layers based on IRC 37 [40] recommendation and FE analysis for different subgrade CBR
Traffic in msa Design parameters CBR values
3% 8% 10%
5 Thickness of Pavement base layer (mm) (as per IRC 37 [40]) 250 250 250
Thickness of modified pavement layers (mm) (Using FE analysis) 200 200 170
Strain (Using FE analysis) 7.79 × 10‾4 7.84 × 10‾4 5.65 × 10‾4
Strain (allowable value as per IRC 37 [40]) 7.84 × 10‾4 7.84 × 10‾4 7.84 × 10‾4
Fig. 3 Comparison of design catalogue based on IRC 37 [40] recom- Fig. 4 Comparison of design catalogue based on IRC 37 [40] recom-
mendation and FE analysis for CBR of 3% mendation and FE analysis for CBR of 8%
from FE analyses are given in Table 4 for CBR of 8% and equal to the allowable strain on the subgrade. According
traffic load ranging from 5 to 50 msa. The result shows that to the guidelines given in the IRC 37 [40], it is mandated
strain values on subgrade obtained from PLAXIS 2D are to keep a minimum of 150 mm of base layer thickness for
much lesser than the allowable strain value. Hence, the flexible pavement design. Therefore, the reduced base layer
thickness of base layer is reduced by repeated trials and thickness should be within this limit. Based on the afore-
back calculations method to obtain the strain on subgrade mentioned equation given in Table 2, the allowable vertical
13
compressive strain at the top of the subgrade was calculated

for 80% reliability. A comparison study was done with the
modified pavement layers thickness and the thickness of
pavement layers as recommended by IRC 37 [40] guidelines.
Furthermore a comparison was done with the obtained strain
value and allowable strain value for different traffic loads as
prescribed by IRC 37 [40] guidelines.
The modified thicknesses of pavement layers along with
the strain values obtained from numerical analyses for CBR
of 3%, 8%, and 10% are given in Table 5. From Table 5, it is
understandable that the strain values obtained from numeri-
cal analyses are below the limiting strain as per IRC 37 [40]
for the given CBR value, the modified thickness of pavement
layer, and traffic load. Hence, the section is considered to be
safe for modified pavement thickness and assumed traffic
load.
The design catalogues depicting the comparison of IRC
Fig. 5 Comparison of design catalogue based on IRC 37 [40] recom- 37 [40] recommended thickness of pavement layers and the
mendation and FE analysis for CBR of 10% thickness of modified pavement layers obtained from the
numerical study are shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5 for CBR
of 3%, 8%, and 10%, respectively. As depicted in Table 5
and Figs. 3, 4, and 5, use of modified pavement thickness
as obtained from numerical study instead of IRC 37 [40]
Table 6 Effect of geogrid 1 Traffic in msa Design parameters CBR values

reinforcement in base layer for
different subgrade CBR 3% 8% 10%
5 Thickness of reinforced base layer (mm) (Using FE analysis) 225 225 225
MR (MPa) (Unreinforced base layer) 138.9 205.56 240.28
MR (MPa) (Reduced base layer) 132.48 196.04 229.15
MIF 1.05 1.05 1.05
SLR 1.30 1.36 1.36
MIF 1.04 1.04 1.04
SLR 1.32 1.33 1.34
MIF 1.04 1.04 1.04
SLR 1.27 1.30 1.30
MIF 1.04 1.04 1.04
SLR 1.27 1.33 1.31
MIF 1.04 1.04 1.04
SLR 1.27 1.33 1.31
13
29
recommended thickness of the pavement will also be safe Geogrid‑Reinforced Pavement

