DEVELOPING FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN AIDE COUNTING GEOGRID EFFECT BY USING

PARAMETRICAL STUDY AND OPTIMIZATION PROCEDURE

Liecheng Sun, P.E., University of Kentucky, USA, charlie.sun@uky.edu
Clark Graves, P.E., P.G., University of Kentucky, USA, clark.graves@uky.edu
Leo Frank, P.E., Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, USA, Leo.Frank@ky.gov
Paul Looney, P.E., Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, USA, Paul.Looney@ky.gov
ABSTRACT
Strain analysis at bottom of asphalt layer in flexible pavement structure involving geogrid effect is
performed by using the program, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC). An optimized formula is
proposed for flexible pavement design that includes geogrid contribution by using parametrical study and
optimization procedure. Six parameters, including elastic modulus of geogrid, thickness of asphalt,
thickness of aggregate base, elastic modulus of asphalt, tire contact stress, and CBR are explored in the
parametrical study. Twenty-one coefficients in the proposed formula are optimized by targeting minimum
residual norm between results of a parametrical study and the proposed formula. The R2, which derived
from error analysis, is 0.9203. The limitations on geogrid effect from CBR of subgrade, thickness of
asphalt/base layer, and stiffness of asphalt layer are reflected in this formula. The benefit from geogrid
becomes significant as the subgrade soil is very soft, the base/asphalt layer thickness is thin, and the
stiffness of asphalt is low. But the benefit from geogrid decreases when CBR of subgrade soil increases,
the base/asphalt layer thickness increases, and the stiffness of asphalt is strengthened. A couple of
examples demonstrate efficient approaches to estimate thickness of asphalt and thickness of aggregate
base reduction by using the proposed optimized formula. The proposed formula can be easily programed
into any design kit to provide assistance to anyone who wants to explore the effect from geogrid
reinforcement in flexible pavement structure.
1. INTRODUCTION
Geogrids have been used by many transportation agencies to reinforce pavements for over 50 years. The
varying degrees of associated benefits have been reported from various sources (Haas et al., 1988;
Collin et al., 1996; Wathugala et al., 1996; Perkins and Ismeik, 1997; Kinney et al., 1998; Ling and Liu,
2003; Giroud and Han, 2004; Perkins et al., 2004; Perkins and Cortez, 2005; Helstrom et al., 2006; Maine
DOT, 2006; Henry et al., 2009; Gu, 2011; and Sun et al., 2015). When granular base is placed on clayey
subgrades that may soften and deflect under tire stress, tensile stress is developed at the bottom of the
granular layers and may cause pavement cracking. To lessen, or prevent, flexible pavement cracking due
to base deflection, geogrid may be placed at the bottom of the granular base, or on top of the finished
subgrade. By reinforcing the base layer with geogrid, the amount of granular material required to yield the
same pavement performance can be reduced.
When geogrid reinforces the base layer in flexible asphalt pavement structure, the most benefit is thought
to be created when there is good interlock of the granular base course and the geogrid. When good
interlocking is achieved, the geogrid confines the aggregate so that lateral movement of the base course
layer is significantly less during traffic loading than it would be without the geogrid. This results in
improved performance of both the base and the subgrade layers (Giroud and Han 2004).
As one means of examining the effectiveness of flexible pavements reinforced with geogrid, a strain
analysis at bottom of asphalt layer in flexible pavement structure involving geogrid effect is performed by
using the program, Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC). This method used to analyze flexible
pavements under tire contact stress studies the strain at bottom of asphalt layer. The strain of
GeoAmericas 2016 3rd PanAmerican Conference on Geosynthetics

