Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.
(2017)2:54
DOI 10.1007/s41062-017-0102-7
TECHNICAL PAPER
Effect of geogrid reinforcement on flexible pavements
E. M. Ibrahim1 S. M. El-Badawy2 M. H. Ibrahim2 A. Gabr2 A. Azam2
Received: 1 June 2017 / Accepted: 6 September 2017
 Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract Effectiveness of geogrids in flexible pavement
reinforcement was investigated throughout laboratory
testing and finite-element analysis (FEA). The laboratory
testing involved routine material characterization, resilient
modulus testing, and five pavement prototype sections.
These sections consisted of a 5 cm asphalt concrete (AC)
layer, 15 cm granular base layer, and a 30 cm clay sub-
grade. The base layer was reinforced with a single layer of
uniaxial geogrid placed at four different positions within
the base layer. The pavement sections were loaded with a
static plate-loading equipment and the results were com-
pared with the control section (CS), which had no rein-
forcement. Results from this study showed that geogrids
can be used to reduce tensile stresses in flexible pavement
systems. The optimum position of the geogrid reinforce-
ment to reduce tensile strains was found to be directly
underneath the AC layer then within 3350% of the
granular base layer height as measured from the bottom of
the base layer.
& S. M. El-Badawy
sbadawy@mans.edu.eg
E. M. Ibrahim
engemanmagdy@yahoo.com
M. H. Ibrahim
mouradhenry@yahoo.com
A. Gabr
eng-alaa1400@mans.edu.eg
A. Azam
Abdelhalim.Azam@mans.edu.eg
1
Civil Engineering Department, Delta Higher Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
2
Public Works Engineering Department, Faculty of
Engineering, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
Keywords Geogrid  Resilient modulus  Tensile strain 
Prototype pavement  FEA  Traffic benefits ratio
Introduction
The majority of roads built in Egypt as well as many other
countries in the world are flexible pavements. At some
point of time, this type of pavement may suffer from dif-
ferent distress types such as rutting and fatigue cracking.
Thus, various materials are used for the reinforcement of
pavement layers and subgrade soils to accommodate the
different distresses. These materials can vary greatly, either
in form (strips, sheets, grids, bars, or fibers), texture (rough
or smooth), and relative stiffness [22]. Geosynthetics are a
group of polymeric materials, which are applied more and
more in engineering projects, such as road and airport
construction and railway application as ground improve-
ment [13].
Many studies have been conducted to investigate the
behaviour of soil reinforced with different types of
geosynthetics through laboratory experimental tests and
Finite-Element Analysis (FEA). Kamel [29] performed a
laboratory testing program and finite-element computer
analysis to study the strength characteristics of both rein-
forced and unreinforced subgrade soils, subbase layers, and
granular base layers under cyclic loadings. Kamel [29]
used California Bearing Ratio (CBR), and unconfined and
triaxial compression tests to determine the optimum posi-
tion of the geogrid using two types of geogrids and three
types of subgrade soils (A-3, A-6, and A-7-5). The
researcher placed a single geogrid layer at 20, 40, 60, and
80% of subgrade, subbase, and base specimen height from
the bottom surface. Results indicated that the maximum
effect of reinforcement was obtained when the geogrid was
123
54 Page 2 of 15
placed at 2428% of the specimen height from the bottom
of the base, subbase, or subgrade.
Ling and Liu [31] conducted three major groups of tests:
static tests with monotonic loading and static tests with few
cycles of unloading and reloading and dynamic loading
tests. They used two types of geogrids (uniaxial and
biaxial). The dimensions of the used prototype were 60 cm
long, 20 cm wide, and 50 cm depth with thicknesses of
30 cm for subgrade and 6 cm for asphalt. The geogrid was
placed at the interface between the asphalt and subgrade
layer. Linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs)
were used to measure the deformations on the surface and
strain gauges were utilized to measure the strains at the
interface between the asphalt and subgrade layer. Results
of static and dynamic loading tests indicated that the
reinforced sections improved the stiffness in terms of the
slope of load versus settlement as well as the strength of the
asphalt pavement. They also reported that the settlement
under the loaded area of the reinforced system was reduced
when compared with the unreinforced pavement section.
Virgili et al. [39] evaluated the flexural behaviour of a
bi-layer bituminous system reinforced with polyester and
fibreglass geogrids through laboratory experiments. The
study reported that the reinforced system improved the
resistance to cyclic loading from 66 to 100%. Moayedi
et al. [34] investigated the effect of geogrid reinforcement
location in paved roads using an axisymmetric pavement
response model developed through the finite-element pro-
gram PLAXIS. The asphalt concrete (AC) layer and geo-
grid were both modelled as linear elastic isotropic
materials, while the MohrCoulomb material model was
used for the granular layers. Pavement behaviour was
determined under static loading condition. The reported
results showed that the geosynthetic reinforcement placed
at the bottom of the AC layer led to the highest reduction in
vertical pavement deflection.
Zornberg and Gupta [41] evaluated geosynthetic-rein-
forced pavements constructed over expansive clays through
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests. Results showed
that the geosynthetic reinforcements could be used to
minimize the development of longitudinal cracks.
Mccartney et al. [32] conducted field static plate load tests
field on geosynthetic-reinforced sections. The range in
modulus of subgrade reaction obtained from the third
reload cycle for the pavement sections was from 495 to
905 kPa/mm during the winter (dry season in Arkansas
State) and 452725 kPa/mm during the late spring (wet
season). Elastic analyses by Spectral Analysis of Surface
Waves (SASW) were used to estimate the moduli of the
layers. The authors made comparison with the results from
full-scale cyclic plate load tests on the geosynthetic-rein-
forced pavements. Results showed a smaller decrease in
stiffness from the wet season to the dry season for the
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54
reinforced sections. They stated that elastic analyses based
on moduli determined from SASW are useful in quanti-
fying the impact of geosynthetic reinforcement on the
surface settlement, using Poissons ratio of the base course
as the main fitting parameter.
Singh and Gill [37] conducted soaked CBR tests on
selected subgrade soils, unreinforced and reinforced with
geogrids. The geogrid was placed in a single layer at dif-
ferent positions: 20, 40, 60, and 80% of the specimen
height from the top surface. The CBR values for the
reinforced specimens were three times higher than that for
unreinforced specimens. The highest CBR value was
recorded when the geogrid was placed at 20% depth below
the top of the specimen. Al-Azzawi [11] investigated the