from the design point of view. It has been observed from
numerical study that the design catalogue given by IRC 37 The effect of reinforcement in the flexible pavement was
[40] for the subgrade of different CBR values has been made analyzed by introducing two different geogrids of stiffness
with sufficient factor of safety to avoid failure of the pave- values of 400 kN/m and 800 kN/m using PLAXIS 2D [39].
ment due to excessive rutting. This analysis is also done for In the first case, using geogrid of stiffness 400 kN/m, a com-
CBR 5% and 12% and these results are also following the parison study of the reinforced and unreinforced pavement
same trend. section was analyzed, as shown in Table 6. In the second
case, the geogrid stiffness of 800 kN/m was considered for
analysis.
Geogrid 1 (Stiffness 400 kN/m)
The modified thickness of base layer with geogrid of stiff-

ness 400 kN/m obtained from PLAXIS 2D and the values
recommended in IRC 37 [40] are given in Table 6 for CBR
of 3%, 8% and 10%. It can be observed that the thickness
of modified pavement base layer is less than that of conven-
tional pavement base layer thickness.
Based on the reduced thickness of reinforced base layer,
the resilient modulus of reinforced pavement is determined
and it is not much less than that of conventional pavement.
Also, using the same base layer thickness for both the unre-
inforced and reinforced pavement sections as given in IRC
37 [40] for subgrade CBR value of 10% and a traffic load
of 10 msa, and the surface deflection values for both pave-
ments are obtained from FE analyses, which are shown in
Fig. 6a and b. Hence, using the obtained surface deflection,
the calculated resilient modulus (as per the formula given
in Table 1) values of unreinforced and reinforced base layer
were found to be 273.65 MPa and 285.76 MPa. This calcula-
tion is done for a different combination of CBR values and
traffic loads, and based on the obtained resilient modulus
Fig. 6 Colored contours of deflection of pavement having CBR of

10% and traffic load of 10 msa: a unreinforced pavement; b pavement Fig. 7 Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein-
reinforced with geogrid having stiffness of 400 kN/m forced pavement with geogrid 1 for CBR of 3%
13
layer, the service life of reinforced pavement is improved

by around 1.27–1.36 times compared to the unreinforced
pavements.
37 [40] recommended thickness of pavement layers and
the thickness of reinforced pavement layers obtained from
numerical study are shown in Figs. 7, 8, and 9 for CBR of
3%, 8%, and 10%, respectively. As represented in Figs. 7,
8, and 9, it can also be seen that change in CBR value has
negligible effect on the variation of thickness of base layer.
Geogrid 2 (Stiffness 800 kN/m)
In the second case, the modified thickness of base layer with

geogrid of stiffness 800 kN/m obtained from FE software
and the values recommended in IRC 37 [40] are given in
Table 7 for different CBR values. It can be observed that
Fig. 8 Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein- the thickness of the modified base layer of the pavement is
forced pavement with geogrid 1 for CBR of 8%
significantly less than that of the conventional base layer
thickness due to the use of higher stiffness geogrid material.
The resilient modulus of reinforced pavement is deter-
mined based on the reduced thickness of reinforced base
layer, and a very small reduction of modulus values of rein-
forced base layer of approximately 0.86% can be observed
as compared to the same obtained for the unreinforced case.
Also, using the same base layer thickness for both the unre-
inforced and reinforced pavement sections, the resilient
modulus values of the base layer and vertical compressive
strain on the subgrade in case of the reinforced pavement
are determined as described for geogrid 1, and based on
these values, modulus improvement factor and service life
ratio are obtained for CBR of 3%, 8% and 10%. The modu-
lus improvement factor and service life ratio are given in
Table 7. From Table 7, it can be seen that the modulus val-
ues of reinforced base layer are improved by around 1.162
times to that of unreinforced case. The study shows that the
geogrid-reinforced flexible pavement improved the pavement
service life by around 1.53–1.67 times compared to the unre-
Fig. 9 Comparison of design catalogue for unreinforced and rein-
forced pavement with geogrid 1 for CBR of 10% inforced pavements.
37 [40] recommended thickness of pavement layers and
values of the base layer in case of the reinforced and unrein- the thickness of reinforced pavement layers obtained from
forced pavements, a modulus improvement factor is derived numerical study are shown in Figs. 10, 11, and 12 for CBR
for different CBR values and the outcomes are given in of 3%, 8%, and 10%, respectively. As shown in Figs. 10, 11,
Table 6. From Table 6, it can be seen that the modulus values and 12, due to the use of geogrid, reduction in the base layer
of reinforced base layer are improved by around 1.042 times thickness can be observed and this reduction becomes more
to that of unreinforced case. A similar modulus improve- significant with the increase in geogrid stiffness.
ment value was observed by Goud et al. [50]. Furthermore, Furthermore, the comparative study between different
based on the obtained vertical subgrade strain values from types of geogrid (i.e., stiffness of 400 kN/m and 800 kN/m)
FE analyses in case of the reinforced and unreinforced pave- reinforced pavement based on modulus improvement fac-
ments, service life ratio is derived for different CBR values tor (MIF) and service life ratio (SLR) is given in Fig. 13a
and the outcomes are shown in Table 6. From Table 6, it can and b. From Fig. 13a, it can be observed that the MIF val-
be observed that due to the use of geogrid as a reinforced ues are improved due to the inclusion of geogrid with a
13
29
Table 7 Effect of geogrid 2 Traffic in msa Design parameters CBR values