unreinforced flexible pavement structure is compared to the strain of the same pavement structure
reinforced with a geogrid. Moreover, an optimized formula to evaluate the strain involving the tire contact
stress, the elastic modulus of asphalt, the thickness of asphalt, the thickness of granular base, the CBR
value of subgrade soil, and the elastic modulus of geogrid is developed by using a parameter optimization
procedure. This formula can be efficiently used to evaluate the effect from geogrid in the flexible
pavement structure.
2. NUMERICAL MODELING OF GEOGRID REINFORCED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
In this study, a finite difference model is used to estimate strain at the bottom of asphalt layer in the
pavement structure due to tire contact stress. This section describes the development of the finite
difference model, the estimation of layer material properties, and the impacts of the layers parameters
reflected by the granular base thickness, subgrade strength, as well as the stiffness of the geogrid
reinforcement layer on the structural performance of geogrid reinforced flexible pavement structure.
2.1 Method of Analysis
The program FLAC - Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (Itasca, 2008) is used to develop the planestrain numerical model for the flexible pavement structure with geogrid reinforced base layer, which is
composed by aggregate base. The multi-layered, geogrid reinforced, pavement structure is analyzed by
assigning different material models to different materials. The asphalt layer is modeled as elastic material.
The aggregate base layer and the subgrade layer are modeled using the Mohr-Coulomb model, which is
available in FLAC. The geogrid layer is modeled as linear elastic strip element, which is available in FLAC.
The solution without tire contact stress is run first as initial settlement and developing interlock bounding
among layers of aggregate base, geogrid, and subgrade. The sequential calculation with tire contact
stress is carried out in large-strain mode to
better represent deformation from subgrade
layer and aggregate base layer due to tire
contact stress. The different tire contact
stresses, the altered elastic moduli of asphalt,
the changed thicknesses of asphalt and
granular base, the altered elastic moduli of
geogrid, and the varied CBR values of clayey
subgrade are studied by using FISH
subroutines in the program.
2.2 Numerical Model
The mesh of analysis model with geogrid is
selected based on the distance at which the
vertical and horizontal strains become
insignificantly small in all layers. The depth of
the mesh is chosen to be at which the
maximum induced vertical stress in the
subgrade becomes insignificantly small. The
size of mesh used in the study has a width of
162.56 cm (64 in.) and a depth of 243.84 cm
(96 in.), shown in Figure 1. The varied finite
differential grid sizes are used to save the
operation memory and running time. The grid
size of 1.27 cm X 1.27 cm (0.5 in. X 0.5 in.) is
used in surrounding tire contact area. The grid

Figure1.Finitedifferencemodelforflexiblemultiple
layeredreinforcedpavementstructure

GeoAmericas 2016 3rd PanAmerican Conference on Geosynthetics

size of 5.08 cm X 5.08 cm (2.0 in. X 2.0 in.) is used at leftmost horizontally and deepest vertically. The
grid size of 10.16 cm X 10.16 cm (4.0 in. X 4.0 in.) is used in diagonally crossing from tire contact area.
Conventional boundary conditions are adopted such that the horizontal movement along the left and right
boundaries and the vertical movement along the bottom boundary are restrained by using roller supports.
A structure strip with thickness of 0.1 cm (0.039 in.) is used in the finite differential mesh grid to model the
geogrid. The structure strip is capable of resisting loads in tension but it has no resistance to compression
or bending. The half-tire load is approximately simulated by applying the uniform contact pressure on an
area with the length of 11.43 cm (4.5 inch) at the surface.
3. PARAMETRIC STUDY
A parametric study is conducted with the flexible pavement layered model to further examine the effect of
geogrid reinforcement on the strain at the bottom of asphalt layer in the flexible pavement structure. By
varying six sets of material properties, two thousand one hundred sixty (2,160) flexible pavement layered
cases are analyzed. They are chosen to represent a wide range of typical pavement sections that may
potentially benefit from geogrid reinforcement. The values selected for the parametric study are
summarized in Table 1.

Table1.Summaryofparametersvariedinparametricstudy

Since the induced strain in the geogrid is very small (<1%) and is considered within the linear elastic
range of the geogrid layer, a linear elastic model is used to describe the behavior of geogrid material. Two
sets of geogrid properties with typical equivalent Youngs moduli 5.85E5 kPa (8.48E4 psi) and 9.50E5
kPa (1.38E5 psi) are used to investigate the effect of geogrid tensile stiffness on pavement response and
performance. They represent weak geogrid (type I) and stiffer geogrid (type V) in conventional flexible
pavement structure respectively (Gu, 2011). Unreinforced finite difference models, which are represented
by zero of equivalent Youngs modulus of geogrid, are analyzed for all configurations. The benefit from
geogrid could be determined for each configuration that included the geogrid reinforcement layer.