optimum position of biaxial geogrid and the gained
improvement in the behaviour using an axisymmetric
model subjected to a static load of 600 kPa in the ANSYS
finite-element program. The researcher reported reduced
vertical deflections and stresses with reinforcement. The
results concluded that the optimum position of geogrids is
at the interface between the base and subbase layers.
Arulrajah et al. [14] studied the interface shear strength
properties of geogrid-reinforced construction and demoli-
tion (C&D) aggregates using a modified large-scale direct
shear test (DST) apparatus. The geogrids were biaxial and
triaxial and the C&D aggregates were recycled concrete
aggregate (RCA), crushed brick (CB), and reclaimed
asphalt pavement (RAP). Geogrid-reinforced RCA was
found to have the highest interface peak strength, while the
smallest interface shear strength was recorded for the RAP
material. The higher stiffness triaxial geogrid attained
higher interface shear strength properties than that of the
lower stiffness biaxial geogrid. In general, the geogrid-re-
inforced recycled C&D aggregates were found to meet the
peak shear strength requirements for typical construction
aggregates used in civil engineering applications.
In summary, uniaxial geogrids are pre-tensioned in one
direction, which are typically used in geotechnical engi-
neering projects, i.e., reinforcement of soil behind retaining
walls and at bridge approaches, while biaxial geogrids are
pre-tensioned in two directions and are commonly used in
pavement applications [19, 33, 40]. The majority of the
past studies have focused on the use of geogrids as pave-
ment reinforcement to enhance rutting resistance. How-
ever, a very limited research has been conducted on the
impact of reducing tensile strains underneath the asphaltic
concrete through reinforcing the granular base layer with
geogrids. In this research paper, uniaxial geogrid was used
only in the same direction of the tensile strain gauge, as
three tensile strain gauges were only available due to the
budget constraint, which were located at the bottom of AC
layer, mid-depth of the base layer, and at the interface
between base and subgrade layers. Thus, the main
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54
objective of the current paper is to find out the optimum
position of geogrids in flexible pavement system to reduce
tensile strains at the bottom of the asphalt layer.
Research methodology
A comprehensive experimental program was designed to
investigate the engineering properties of subgrade soil,
granular base material, and asphalt concrete layer used in
laboratory pavement prototype sections. The resilient
modulus of all materials is an important input parameter in
the analytical pavement design methods. Therefore, the
resilient modulus and the shear strength parameters were
determined for the subgrade soil and the granular base
layer investigated in this research. One type of geogrid
(uniaxial geogrid) was selected to reinforce the granular
base layer, in a three-layer pavement prototype system, at
different positions. Laboratory plate load tests were con-
ducted on the pavement sections to determine the optimum
position of the geogrid in the granular base layer. Finally, a
comparison of the laboratory testing results with finite-
element analyses was conducted.
Investigated materials
In this study, four different materials were investigated.
The materials are a clay subgrade material, a granular base
material typically used in road construction in Egypt, a
surface Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) layer, and, finally, a
Uniaxial High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) geogrid. The
subgrade soil was obtained from the south delta region
(Zefta countryside). The granular base material was
sourced from El Suez-Ataqa Quarry. For the investigated
geogrid, the physical and mechanical properties were
provided by the manufacturer. The dimensions and
mechanical properties of the geogrid used in this study are
shown in Table 1.
Experimental testing program
The experimental testing program consisted of routine and
advanced material characterization testing as well as a
pavement prototype testing. All testings were conducted at
the Highway and Airport Engineering Laboratory (H&AE-
LAB) at Faculty of Engineering, Mansoura University.
The shear strength parameters (apparent cohesion, c, and
angle of internal friction, /) of the unbound materials and
subgrade soil were determined through static triaxial tests.
The resilient modulus of the granular base material and the
subgrade soil was determined through repeated loading
Page 3 of 15 54
triaxial testing (RLTT). The static and RLTT tests were
conducted using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM-25).
Routine tests
A series of routine laboratory tests were carried out for
evaluating the basic engineering properties of both the
unbound materials and subgrade soils. These tests included
the grain size distribution, Atterberg limits, and modified
Proctor compaction for the granular base (GB) material and
subgrade soil (SG). A summary of the index properties of
the investigated unbound materials is given in Table 2.
Figure 1 shows the grain size distribution of the GB and
SG materials.
The HMA layer was designed using Marshall method to
comply with the 4-C gradation according to the Egyptian
Specifications with an asphalt cement 6070 penetration
grade [23]. This is the typical grade commonly used in
Egypt. The Marshall parameters for the HMA layer are
given in Table 3.
Static triaxial shear testing
Split steel moulds were manufactured for the material
compaction. AASHTO T307 [9] specifies that the mini-
mum diameter of the specimen should be five times the
Maximum Aggregate Size (MAS) and the height of the
specimen should be at least twice the specimen diameter.
Therefore, the moulds were 200 mm high and had an
internal diameter of 100 mm for the subgrade soil speci-
mens and 150 mm diameter and 300 mm high for the
unbound granular material specimens. Specimens were
compacted in six layers at the Optimum Moisture Content
(OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD) using modified
Proctor compaction effort. In general, just 1 day of curing
occurred before de-moulding and testing. A rubber mem-
brane was stretched around the specimen by a membrane
stretcher, and then, the membrane was sealed to the end
caps by means of O-rings. Two LVDTs were mounted
externally to the cell. Specimens were subjected to three
confining pressures of 25, 50, and 100 kPa.
Based on the results of the three tested specimens, the
shear strength parameters were calculated for both mate-
rials. The apparent cohesion and internal friction angle
were determined from the t - s stress paths [35], where t is
the radius of the Mohrs circle [0.5(r1 - r3)] and s is the
distance to the centre of the circle [0.5(r1 ? r3)]. Table 4
provides the shear strength parameters (c and /) from
MohrCoulomb failure envelope for each material. These
values agree very well with the shear strength parameters
of base materials reported in literature studies [17, 24, 26].
123
54 Page 4 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54