reinforcement in base layer for
different subgrade CBR 3% 8% 10%
MIF 1.17 1.17 1.17
SLR 1.61 1.65 1.67
MIF 1.16 1.16 1.16
SLR 1.56 1.61 1.63
MIF 1.16 1.16 1.16
SLR 1.55 1.61 1.63
MIF 1.16 1.16 1.16
SLR 1.56 1.62 1.63
MIF 1.16 1.16 1.16
SLR 1.53 1.63 1.63

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

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

pavement sections with poor condition subgrade soil (CBR
of 3%) showed (Tables 6 and 7) significant improvements
in service life ratio. As the increment of service life ratio
depends on the enhancement of subgrade condition and
intrinsic properties of geogrid, minor benefit in service life
ratio (SLR) was observed for sections constructed on a stiff
subgrade soil (CBR of 10%). Even when there is constant
value observed for MIF for a particular type of geogrid, it
is observed that the service life ratio (SLR) of the pavement
increases for a particular type of geogrid with the increase
of the CBR of the subgrade.
From the comparisons shown in Fig. 13a and b, it is clear Fig. 13 Comparison for geogrids of different stiffness values: a MIF
that higher stiffness geogrid-reinforced pavement yields bet- and b SLR
ter performance improvement than lower stiffness geogrid-
reinforced pavement.
ible pavements improved the pavement service life ratio
by around 1.27–1.67 times compared to the unreinforced
Conclusions pavements.
2. According to the results of numerical analysis, the resil-
The present study deals with the evaluation of flexible pave- ient modulus of the pavement base layer was improved
ment as per the guidelines given by IRC 37 [40]. This study due to the inclusion of geogrid in the base layer as com-
deals with the inclusion of geogrid in the pavement. The pared to unreinforced pavement.
study also covers the analysis for the presently adopted IRC 3. The strain on the subgrade considerably reduces with
design catalogue for different CBR values of subgrade and the inclusion of geogrid in the base layer and causes the
also for different traffic loads. The following conclusions can reduction in thickness of the base layer for equal strain
be drawn from the study described above: at subgrade as it was in the case of IRC 37 recommended
thickness in the design catalogues.
1. As compared to the performance of an unreinforced 4. As the stiffness of geogrid increases, the strain on the
pavement, the geogrid reinforcement provided signifi- subgrade is reduced to a large extent. Along with that
cant improvement in terms of service life of the pave- with the increased stiffness of geogrid material, the ser-
ment. The study shows that the geogrid-reinforced flex-
13
29
vice life ratio (SLR) of the pavement is also found to be Conference on Geotextile, Geomembranes and Related Products,
increasing. Singapore, pp. 95–100
13. Haas R, Walls J, Carroll RG (1988) Geogrid reinforcement of
5. In the findings of this study, it is also shown that with granular bases in flexible pavements. Transp Res Rec 1188:19–27
the increased stiffness of geogrid material, the Modulus 14. Ling HI, Liu Z (2001) Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced
Improvement Factor (MIF) of the pavement is also found asphalt pavements. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 127(2):177–184
to be increasing. 15. Moayedi H, Kazemian S, Prasad A, Huat B (2009) Effect of
geogrid reinforcement location in paved road improvement. Elec-
6. The results of the study have been presented in the form tron J Geotech Eng 14:1–11
of design catalogues for various kinds of geogrid rein- 16. Nazzal M, Abu-Farsakh M, Mohammad L (2010) Implementation
forcement. If the properties of geogrid are known, these of a critical state two-surface model to evaluate the response of
catalogues can be directly referred to design a reinforced geosynthetic reinforced pavements. Int J Geomech 10(5):202–212
17. Pandey S, Rao RK, Tiwari D (2012) Effect of geogrid reinforce-
flexible pavement. ment on critical responses of bituminous pavements. In Proc., 2 5th
ARRB Conf. Shaping the Future: Linking Policy, Research and
Outcomes, 17. Exton, PA: ARRB Group Ltd
