Advertisement

Effectiveness of geogrid and its position on the performance of unpaved roads under repetitive loading

  • K. H. MamathaEmail author
  • S. V. Dinesh
Technical papers
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

Road network provides access to communities and plays a vital role in the economic development of a country. These days, the transportation sector is given the utmost importance as premature failures are very common owing to rapid industrialization and urbanization. Also, subgrade failure is a very common scenario in pavement failures. To prevent these failures, geosynthetics have been used widely. In this study, model pavement sections were built in a steel tank with black cotton soil as subgrade forming a weak subgrade layer followed by granular sub-base (GSB) and sacrificial layer at the top. Two biaxial geogrids were considered as reinforcing material, and their position was varied within the GSB layer. The pavement thickness was varied by varying the thickness of GSB. The GSB of thickness 0.25 m, 0.30 m, and 0.35 m were considered. The effectiveness of geogrid on the pavement performance was evaluated by varying the position (one-third from the top, middle, two-third from the top and interface of subgrade and GSB) of geogrid within GSB. The pavement was subjected to repeated load test to simulate traffic loading. The loading frequency was kept at 0.01 Hz. The settlement of the pavement was recorded in terms of total and plastic settlements along the surface below the load point and away from the load point. Based on the test results, the geogrid placed at a depth of two-third thickness of GSB from the top showed improved performance and is effective compared with other positions. With geogrid reinforcement at optimal position, the reduction in plastic settlement is in the order of 34% to 52% depending on the geogrid stiffness and GSB thickness thereby improving the rutting performance of the pavement. Also, with geogrid reinforcement, it is possible to reduce the pavement thickness with equivalent and/or better performance of the pavement when compared to unreinforced pavement depending on the tensile strength of the geogrid. Thus, geogrid can be used to design pavements that are durable and with low maintenance cost making sustainable pavements.