Table 1 Properties of RE 540

Property Value
uniaxial tensar geogrid [21]
Polymer type High density polyethylene
Minimum carbon block (%) 2
AL (mm) 235
AT (mm) 16
BWT (mm) 17
FWL (mm) 6
TB (mm) 2.52.7
Tf (mm) 1.1
Roll width (m) 1.3
Roll length (m) 50
Roll weight (kg) 31
Junction strength (%) 95
Short term tensile strength in longitudinal direction (kN/m) 64.5

Table 2 Index properties of the investigated unbound materials

Experimental test Test specification/ Subgrade Granular base (GB) Specification limits for the GB
Reference soil layer layera

P40 (%) AASHTO T-27/[3] 100 15.7

P200 (%) AASHTO T-11/[2] 91.1 5.3 4
Liquid limit (%) AASHTO T-89/[7] 59.1 23.0 25 Max.
Plasticity index (%) AASHTO T 90/[6] 26.2 5.0 NP to 6
Soil classification AASHTO M-145/[1] A-7-6 A-1-b
Abrasion (Los Angeles test, %) AASHTO T-96/[4] 26.1 50 Max.
California bearing ratio (CBR, AASHTO T-193/[5] 5.3 60.4 60 minimum for secondary roads
%)
Maximum dry density (gm/cm3) AASHTO T-180/[8] 1.473 2.181
Optimum moisture content (%) 18.0 7.50
NP non plastic
a
According to ECP [23]

Repeated load triaxial testing (rltt)
Resilient modulus (Mr) expresses the relationship between
the applied deviator stress and the resilient strain. It is the
main parameter used for the elastic analysis of layered
pavement systems. It is also the main input to express the
strength of the unbound granular materials and subgrade
soils in the AASHTO 1993 design method and the Mech-
anistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) for
flexible pavements [12].

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54 Page 5 of 15 54

100 Base Table 5 K1, K2, and K3 of the subgrade and base materials
90 Parameter Subgrade soil Granular base material
Upper
80 Limit
Lower K1 0.503 1.2
70 Limit
Passing (%)

clay K2 -0.297 0.65

60
K3 2.403 0.059
50
R2 0.882 0.987
40
30
20
K3 regression constants in the model. The regression con-
10 stants for the subgrade soil and granular base material are
0 summarized in Table 5:
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
  K2  K3
Sieve Size (mm) h soct
Mr K1 pa 1 1
Fig. 1 Grain size distribution curve for clay and base materials
pa pa
where Mr = resilient modulus (psi), h = bulk
Table 3 Marshall properties stress = r1 ? r2 ? r3, r1 = major principal stress, r2 -
Property 4-C Specification = intermediate principal stress, r3 = minor principal
Mix limits stress, soct = octahedral shear
p

r1 r2 2 r1 r3 2 r2 r3 2
Penetration, 0.1 mm 61.0 6070 stress = soct 3 , pa = atmo-
Optimum asphalt content (OAC) 5.20 47.5 spheric pressure = 101 kPa (14.7 psi), K1, K2, K3 = re-
Stability (kg) 998 Min. 900 gression constants.
Flow (mm) 2.3 24 The resilient modulus data provided excellent good-
Density (gm/cm ) 3
2.333 NP ness of fit to the model as indicated by the high coefficient
Air voids (AV) (%) 4.5 35 of determination (R2) for both the subgrade and base
Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) 15.7 Min. 15 materials. This is shown in Fig. 2a, b, for the subgrade and
(%) base, respectively. The resilient modulus values for the
Voids filled with asphalt (VFA) (%) 71.2 subgrade soil and the granular base material at the antici-
Theoretical maximum specific gravity 2.435 AASHTO T 209 pated stress conditions in the field were then determined
(Gmm) using the modified universal model (Eq. 1). As reported by
several researchers, the anticipated field confining stress for
the subgrade is in the range of 6.913.8 kPa (12 psi),
Table 4 Shear strength parameters of the tested materials while for the base layers, it is in the range of 27.655.2 kPa
(48 psi). It was also found that the anticipated field
Material Friction angle, / () Apparent cohesion, kPa
deviator stress in subgrade ranges from 41.4 to 48.3 kPa
Granular base 53 38 (67 psi) [25, 28], while for the base layers, it is in the
Subgrade soil 31 58 range of 89.7110.4 kPa (1316 psi). The computed Mr
values based on the anticipated field stresses were 82 and
204 MPa for the subgrade material and GB, respectively.
In this research, the resilient modulus (Mr) was determined
for the base material and subgrade soil according to the
AASHTO T307-12 test protocol. Combinations of applied Laboratory pavement prototype testing
repeated vertical and static confining pressure were applied
over 15 sequences using a UTM-25 to characterize the vertical Five flexible pavements sections with and without geogrid
resilient strain response. Three replicate specimens of the reinforcement were constructed, instrumented with dial and
subgrade as well as three other samples for the base material strain gauges, and then tested extensively in the laboratory,
were compacted at OMC and MDD identical to the specimen as shown in Fig. 3a. The pavement sections were built in a
preparation in the static triaxial testing and then tested. large rectangular steel container. The dimensions of the
The MEPDG model presented in Eq. (1) was used to steel container are: 1.0 m long, 0.35 m wide (as shown in
compute the regression coefficients based on the RLTT Fig. 3b), and 0.55 m high, while the thickness of the steel
data. Nonlinear optimization technique (i.e., Solver in plates was 5 mm. Conventional flexible pavement systems
Microsoft Excel) was utilized to compute the K1, K2, and consisted of three layers: 5 cm asphalt concrete (AC),