Acknowledgements This study was funded by the project “Perfor- 18. Taherkhani H, Jalali M (2016) Investigating the performance of
mance Study of Geocell Reinforced Road Pavement at Dholera Acti- geosynthetic-reinforced asphaltic pavement under various axle
vation Area”, by Dholera Industrial City Development Ltd., A Govern- loads using finite-element method. Road Materials Pavement
ment of Gujarat Undertaking, under Sanction No.: FT/05/299/2021. Design 18(5):1200–1217
19. Virgili A, Canestrari F, Grilli A, Santagata FA (2009) Repeated
Author contributions SB: numerical analyses, interpretation of results, load test on bituminous systems reinforced by geosynthetics. Geo-
and writing—original draft. VKS: study conceptualization and method- text Geomembr 27(3):187–219
ology. BM: study conceptualization, supervision, and writing—review 20. Wsathugala GW, Huang B, Pal S (1996) Numerical simulation of
and editing. JTS: supervision, and writing—review and editing. geosynthetic-reinforced flexible Pavements. J Transp Res Record
TRB 1534:58–65
21. Obando-Ante J, Palmeira EM (2015) A laboratory study on the
performance of geosynthetic reinforced asphalt overlays. Int J
References Geosynth Ground Eng 1:5
22. Singh M, Trivedi A, Shukla SK (2020) Influence of geosynthetic
1. Barksdale RD, Brown SF (1989) Potential benefits of geosyn- reinforcement on unpaved roads based on CBR, and static and
thetics in flexible pavement. In: National Cooperative Highway dynamic cone penetration tests. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 6:13
Research Program. Transportation Research Board, National 23. Ahmed Kamel M, Chandra S, Kumar P (2004) Behavior of
Research Council, Washington, DC subgrade soil reinforced with geogrid. Int J Pavement Eng
2. Rigo JM, Degeimbre R, Francken L (1993) Reflective Cracking 5(4):201–209
in Pavements: state of the art and design recommendations. E & 24. Cancelli A, Montanelli F (1999) In-ground test for geosynthetic
FN Spon, London reinforced flexible paved roads. Proceedings of the conference
3. Bathurst RJ, Raymond GP (1987) Geogrid reinforcement of bal- geosynthetics '99, Boston, MA, USA, April, 863–878
lasted track. Transp Res Rec 1153:8–14 25. Chan FWK, Barksdale RD, Brown SF (1989) Aggregate base rein-
4. Bergado DT, Chai JC, Abiera HO, Alfaro MC, Balasubramaniam forcement of surfaced pavements. Geotext Geomembr 8:165–189
AS (1993) Interaction between cohesive-frictional soil and various 26. Collin JG, Kinney TC, Fu X (1996) Full scale highway load test
grid reinforcements. Geotext Geomembr 12(4):327–349 of flexible pavement system with geogrid reinforced base courses.
5. Brown SF, Thom NH, Kwan J (2006) Optimising the Geogrid Geosynth Int 3(4):537–549
Reinforcement of Rail Track Ballast. Railfound Conference, Bir- 27. Kinney TC, Abbott J, Schuler J (1998) Benefits of using geogrids
mingham, pp. 346–354 for base reinforcement with regard to rutting. Transportation
6. Indraratna B, Ngo NT, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2011) Behavior of Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
geogrid-reinforced ballast under various levels of fouling. Geotext No. 1611, National Research Council 86–96
Geomembr 29(3):313–322 28. Miura N, Sakai A, Taesiri Y (1990) Polymer grid reinforced pave-
7. Tutumluer E, Huang H, Bian X (2012) Geogrid-aggregate interlock ment on soft grounds. Geotext Geomembr 9:99–123
mechanism investigated through aggregate imaging based discrete 29. Moghaddas-Nejad F, Small JC (1996) Effect of geogrid rein-
element modeling approach. ASCE Int J Geomech 12(4):391–398 forcement in model track tests on pavements. J Transp Eng
8. Abu-Farsakh MY, Gu J, Voyiadjis GZ, Chen Q (2014) Mechanis- 122(6):468–474
tic–empirical analysis of the results of finite element analysis on 30. Montanelli F, Zhao A, Rimoldi P (1997) Geosynthetic reinforced
flexible pavement with geogrid base reinforcement. Int J Pavement pavement system: testing & design. Proceedings of the conference
Eng 15(9):786–798 geosynthetics ’97. Long Beach, CA, USA, March 1997, 619–632
9. Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q (2011) Evaluation of geogrid base rein- 31. Omoto S, Kawabata K, Mizobuchi M (1992) Reinforcement effect