GeoAmericas 2016 3rd PanAmerican Conference on Geosynthetics

Three different tire contact stresses, 552 kPa (80 psi), 689 kPa (100 psi), and 827 kPa (120 psi), which
stand for typical flexible pavement design loads are applied to investigate the loading sensitivity on the
bottom of asphalt layer.
An elastic model is used to describe the behavior of asphalt concrete layer. The Youngs modulus for
asphalt layer, Eas is selected as 3.50E5 kPa (5.08E4 psi), 3.45E6 kPa (5.00E5 psi), and 1.35E7 kPa
(1.96E6 psi) respectively. Poissons ratio for asphalt layer, as is selected as 0.4, 0.35, and 0.25
correspondingly. These values correspond to the typical moduli and Poissons ratios at 60 C, 20 C, and
0 C respectively (Irwin, 2010).
The asphalt layer thickness, tas is selected as 10.16 cm (4 in.), 15.24 cm (6 in.), 20.32 cm (8 in.), and 25.4
cm (10 in.). The aggregate base thickness, tag is selected as 15.24 cm (6 in.), 20.32 cm (8 in.), 25.4 cm
(10 in.) and 30.48 cm (12 in.). The geogrid is installed at the bottom of the aggregate base layer.
The Mohr-Coulomb model is used to model the aggregate base and subgrade layers. One set of
properties, mass-density = 2247.0 kg/m3 (140 pcf), bulk modulus = 4.17E5 kPa (6.05E4 psi), shear
modulus = 1.39E5 kPa (2.02E4 psi), cohesion = 26.0 kPa (3.77 psi), friction angle = 43.0, dilation angle =
0.0, and tension=0.0 Pa (0 psi), is selected for aggregate base layer. Five sets of properties for subgrade
layer are selected corresponding to California Bearing Ratios (CBRs) of 1, 3, 6, 10, and 15 ranged from
very soft soil to moderate, and to very stiff soil.
The data from two thousand one hundred sixty (2,160) pavement numerical model analyses are
overwhelming, and are hard for designers to use in their practical exploitation. It is a great benefit for
designers to develop an optimized equation including all the six sets of varied parameters listed in Table
1. Based on the analysis of function properties, authors propose a formula, Equation 1 for the modeling
of flexible pavements reinforced with geogrid that considers all the six parameters simultaneously.
E r1

t ag m4
t
E
15
CBR m2
k 2 ) m1
(k3
) (k 4 as ) m3 (k 5
) (k 6 as ) m5 k 7
as k1 (
CBR
15
tr
tr
E r2
E g E r1

E
t
t
* ( r k 8 ) m7 ( r k 9 ) m8 ( r 2 k10 ) m9 ( t k11 ) m10
t as
t ag
E as
pr

m6

[1]

Where, as is the strain at bottom of asphalt layer; CBR is the California Bearing Ratio; Eg is the elastic
modulus of geogrid; Er1 is the reference elastic modulus, 5.85E5 kPa (8.48E4 psi) is used for Eg
dimensionless; tas is the thickness of asphalt; tag is the thickness of aggregate base; tr is the reference
length, 30.48 cm (12 in.) is used for tas and tag dimensionless; Eas is the elastic modulus of asphalt; Er2 is
the reference elastic modulus, 1.35E7 kPa is used for Eas dimensionless; t is the tire contact stress; pr is
the reference pressure, 827 kPa is used for t dimensionless; and, ki (i = 1, 2,11) and mi (i = 1, 2,10)
are coefficients which will be determined by using optimization procedure.
Unlike a previous predicting formula (Sun et al., 2015), this formula includes the limitations on geogrid
effect from CBR of subgrade, thickness of asphalt/base layer, and stiffness of asphalt layer.
4. OPTIMIZING COEFFICIENTS IN PROPOSED FORMULA
The optimization procedure is intensively utilized for obtaining twenty one (21) coefficients, ki (i = 1,
2,11) and mi (i = 1, 2,10) for Equation 1. Minimizing the norm of difference between finite difference
model analysis results and predicted values using proposed formula is the target of optimization. Some
constraint combinations on different points are exercised. Combining minimum norm value checking and
confirmation on limited maximum difference between individual finite difference model analysis results
and predicted values using proposed formula, the final optimized coefficient sets are achieved, as shown
in Equations 2 and 3.
GeoAmericas 2016 3rd PanAmerican Conference on Geosynthetics




0.0356, 0.4225, 2.7234, 0.9837, 0.7528, 0.9985, 0.0849, 0.6833, 0.1186, 0.3962, 0.1330

[2]

0.2985,4.5975, 5.7600, 4.7117, 2.6746, 0.1116, 0.5588, 0.4667, 0.5060, 1.1958

[3]