123
54 Page 6 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54

110 To place the pavement materials inside the steel con-

R2 = 0.882
Measured Resilient Modulus (MPa)

tainer, the subgrade was first placed in two layers (15 cm

100
each) and each layer was compacted at OMC and MDD
90 according to the modified Proctor properties, as given in
Table 2. Each layer was compacted by a motorized rectan-
80
gular steel plate 80 9 25 9 5 cm, and weighs about 20 kg.
70 By trial and error, it was found that 15 min of compaction
using the motorized steel plate was enough to achieve the
60 target density. As well, to achieve the target density for the
50 granular base layer, it was compacted in two layers for
Line of Equality
10 min each using the motorized steel plate. Finally, the
40 5 cm AC surface layer was placed in the rectangular steel
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
frame with dimensions of 60 9 25 9 5 cm above the base
Perdicted Resilient Modulus (MPa)
layer and compacted for 3 min with mechanical steel plate.
(a)
Then, it was compacted manually by the hand-held Marshall
500 hammer using only five blows.
R2 = 0.987
Measured Resilient Modulus (MPa)

The hydraulic Jack of the plate-loading test was used to

400 apply an incremental static load of 0.5 kN/min on a circular
steel plate of 10 cm diameter, which was placed directly on
the asphalt surface. The diameter of the steel plate and the
300
maximum applied load was selected to produce stresses that
simulate field inflation truck-tire pressure and to meet the
200 constraints of the lab and equipment used for the load
application. Based on a recent study, actual field measured
100 truck-tire pressures on two major Egyptian roads (Cairo
Line of Equality Suez road and CairoAlexandria Desert road) varied from
0 641 to 973 kPa (9341 psi) with a mean value of 835 kPa
0 100 200 300 400 500 (121 psi) [10]. The maximum applied load was then selected
Predicted Resilient Modulus (MPa) to be 7.75 kN, which produced a maximum contact stress
(b) under the 10 cm diameter steel plate of 987 kPa (142 psi).
This tire pressure is equivalent to the maximum reported tire
Fig. 2 Measured versus predicted resilient modulus. a Subgrade soil.
b Granular base material pressure of the trucks driving on the Egyptian roads. Strains
were monitored using PL-60-11-1L strain gauges with gauge
15 cm granular base, and 30 cm subgrade material were factor of 2.07 1%, gauge resistance of 120.3 X 0.5, and
constructed inside the container. The first laboratory pro- transverse sensitivity 0.7%. The lab temperature during the
totype pavement section was the control section (CS), as testing was between 18 and 23 C. Regardless of the geogrid
shown in Fig. 4a. This section was built inside the steel position, the strain gauges were placed at three constant
container without any reinforcement. Then, four additional positions in the laboratory prototype system. They were fixed
pavement sections were built, one at a time, inside the at the interface between subgrade and base (sg0), at the mid-
container and each section was reinforced with a single depth of the base (sg 0.5 h), and at the interface between the
layer of the uniaxial geogrid at a specific location. The base and AC layer (sgh). For the strain gauge underneath the
geogrid locations were selected to be within the granular AC layer, the gauge was protected with carton paper and
base layer at different positions as follows: sealed with duct tapes to reduce the influence of the high
temperature of the AC during placement and compaction.
1. At the interface between the granular base (GB) and The strain gauges were connected to a Strainometer model
subgrade (SG) (B0), Fig. 4b. (P3), which automatically records the stain readings.
2. At 1/3 of the height of the granular base (GB) layer
measured from the bottom of the base layer (B1/3 h),
Fig. 4c. Prototype testing results and analysis
3. At the mid-depth of the base layer height (B1/2 h),
Fig. 4d. Figure 5 shows the relationship between the applied ver-
4. At the interface between the base layer and the AC tical stress and the measured tensile strain at the interface
layer (Bh), Fig. 4e. between the subgrade and the base layer (sg0) for the five

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54 Page 7 of 15 54

Fig. 3 Laboratory prototype

equipment. a Prototype Mechanical
equipment photo. b Plan of Motor
laboratory prototype equipment
tank Beam to Fix
Dial Gauges

Loading
Beam

2 Dial Gauges
5 cm
AC Steel Container
With One Acrylic
15 cm
Face
GB

30 cm
SG

Strainometer
Model P3

(a)

35

Tank
30
Walls
25
AC

20
Loading
15 Plate

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

(b)

investigated pavement systems. The figure shows a sig-
nificant reduction in the measured tensile strain at the
base/subgrade interface of the reinforced base layers
compared to the same position for the control sec-
tion. Furthermore, it was found that the lowest amount of
tensile strain occurred when the geogrid was placed within
3350% of the base layer height (Cases B1/3 h, B1/2 h) as
measured from the bottom of the base layer.
Figures 6 and 7 present the relationship between the
applied vertical stress at the surface of the AC layer using
the static plate-loading test and the measured tensile strain
at the mid-depth of the base layer (sg0.5 h) and the inter-
face between the AC and granular base layer (sgh),
respectively. A reduction in the measured strain can be
noted at both locations when the base layer was reinforced
with the geogrid compared to the control section in these