Keywords

Pavement Rutting Fatigue Geogrid Settlement Service life 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Prof. T G Sitharam and Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore for providing the steel tank free of cost to the Department of Civil engineering, Siddaganga Institute of Technology, Tumkur, for the research work. The authors also acknowledge STRATA Geosystems India Pvt. Ltd. for providing the geogrid samples free of cost to carry out this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Abu-Farsakh M, Souci G, Voyiadjis GZ, Chen Q (2012) Evaluation of factors affecting the performance of geogrid reinforced granular base material using repeated load triaxial tests. J Mater Civ Eng 24(1):72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Qadi IL, Brandon TL, Valentine RJ, Smith TE (1994) Laboratory evaluation of geosynthetic reinforced pavement sections. Transportation research record, 1439, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 25–31Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barksdale RD, Brown SF, Chan F (1989) Potential benefits of geosynthetics in flexible pavement systems. National co-operative highway research program report no. 315, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hass R, Walls J, Carroll RG (1988) Geogrid reinforcement of granular bases in flexible pavements. Transportation Research Record, 1188, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp 19–27Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perkins SW (1999) Mechanical response of geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavements. Geosynth Int 6(5):347–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perkins SW (2002) Evaluation of geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavement systems using two pavements test facilities. Report no. FHWA/MT-02-008/20040, Montana Department of Transportation, Helena, MTGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown SF, Kwan J, Thom NH (2007) Identifying the key parameters that influence geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast. Geotext Geomembr 25(6):326–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Giroud JP, Han J (2004) Design method for geogrid reinforced unpaved roads. I. Development of design method. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(8):775–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giroud JP, Han J (2004) Design method for geogrid reinforced unpaved roads. II. Calibration and applications. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 130(8):787–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Love (1984) Model testing of geogrids in unpaved roads. University of Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mamatha KH, Dinesh SV, Dattatreya JK (2018) Evaluation of flexural behaviour of geosynthetic-reinforced unbound granular material beams. Road Materials and Pavement Design 20 (4):859-876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Al-Qadi IL, Brandon TL, Bhutta SA (1997) Geosynthetic stabilized flexible pavements. In: Proceedings of conference on geosynthetics. Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI), Roseville, MN, pp 647–661Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cancelli A, Montanelli F (1999) In-ground test for geosynthetic reinforced flexible paved roads. In: Proceedings of conference on geosynthetics. Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI), Roseville, MN, pp 863–878Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wasage TLJ (2004) Laboratory evaluation of rutting resistance of geosynthetics reinforced asphalt pavement. J Inst Eng Singap 44(2):29–44Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mamatha KH, Dinesh SV, Swamy BC (2018). Performance of geosynthetic reinforced model pavements under repetitive loading. Geotech Eng J of the SEAGS & AGSSEA, 49 (4).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iniyan K (2012) Influence of geogrid reinforcement on the carbon footprint of flexible pavements. Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the M. Tech degree, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miura N, Sakai A, Taesiri Y, Yamanouchi T, Yasuhara K (1990) Ploymer grid reinforced pavement on soft clay grounds. Geotext Geomembr 9(1):99–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Montanelli F, Zhao A, Rimoldi P (1997) Geosynthetic-reinforced pavement system: testing & design. In: Proceedings of conference on geosynthetics. Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI), Roseville, MN, pp 619–632Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kinney TC, Abbott J, Schuler J (1998) Benefits of using geogrids for base reinforcement with regard to rutting. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1611, Transportation Research Record, National Research Council, pp 86–96Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moghaddas-Nejad F, Small JC (1996) Effect of geogrid reinforcement in model track tests on pavements. J Transp Eng 122(6):468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abu-Farsakh MY, Chen Q (2011) Evaluation of geogrid base reinforcement in flexible pavement using cyclic plate load testing. Int J Pavement Eng 12(3):275–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hufenus R, Rueegger R, Banjac R, Mayor P, Springman SM, Bronnimann R (2006) Full scale field tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads on soft subgrade. Geotext Geomembr 24(1):21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mamatha KH, Dinesh SV (2018) Evaluation of strain modulus and deformation characteristics of geosynthetic reinforced soil – aggregate system under repetitive loading. Int J of Geotech Eng, 12 (6):546-555.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Giroud JP, Ah-Line C, Bonaparte R (1985) Design of unpaved roads and trafficked areas with geogrids. In: Proceedings of symposium on polymer grid reinforcement. Science and Engineering Research Council and Netlon Ltd., London, pp 116–127Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berg RR, Christopher BR, Perkins SW (2000) Geosynthetic reinforcement of the aggregate base course of flexible pavement structures. GMA white paper II, Geosynthetic Material Association, Roseville, MNGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Al-Qadi IL, Dessouky SH, Kwon J, Tutumluer E (2008) Geogrid in flexible pavements: validated mechanism. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2045, Transportation Research Record, National Research Council, pp 102–109Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Webster SL (1993) Geogrid reinforced base courses for flexible pavements for light aircraft, test section, construction, behaviour under traffic, laboratory tests and design criteria. Report no. GL-93-6, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Collin JG, Kinney TC, Fu X (1996) Full scale highway load test of flexible pavement system with geogrid reinforced base courses. Geosynth Int 3(4):537–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kwon J, Kim M, Tutumluer E (2005) Interface modelling for mechanistic analysis of geogrid reinforced flexible pavements. In: Proceedings of the conference geofrontiers, geotechnical special publication 130. Advances in Pavement Engineering, Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perkins SW, Ismeik M (1997) A synthesis and evaluation of geosynthetic-reinforced base course layers in flexible pavements: part I experimental work. Geosynth Int 4(6):549–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Qian Y, Tutumluer E, Huang H (2011) A validated discrete element modelling approach for studying geogrid—aggregate reinforcement mechanisms. In: Proceedings of geofrontiers—advances in geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical special publication no. 211, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Degroot MT (1986) Woven steel cord networks as reinforcement of asphalt roads. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference on geotextiles, Vienna, pp 113–118Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kamel MA, Chandra S, Kumar P (2004) Behaviour of subgrade soil reinforced with geogrid. Int J Pavement Eng 5(4):201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Saad B, Mitri H, Poorooshasb H (2006) 3D FE analysis of flexible pavement with geosynthetic reinforcement. J Transp Eng 132(5):402–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Al-Qadi IL, Tutumluer E, Kwon J, Dessouky S (2007) Accelerated full scale testing of geogrid reinforced flexible pavements. 86th TRB meeting, paper no. 07-2317, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Das BM, Shin EC (1994) Strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced clay: behaviour under cyclic loading. Geotext Geomembr 13(10):657–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ibrahim EM, El-Badawy SM, Ibrahim MH, Gabr A, Azam A (2017) Effect of geogrid reinforcement on flexible pavements. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2(1):54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    ASTM D 2487 (2011) Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    ASTM D 3282 (2009) Standard practice for classification of soils and soil-aggregate mixtures for highway construction purposes. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    MoRT&H (2013) Ministry of road transport and highways: specifications for roads and bridges, 5th edn. Indian Roads Congress, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    IRC: SP: 72 (2007) Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements for low volume rural roads. The Indian Roads Congress, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hegde A, Sitharam TG (2016) Behaviour of geocell reinforced soft clay bed subjected to incremental cyclic loading. Geomech Eng 10(4):405–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    IS: 5249 (2006) Determination of dynamic properties of soil—method of test. Bureau of Indian Standards, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mamatha KH, Dinesh SV (2017) Performance evaluation of geocell reinforced pavements. Int J Geotech Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2017.1343988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    IRC: 115 (2014) Guidelines for structural evaluation and strengthening of flexible road pavements using falling weight deflectometer (FWD) technique. The Indian Roads Congress, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    IRC: SP: 20 (2002) Rural roads manual. The Indian Roads Congress, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Madhavi Latha G, Nair AM, Hemalatha MS (2010) Performance of geosynthetics in unpaved roads. Int J Geotech Eng 4:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sireesh S, Vijay KR, Suraj V (2013) Evaluation of rutting behaviour of geocell reinforced sand subgrades under repeated loading. Indian Geotech J 45(4):378–388Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Madhavi Latha G, Nair AM (2014) Geosynthetics in unpaved roads. Indian J Geosynth Ground Improv 3(2):3–13Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Qian Yu, Han J, Pokharel SK, Parsons RL (2013) Performance of triangular aperture geogrid reinforced base course over weak subgrade under cyclic loading. Mater Civ Eng 25(8):1013–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSiddaganga Institute of TechnologyTumkurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringSiddaganga Institute of TechnologyTumkurIndia

Personalised recommendations