forcement in flexible pavement using cyclic plate load testing. Int of geotextiles on pavements with weak subgrade. Earth Reinforce-
J Pavement Eng 12(3):275–288 ment Practice, Rotterdam, pp. 671–676
10. Ahirwara SK, Mandal JN (2017) Finite element analysis of flex- 32. Wang ZJ, Jacobs F, Ziegler M (2014) Visualization of load trans-
ible pavement with geogrids. Procedia Eng 189:411–416 fer behavior between geogrid and sand using PFC2D. Geotext
11. Al-Jumaili MAH (2016) Finite element modelling of asphalt Geomembr 42:83–90
concrete pavement reinforced with geogrid by using 3D plaxis 33. Wu H, Huang B, Shu X, Zhao S (2015) Evaluation of geogrid
software. Int J Mater Chem Phys 2(2):62–70 reinforcement effects on unbound granular pavement base course
12. Dondi G (1994) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of using loaded wheel tester. Geotext Geomembr 43(5):462–469
a reinforced paved road, In proceedings of Fifth International 34. Raymond G, Ismail I (2003) The effect of geogrid reinforcement
on unbound aggregates. Geotext Geomembr 21:355–380
13
35. Perkins SW, Christopher BR, Cuelho EL, Eiksund GR, Hoff I, 44. Terrel RL, Awad IS, Foss LR (1974) Techniques for Character-
Schwartz CW, Svanø G, Want A (2004) Development of Design izing Bituminous Materials using a Versatile Triaxial Testing Sys-
Methods for Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements. Report tem, ASTM STP 561, American Society for Testing and Materi-
No. DTFH61-01-X-00068, U.S. Department of Transportation, als, Philadelphia, pp. 47–66
Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., USA 45. Correia NS (2014) Performance of flexible pavements enhanced
36. Moghaddas-Nejad F, Small JC (2003) Resilient and permanent using geogrid-reinforced asphalt overlays. Ph.D. dissertation,
characteristics of reinforced granular materials by repeated load Univ. of Sao Paulo
triaxial tests. Geotech Test J 26(2):152–166 46. Faheem H, Hassan AM (2014) 2D Plaxis finite element modeling
37. AASHTO R50 (2009) Standard Practice for Geosynthetic Rein- of asphalt-concrete pavement reinforced with geogrid. J Eng Sci
forcement of the Aggregate Base Course of Flexible Pavement Assiut Univ Faculty Eng. 42(6):1336–1348
Structures. Washington, DC: American Association of Highway 47. Correia NS, Esquivel ER, Zornberg JG (2018) Finite-element eval-
and Transportation Officials uations of geogrid-reinforced asphalt overlays over flexible pave-
38. IRC: SP: 59 (2019) Guidelines for Use of Geosynthetics in Road ments. J Transp Eng Part B Pavements, ASCE 144(2):04018020
Pavements and Associated Works. 1st Rev. New Delhi: Indian 48. Saevarsdottir T (2014) Performance modelling of flexible pave-
Roads Congress ments tested in a heavy vehicle simulator. Ph.D. dissertation,
39. PLAXIS 2D (2020) Reference Manual. https://www.plaxis.com/ Univ. of Iceland
support/manuals/plaxis-2d-manuals/ 49. Ling H, Liu H (2003) Finite element studies of asphalt concrete
40. IRC: 37 (2018) Guidelines for the design of Flexible pavements. pavement reinforced with geogrid. J Eng Mech 129(7):801–811
Indian Roads Congress, Fourth revision, New Delhi 50. Goud GN, Ramu B, Umashankar B, Sireesh S, Madhav MR (2020)
41. Das A (1998) Analytical Design of Bituminous Pavements Based Evaluation of layer coefficient ratios for geogrid-reinforced bases
on Field Performance, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineer- of flexible pavements. J Road Mater Pavement Design. https://d oi.
ing Department, Indian Institute of Technology. Kharagpur, India org/10.1080/14680629.2020.1812424
42. Kazemian S, Barghchi M, Prasad A, Maydi H, Huat BK (2010)
Reinforced pavement above trench under urban traffic load: Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
case study and finite element (FE) analysis. J Sci Res Essay jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
5(21):3313–3328
43. Howard IL, Warren KA (2009) Finite-element modelling of
instrumented flexible pavements under stationary transient load-
ing. J Transp Eng ASCE 135(2):53–61
13
View publication stats