123
54 Page 8 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54

Load

Strain Gauge
Geogrid
Hydraulic Jack
Dial Gauge

Loading Plate
10 cm

5cm
AC Surface

Granular Base

15 cm
Strain Gauge

30 cm
Subgrade

(a)
Load Load
Strain Gauge Strain Gauge
Geogrid Geogrid

Hydraulic Jack Hydraulic Jack

Dial Gauge Dial Gauge

Loading Plate Loading Plate

10 cm 10 cm
5cm

5cm
AC Surface AC Surface
Granular Base Granular Base
15 cm

15 cm
Strain Gauge Strain Gauge
5cm
30 cm

30 cm
Subgrade Subgrade

(b) (c)

Load
Load
Strain Gauge Strain Gauge
Geogrid Geogrid

Hydraulic Jack
Dial Gauge Hydraulic Jack
Dial Gauge

Loading Plate
Loading Plate
10 cm
5cm

10 cm
5cm

AC Surface AC Surface
Granular Base
15 cm

Granular Base
15 cm

Strain Gauge
Strain Gauge
7.5cm

30 cm

30 cm

Subgrade Subgrade

(d) (e)
Fig. 4 Pavement systems cross sections. a Control section, CS. b Geogrid at the subgrade/base interface (B0). c Geogrid at the 1/3 depth of the
base from the bottom (B1/3 h). d Geogrid at the Mid-depth of the base (B1/2 h). e Geogrid at the base/asphalt interface (Bh)

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54 Page 9 of 15 54

Fig. 5 Stress versus measured 1200

strain at the depth of the GB/SG
interface for all cases 1000

800

Stress (kPa)
Cracks
600
Occurred for CS

400

200
CS B0 B1/3h B1/2 h Bh
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Tensile Strain (Microstrain)

figures. From Fig. 6, it can be concluded that the reduction
in the tensile strain was maximum at the mid-depth of the
base layer when the geogrid was placed at 1/3 of the base
height as measured from the bottom of the base layer.
Figure 7 displays that the lowest tensile strain at the bottom
of the AC layer occurred when the geogrid was placed at
the interface between the AC and the granular base layer. It
should be noted that the AC layer showed large deforma-
tions and it actually cracked under the loading plate for the
control section only. In all the other cases with geogrid
reinforcement, under the same loading conditions, the AC
layer was not fractured.
Figure 8 presents a comparison of the strain values
measured at a vertical stress of 828 kPa applied at the
surface of the AC layer, which is equivalent to the stress
anticipated in the field from typical truck wheel. The
measured strains at the bottom of the AC layer show a
significant reduction, and hence improve pavement per-
formance, excluding when geogrid was positioned at the
bottom of the AC layer.
The measured tensile strain values were also plotted
against depth for the five investigated cases and the plot is
provided in Fig. 9. A decrease in the measured tensile
strain values with depth for two out of the five cases which
are B0 (geogrid at the interface between base and subgrade)
and B1/3 h (geogrid at 5 cm from the bottom of the base
layer) can be observed from this figure. The maximum
reduction in the tensile strain recorded was for case B0.
However, one may notice that this case showed higher
tensile strains at the top of the granular base layer com-
pared to the control section as well as the other investigated
cases. One reason for this may be that stiffening occurred
at the interface between the weakest layer (subgrade) and
the moderate strength layer (granular base). This led to a
higher modular ratio, the movement of the neutral axis
within the AC layer, and hence an increase in the tensile
strain. The B1/3 h case yielded a much better decrease in
the tensile strains within the depth of the granular base
layer compared to all the other cases. The figure demon-
strates almost three times strain reduction at all depth
compared to the control section. Finally, this figure showed
some increase in the measured tensile strain at the mid-
depth of the base layer compared to the other two depth
(top and bottom of the base layer) for two cases, which are

Fig. 6 Stress versus measured 1200

strain at the middle depth of the
base layer for all cases
1000

800
Stress (kPa)

600

400

200
CS B0 B1/3h B1/2h Bh
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Tensile Strain (Microstrain)

123
54 Page 10 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54

Fig. 7 Stress versus measured 1200

strain at the bottom of the AC
layer for all cases
1000

800

Stress (kPa)
600

400

200
CS B0 B1/3h B1/2h Bh
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Tensile Strain (Microstrain)

3500 Impact on fatigue life

CS B0 B1/3h B1/2h Bh
Tensile Strain (Microstrain)

3000
The cumulative damage concept has been used extensively
2500 in many literature studies to predict fatigue cracking [27].
It is generally agreed that the allowable number of load
2000
repetitions is related to the tensile strain at the bottom of
1500 the asphalt layer. The amount of damage is expressed as a
damage ratio, which is the ratio between predicted and
1000
allowable number of load applications [16, 27]. The
500 allowable number of load repetitions to fatigue failure (Nf)
can be computed using the following equation [16, 27]:
0
sgh Sg0.5h Sg0 Nf f1 et f2 E1 f3 2
Position of Strain Gauges
where Nf = allowable number of load repatriation to fati-
Fig. 8 Comparison of the strain values measured at a stress of gue failure. et = tensile strain at the bottom of the AC
828 kPa (120 psi)
layer. E1 = elastic modulus of AC layer (MPa). f1, f2, and
f3 = regression constants (f1 = 0.0636, f2 = 3.291, and
Tensile Strain (Microstrain)
f3 = 0.854) according to the Asphalt Institute [15].
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
0 Although this equation should be used with repeated
loads, however, in this research, it was used with static
Top of GB
5 loads for comparison only due to the unavailability of the
relevant equipment.
Depth (cm)