The proposed formula for the flexible pavements reinforced with geogrid considering all the six
parameters is presented as:
as 0.0356(

15
0.4225) 0.2985
CBR

5.85E5
t ag 4.7117
t
E as 2.6746
CBR 4.5975
)
)
)
*
(2.7234
(0.9837 as ) 5.76 (0.7528
(0.9985
0.0849
15
30.48
30.48
1.35E7

E g 5.85E5

30.48
30.48
1.35E7
*(
0.6833) 0.5588 (
0.1186) 0.4667 (
0.3962) 0.5060 ( t 0.1330)1.1958
t as
t ag
E as
827

0.1116

[4]

From error analysis between parametric study results and predicted values using the proposed formula,
the R2 is 0.9203, which is excellent in the case of six-parameter optimized formula. By plugging numbers
of six parameters into this formula, it is evident that the benefit from geogrid is significant as the subgrade
soil is very soft (e.g. CBR = 1), the base/asphalt layer thickness is thin [e.g. tag/tas = 10.16 cm (4)] and the
stiffness of asphalt is low [e.g. Eas = 3.50E5 kPa (5.08E4 psi)]. But the benefit from geogrid decreases
when CBR of subgrade soil increases, the base/asphalt layer thickness grows, and the stiffness of
asphalt is strengthened.
5. EXAMPLES USING PROPOSED FORMULA
To demonstrate efficient approaches to quantify geogrid effect by using the proposed optimized formula,
a couple of examples using the proposed formula are presented in this section. The first example shown
here is to find the difference between pavement design with and without geogrid in pavement design.
The following parameters are used for explanation: CBR = 1; the elastic modulus of geogrid, Eg = 0 which
is equivalent to without geogrid; the thickness of asphalt, tas = 10.16 cm (4 in.); the thickness of aggregate
base, tag = 15.24 cm (6 in.); the elastic modulus of asphalt, Eas = 3.50E5 kPa (5.08E4 psi); and tire
contact pressure, t = 689 kPa (100 psi). Plugging these parameters into Equation 4, we get the strain at
bottom of asphalt, as = 0.749%. While the elastic modulus of geogrid, Eg = 5.85E5 kPa (8.48E4 psi) is
plugged into Equation 4, we find the strain at bottom of asphalt, as = 0.700%. That is 6.54% of strain
reduced. If the elastic modulus of geogrid, Eg = 9.5E5 kPa (1.38E5 psi) is plugged into Equation 4, the
strain at bottom of asphalt, as = 0.683% is achieved. That is an 8.81% reduction in strain.
The second example is to use same parameters as in the first example but consider it in a different way.
Keeping in mind the strain at bottom of asphalt layer, as equals to 0.749%, for the case without geogrid.
After using geogrid with the elastic modulus, Eg = 9.5E5 kPa (1.38E5 psi), we examine how much
aggregate base, or how much asphalt could be saved, or how much tire contact pressure can be
increased if same strain at bottom of asphalt is reached. When the thickness of the asphalt is kept at the
same value, the thickness of aggregate base is reduced to 12.33 cm (4.85 in.) and the strain at the
bottom of asphalt remains the same. That is a 2.91 cm (1.15 in.) reduction in aggregate base thickness,
GeoAmericas 2016 3rd PanAmerican Conference on Geosynthetics