Novel Design Catalogue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Novel Design Catalogue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Novel Design Catalogue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

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

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

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Novel Approach to the Design of Geogrid‑Reinforced Flexible

Introduction with flexible pavements include rutting and fatigue from a

Table 1 Resilient modulus of Pavement layers Resilient modulus

Table 2 The rutting and fatigue Proposed model Empirical relation

Table 3 Properties of pavement material and geogrid used in the

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

5 150 250 80 7.84 × 10‾4 6.39 × 10ˉ4 6.43 × 10ˉ4

To evaluate the improvement achieved by the geogrid

The vertical compressive strain on subgrade of unreinforced

compressive strain at the top of the subgrade was calculated

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

recommended thickness of the pavement will also be safe Geogrid‑Reinforced Pavement

Geogrid 1 (Stiffness 400 kN/m)

The modified thickness of base layer with geogrid of stiff-

Fig. 6 Colored contours of deflection of pavement having CBR of

layer, the service life of reinforced pavement is improved

Geogrid 2 (Stiffness 800 kN/m)

In the second case, the modified thickness of base layer with

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

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

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

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

View publication stats

You might also like

Table 1 Resilient modulus of Pavement layers Resilient modulus

Table 2 The rutting and fatigue Proposed model Empirical relation

Table 3 Properties of pavement material and geogrid used in the

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

Fig. 6 Colored contours of deflection of pavement having CBR of

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

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

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