10 The benefits gained from pavement reinforcement were

quantified by calculating the traffic benefit ratio (TBR).
15 TBR is defined as the ratio of the allowable number of
repetitions to fatigue failure of the reinforced pavement
20 section corresponded to the allowable number of repeti-
Bottom of GB tions to fatigue failure of the unreinforced pavement sec-
CS B0 B1/3h B1/2h Bh
25 tion, as shown in Eq. (3) [16, 29]. TBR values more than
1.0 indicate extension in pavement life:
Fig. 9 Relationship between measured tensile strain and depth for
the different investigated cases
TBR NR =NU 3
where TBR = traffic benefit ratio, NR = allowable number
Bh (geogrid at the AC/GB interface) and B1/2 h. However, of repetitions to fatigue failure of the reinforced pavement
these two cases showed the highest reduction in the tensile section, and NU = allowable number of repetitions to
strain at the bottom of the AC layer. fatigue failure of the unreinforced pavement section.

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54
The calculated TBRs for the investigated cases are
shown in Fig. 10. The TBR values ranged from 0.25 to
286. The literature showed TBR values up to 670 [38].
It can be seen from Fig. 10 that the longest fatigue life,
based on both the number of repetitions and TBR, can be
achieved by putting the geogrid at the AC/GB interface,
followed by the reinforcement at the mid-depth, and finally
at one-third the base layer height measured from the bot-
tom of the base layer. Putting the geogrid at the GB/SG
interface actually led to a shorter fatigue life compared to
the control section. However, this position may contribute
to the reduction in rutting.
Finite-element analysis
Three-dimensional (3D) FEA analyses for all pavement
sections described previously in Fig. 4 were performed in
PLAXIS to verify the laboratory prototype results. The
width of the AC layer was extended in FEA model to be the
same as the width of the tank due to the difficulty of the
extrusion of the AC third dimension (z) in 3D plaxis.
Unbound and subgrade materials contained in the pave-
ment section were modelled using the linear isotropic
elasto-plastic MohrCoulomb model. The MohrCoulomb
model in PLAXIS requires five parameters. These param-
eters are Youngs modulus, Poissons ratio, internal friction
angle, cohesion, and dilation angle. Dilation angles for
unbound and subgrade materials were assumed to be zero.
For the granular base material and subgrade soils, Youngs
moduli were taken as the resilient moduli, which were
measured in the laboratory. The AC layer was modelled as
linear elastic. The modulus of the AC was predicted based
on the NCHRP 1-37A Witczaks model, which is given in
the following equation [12]:
350
300
250
200
TBR
150
100
50
TBR
0 Friction angle ()
B0 CS B1/3h B1/2h Bh
Cases
Fig. 10 TBR values for reinforced and unreinforced pavement
systems
Page 11 of 15 54
log10 E 1:249937 0:02923q200  0:001767q200 2
 0:002841q4  0:058097Va  0:082208
Vbeff
Vbeff Va
3:871977  0:0021q4 0:003958q38  0:000017q38 2 0:00547q34
1 e0:6033130:313351 log f 0:393532 log g
4
where E* = HMA dynamic modulus, in 105 psi;
g = binder viscosity at temperature of interest, in 106
poise; f = loading frequency, in Hz; Va = % air voids in
the mix, by volume; Vbeff = % effective binder content by
volume; q34 = % cumulative retained weight on the 3/4-
in.sieve; q38: % cumulative retained weight on the 3/8-
in.sieve; q4 = % cumulative retained weight on the no. 4
sieve; and q200 = % passing no. 200 sieve.
Poissons ratios for all layers were assumed based on
typical values found in the literature [20, 36]. The interface
of the materials, Rinter, was computed as the tangent of the
lowest internal friction angle (tan /) of both materials
based on the PLAXIS manual [18]. The value of the base
interface was reduced to 0.99 as the friction angle was
higher than 45. Summary of this data is given in Table 6.
The geogrids in the reinforced pavement sections were
modelled using the geogrid geometry built in PLAXIS. A
very fine mesh (9430 elements) was generated using the
fourth-order 15-noded triangle elements. The bottom
boundary condition of the mesh was fixed vertically;
however, the vertical sides were restrained from moving
laterally assuming smooth condition with no friction
resistance at the sidewall. Example of the generated
deformed mesh for the case B0 is shown in Fig. 11.
A uniform static stress equivalent to the truck-tire con-
tact pressure of 828 kPa (120 psi) was distributed over the
circular plate with a radius of 5 cm. Figure 12a, b depicts
an example of the contour plots of the mean stresses and
the vertical stresses for the pavement section with geogrid
at the interface between base and subgrade (B0).
It can be seen from the figures that the predicted stresses
due to loading were concentrated immediately underneath
the loaded area. The high stresses were observed mostly
within the AC layer. Horizontal stresses were minimal at
the tank boundaries being less than 20 kPa. The
Table 6 Material properties for the finite-element analysis
Property/material AC Base Subgrade
Youngs modulus (MPa) 2985 205 76
Poisson ratio 0.25 0.30 0.35
55.4 37
Cohesion (kPa) 39 55
Rinter 0.73 0.99 0.75
123
54 Page 12 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54

Fig. 11 Deformed mesh and

boundary conditions for the
pavement section model (case
B0)

unconfinement of AC layer caused slightly higher tensile indicate with greater certainty the performance of flexible
horizontal stresses, which led to larger tensile strains than pavement when reinforced with geogrids.
that obtained at tank sides, as depicted in Fig. 13.