which is a 19.17% savings of aggregate base. When the thickness of aggregate base is kept the same at
15.24 cm (6 in.), the thickness of asphalt is reduced to 8.92 cm (3.51 in.) and the strain at bottom of
asphalt remains the same. That is an asphalt savings of 1.24 cm (0.49 in.), which is a 12.25% asphalt
reduction. Or, if only changing tire contact pressure while all other parameters are kept same, the tire
contact pressure can be raised to 735 kPa (106.68 psi), which is a 46 kPa (6.68 psi) increase.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
An optimized formula, Equation 4 is proposed by using finite difference model analysis on flexible
pavements reinforced with geogrids and an optimization procedure. To examine the effect of geogrid
reinforcement on the strain at the bottom of the asphalt layer in a flexible pavement structure, two
thousand one hundred sixty (2,160) finite difference flexible pavement cases are analyzed. The R2, which
is derived from error analysis between finite difference flexible pavement structure analysis results and
predicted values using the proposed formula is 0.9203. That is an excellent result in the case of sixparameter function and twenty one (21) coefficient optimization. This formula takes into account the
limitations on geogrid effect from CBR of subgrade, thickness of asphalt/base layer, and stiffness of
asphalt layer. The benefit from geogrid is significant as the subgrade soil is very soft, the base/asphalt
layer thickness is thin, and the stiffness of asphalt is low. But the benefit from geogrid decreases when
CBR of subgrade soil increases, the base/asphalt layer thickness gets thicker, and the stiffness of asphalt
is strengthened. A couple of examples demonstrate efficient approaches to quantify geogrid effect by
using proposed optimized formula. The first example demonstrates an efficient approach to evaluate
difference between flexible pavement structures with and without geogrid reinforcement. The second one
demonstrates an efficient approach to calculate asphalt/base layer thickness reduction, and to assess
potential tire contact stress increase. The proposed formula can be easily programed into any design kit
to provide assistance to anyone who wants to explore the effect from geogrid reinforcement in flexible
pavement structure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for providing a financial support for this
project.
REFERENCES
Collin J.G., T.C. Kinney, and X. Fu (1996) Full Scale Highway Load Test of Flexible Pavement Systems
With Geogrid Reinforced Base Courses, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 537-549.
Giroud, J.P. and J. Han (2004). Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads. I. Development of
Design Method. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 130, No. 8,
pp. 775-786.
Gu, J. (2011) "Computational Modeling of Geogrid Reinforced Soil Foundation and Geogrid Reinforced
Base in Flexible Pavement," Ph.D. dissertation, the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 221 p.
Haas, R., J. Walls, and R.G. Carroll (1988) Geogrid Reinforcement of Granular Bases in Flexible
Pavements, Transportation Research Record 1188: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., pp. 19-27.

GeoAmericas 2016 3rd PanAmerican Conference on Geosynthetics

Helstrom, C.L., D.N. Humphrey, and J.M. Labbe (2006). Performance and Effectiveness of a Thin
Pavement Section Using Geogrids and Drainage Geocomposites in a Cold Region (Draft). New
England Transportation Consortium Project No. 00-8, 235 p.
Henry, Karen S., Joshua Clapp, William Davids, Dana Humphrey, and Lynette Barna (October 2009)
"Structural Improvements of Flexible Pavements Using Geosynthetics for Base Course
Reinforcement," ERDC/CRREL TR-09-11, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and
Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA518517%2526Location%3DU2%2526doc%3DGetTRDoc.pdf
Irwin, L.H. (July 2010) Typical Values of Youngs Elastic Modulus and Poissons Ratio for Pavement
Materials, ftp://www.clrp.cornell.edu/CDOT/Handouts/4c Materials Table.pdf
Itasca Consulting Group 2008. FLAC - Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Ver. 6.0.387, Minneapolis,
MN: Itasca.
Kinney, T., J. Abbott, and J. Schuler (1998a). Benefits of Using Geogrids for Base Reinforcement with
Regard to Rutting, Transportation Research Record 1611, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D. C., p. 86-96.
Ling, H.I. and Z. Liu (2003). Finite Element Studies of Asphalt Concrete Pavement Reinforced with
Geogrid. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE 129(7): 801-811.
Maine DOT (2006), Technical Report 99-8: Experimental Use of Geogrids as an Alternative to Gravel
Placement, Final Report, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME.
Perkins, S.W., B.R. Christopher, E.L. Cuelho, G.R. Eiksund, I. Hoff, C.W. Schwartz, G. Svan, and A.
Watn (2004). Development of Design Methods for Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavements. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, FHWA Report
Reference Number DTFH61-01-X-00068, 263 p.
Perkins, S.W. and E.R. Cortez (2005) Evaluation of base-reinforced pavements using a heavy vehicle
simulator. Geosynthtics International 12(2): 86-98.
Perkins, S.W., and Ismeik, M. (1997), A Synthesis and Evaluation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Base
Layers in Flexible Pavements: Part I, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 549-604.
Sun, L., C. Graves, T. Beckham, L. Frank, and P. Looney (2015). Formulating Geogrid Effect by Using
Bearing Capacity Analysis of Reinforced Flexible Pavements. Geosynthetics 2015, February 15-18,
Portland, Oregon, USA.
Wathugala, G.W., B. Huang, and, S. Pal (1996). Numerical Simulation of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Flexible Pavement. Transportation Research Record 1534, p. 58-65.

GeoAmericas 2016 3rd PanAmerican Conference on Geosynthetics