Summary and conclusions

Comparisons between FEA and prototype testing
results
In this study, only the tensile strains over the granular base
layer were measured in the laboratory pavement prototype
sections. Therefore, comparisons between FEA analyses
and prototype testing for the tensile strains were conducted.
Figure 14ae presents these comparisons of the tensile
strain with depth for the five investigated cases (reinforced
and unreinforced) arising from FEA runs and laboratory
prototype testing.
It is clear from the figures that the 3D FEA analyses
exhibited relatively similar trends using the MohrCou-
lomb model for all cases; however, the tensile strain values
were not in close agreement. The predicted tensile strains
by MohrCoulomb 3D model were significantly underes-
timated and less than that obtained from the experimental
data, except for the case B1/3 h, it was overestimated. The
reason for this may be because the materials were close to
failure, or the maximum shear strength has been reached
and the parameters in MohrCoulomb model are particu-
larly dependant on the stress level [30].
Further research is needed for comprehensive numerical
modelling using nonlinear user-defined model based on
either resilient modulus or permanent deformation to
This study investigated the effect of reinforcing the gran-
ular base layer using uniaxial geogrids placed at different
depths to improve pavement performance. Laboratory
pavement prototype sections consisted of 5 cm AC layer,
15 cm granular base layer, and 30 cm subgrade were built
in a steel container in the lab. The granular base layer was
reinforced at four different depths. Load was applied using
a static plate load test and strains were monitored at three
positions. FEA analyses using the MohrCoulomb model
in Plaxis were performed. Based on the results and analy-
ses, the following conclusions were made:
The modified universal resilient modulus model was
found to produce excellent fit to the laboratory results
of the investigated granular base and clay subgrade
materials.
The reinforcement of the granular base layer with
geogrid showed a significant reduction in the tensile
strain measured within the pavement system compared
to pavement without reinforcement.
The maximum reduction in the tensile strain at the
bottom of the AC layer occurred when the geogrid was
placed directly underneath the AC layer.
The geogrids placed at 3350% of the granular base
layer height measured from the bottom of the base layer

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54 Page 13 of 15 54

Fig. 12 Mean and vertical

stresses under the loaded area at
plane z = 17.5 cm for
pavement section (case B0).
a Mean stresses. b Vertical
stresses

Fig. 13 Horizontal strain under

the loaded area at plane
z = 17.5 cm for pavement
section (case B0)

123
54 Page 14 of 15 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54

0.45
CS FEM CS Lab

0.4

Depth (m)
0.35

0.3
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Tensile Strain (Micro Strain)
(a)
0.45 0.45

0.4
Depth (m)

0.4

Depth (m)
0.35 0.35

B0 FEM B0 Lab
0.3 B1/3H FEM B1/3H Lab
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0.3
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Tensile Strain (Micro Strain)
Tensile Strain (Micro Strain)
(b) (c)
0.45 0.45
B1/2H FEM BH FEM
B1/2H Lab BH Lab

0.4 0.4
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

0.35 0.35

0.3 0.3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500
Tensile Strain (Micro Strain) Tensile Strain (Micro Strain)

(d)
Fig. 14 Comparison between laboratory prototype and FEA predic-
tions under the loaded area at x = 0.0 and z = 17.5 cm. a Tensile
strain versus depth for control section. b Tensile strain versus depth
for B0 (geogrid at the SG/GB interface). c Tensile strain versus depth
(e)
for B1/3 h (geogrid at the 1/3 depth of the base layer from the
bottom). d Tensile strain versus depth for B1/2 h (geogrid at the
middle depth of the base layer). e Tensile strain versus depth for Bh
(geogrid at the GB/AC interface)

also yielded a great reduction in the measured tensile for minimizing the tensile strain at the bottom of the
strain at the bottom of the AC layer as well as the top of AC layer (fatigue).
the subgrade layer. FEA runs using MohrCoulomb model yielded rela-
When the geogrid was placed at the interface between tively similar trends to the laboratory results. However,
GB/SG, there was some increase in the tensile strain at the FEA tensile strains were underestimated and were
the bottom of the AC layer compared to the control not in close agreement to that yielded from the
section as well as the other investigated reinforcement laboratory data.
cases. This was also true for the finite-element analysis.
However, the tensile strain at the bottom of the GB Acknowledgements The UTM-25 at Mansoura University H&AE-
layer was minimized. This location may be good for LAB, which was utilized in this research was purchased as part of the
minimizing compressive strains (rutting) rutting but not HEI Labs Accreditation Project, 7th Cycle.

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:54
References
1. AASHTO M145 (2012) AASHTO soil classification systems.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods
of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DC
2. AASHTO T11 (2012) Materials finer than 75-lm (no. 200) sieve
in mineral aggregates by washing. Standard specifications for
transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing.
AASHTO, Washington, DC
3. AASHTO T27 (2012) Sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggre-
gates. Standard specifications for transportation materials and
methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DC
4. AASHTO T96 (2012) Resistance to degradation of small-size
coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles
machine. Standard specifications for transportation materials and
methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DC
5. AASHTO T193 (2003) Standard method of test for the California
bearing ratio. AASHTO, Washington, DC
6. AASHTO T90 (2014) Determining the plastic limit and plasticity
index of soils. Standard specifications for transportation materials
and methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DC
7. AASHTO T89 (2015) Determining the liquid limit of soils.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods
of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DC
8. AASHTO T180 (2012) Moisture density relations of soils.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods
of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DC
9. AAHSTO T307-99 (2012) Standard method of test for deter-
mining the resilient modulus of soil and aggregate materials.
AASHTO, Washington DC
10. Abedel Motaleb ME (2007) Impact of high-pressure truck tires on
pavement design in Egypt. Emir J Eng Res 12(2):6573
11. Al-Azzawi AA (2012) Fininte element analysis of flexible
pavements strengthened with geogrid. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci
7(10):12951299
12. ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division (2004) Guide for mech-
anistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement
structures. NCHRP 1-37A Final Report, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC
13. Arulrajah A, Rahman MA, Piratheepan J, Bo MW, Imteaz MA
(2013) Interface shear strength testing of geogrid-reinforced con-
struction and demolition materials. Adv Civ Eng Mater J
2(1):189200
14. Arulrajah A, Rahman MA, Piratheepan J, Bo MW, Imteaz MA
(2013) Evaluation of interface shear strength properties of geo-
grid-reinforced construction and demolition materials using a
modified large-scale direct shear testing apparatus. J Mater Civ
Eng 26(5):974982
15. Asphalt Institute (1981) Thickness designasphalt pavement for
highways and streets. Manual Series No. 1, 9th edn. ISBN:
9781934154014, reprinted 1999, Lexington
16. Behiry AEAEM (2012) Fatigue and rutting lives in flexible
pavement. Ain Shams Eng J 3(4):367374
17. Bowles RE, SE (1996) Foundation analysis and design. Con-
sulting engineer/software consultant engineering computer soft-
ware, Peoria, Illinois
18. Brinkgreve RBJ (2002) Plaxis: finite element code for soil and
rock analyses: 2D-version 8:[users guide]. Balkema publisher,
the Netherlands
19. Cancelli A, Montanelli F, Rimoldi P, Zhao A (1996) Full scale lab-
oratory testing on geosynthetics reinforced paved roads. In: Pro-
ceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement
20. Chua KM, Tenison J (2003) Explaining the Hveem stabilometer
test: relating R-value, S-value, and the elastic modulus. J Test
Eval 31(4):18
Page 15 of 15 54
21. Court C, Chamberlain B (2013) Tensar international limited CE
marking, Tensar Reand Re500 Geogrids for Reinforced Soil
Embankments, pp 113, http://www.tensarinternational.com
22. Donald HG, Ohashi H (1983) Mechanics of fiber reinforcement in
sand. ASCE J Geotech Eng 109(3):335353
23. ECP (2008) Egyptian code of practice for urban and rural roads.
Housing and Building National Central Research, Egypt
24. El-Badawy SM (2006) Development of a mechanistic constitu-
tive model for the repeated load permanent deformation behavior
of subgrade pavement materials. PhD, Arizona State University,
Tempe
25. El-Badawy SM, Bayomy F, Miller S (2011) Prediction of sub-
grade resilient modulus for implementation of the mepdg in
Idaho. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication no. 211, ASCE,
Reston, pp 47624772
26. Gabr AR, Cameron DA (2012) Properties of recycled concrete
aggregate for unbound pavement construction. J Mater Civ Eng
24(6):754764
27. Gedafa DS (2006) Comparison of flexible pavement performance
using Kenlayer and HDM-4. Fall Student Conference Midwest
Transportation Consortium, Ames, Iowa
28. Ji R, Siddiki N, Nantung T, Kim D (2014) Evaluation of resilient
modulus of subgrade and base materials in indiana and its
implementation in MEPDG. Sci World J 14
29. Kamel MA (2004) Development of design procedure for rein-
forced flexible pavement. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India
30. Korkiala-Tanttu L (2009) Calculation method for permanent
deformation of unbound pavement materials. VTT publications
702, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland
31. Ling HI, Liu Z (2001) Geosyntheticreinforced asphalt pave-
ments. J Geotech Geo Environ Eng 177184
32. Mccartney JS, Cox BR, Wood CM, Curry B (2010) Evaluation of
geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements using static plate load
tests. In: 9th International Conference on GeosyntheticsGeosyn-
thetics: Advanced Solutions for a Challenging World, pp 14451450
33. Miura N, Sakai A, Taesiri Y, Yamanouchi T, Yasuhara K (1990)
Polymer grid reinforced pavement on soft clay grounds. Geotext
Geomembr 9(1):99123
34. Moayedi H, Kazemian S, Prasad A, Huat B (2009) Effect of
geogrid reinforcement location in paved road improvement.
EJGE 14:111
35. Parry RHG (1995) Mohrs circles. Stress paths, and geotechnics.
E&FN Spon. 1st edn. Taylor & Francis, UK. ISBN 0419192905
36. Pellinen TK, Song J, Xiao S (2004) Characterization of hot mix
asphalt with varying air voids content using triaxial shear strength
test. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Asphalt Pavements
for Southern Africa (CAPSA04), South Africa
37. Singh P, Gill KS (2012) CBR improvement of clayey soil with
geo-grid reinforcement. IJETAE 2(6):315318
38. TenCate (2010) Geosynthetic reinforcement of the aggregate
base/subbase courses of pavement structures. TenCateTM
Geosynthetics North America, Pendergrass
39. Virgili A, Canestrari F, Grilli A, Santagata FA (2009) Repeated
load test on bituminous systems reinforced by geosynthetics.
Geotext Geomembr 27(3):187195
40. Webster SL (1993) Geogrid reinforced base courses for flexible
pavements for LightAircraft: test section construction, behavior
under traffic, laboratory tests, and design criteria
41. Zornberg JG, Gupta R (2009) Reinforcement of pavements over
expansive clay subgrades. In: Proceedings of the 17th Interna-
tional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engi-
neering: the Academia and Practice of Geotechnical Engineering,
vol 1, pp 765768
123