Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on Unpaved Roads Based on CBR, and Static and Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests

International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dynamic cone penetrometer has been used widely as a pavement evaluation technique for many years. Unpaved roads constructed on weak soil subgrade are frequently subjected to severe damage and hence, they require regular maintenance and repair. One of the main stabilization methods of improvement of the serviceability of these roads is to reinforce them with geosynthetics (geotextile/geogrid). Field experiments were conducted on unpaved test sections reinforced with geotextile and geogrid, with the potential use of dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) and digital static cone penetrometer (SCP) to assess benefits of geotextile and geogrid reinforcement. Laboratory California bearing ratio (CBR) tests were also conducted on subgrade–aggregate section and the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement was investigated by placing the reinforcement layer at the interface of the base course layer and weak subgrade. Digital SCP was used to measure the load–displacement behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced test section in the field. The field test results of DCP were expressed in terms of dynamic cone penetration index (DCPI, mm/blow), defined as the penetration depth of the cone per hammer blow and recorded along with the depth profile. A decrease in DCPI value was observed for the reinforced test sections as compared to the unreinforced test section. DCP results were able to detect transition zone and significant change in the strength of unpaved test section along with penetration depth. The field results indicate the greater resistance to penetration in the geosynthetic-reinforced test section and the penetrometer resistance increases with the depth. Higher penetration resistance offered by the geotextile has more contribution to the performance improvement of the test section.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

References

  1. Cuelho EV, Perkins SW (2017) Geosynthetic subgrade stabilization—field testing and design method calibration. Transp Geotech 10:22–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shukla SK (2016) An introduction to geosynthetic engineering. CRC Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Schnaid F, Lourenço D, Odebrecht E (2017) Interpretation of static and dynamic penetration tests in coarse-grained soils. Geotech Lett 7:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.16.00170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sun Y, Cheng Q, Lin J, Lammers PS, Berg A, Meng F, Zeng Q, Li L (2011) Energy-based comparison between a dynamic cone penetrometer and a motor-operated static cone penetrometer. Soil Tillage Res 116:105–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2011.06.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Amadi AA, Sadiku S, Abdullahi M, Danyaya HA (2018) Case study of construction quality control monitoring and strength evaluation of a lateritic pavement using the dynamic cone penetrometer. Int J Pavement Res Technol 11(5):530–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2018.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chao C, Lin D, Luo H, Wang Y, Lo W (2017) Non-destructive evaluation of a city roadway for pavement rehabilitation: a case study. Int J Pavement Res Technol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen D, Wang J, Bilyeu J (2001) Application of dynamic cone penetrometer in evaluation of base and subgrade layers. Transp Res Rec 1764(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen J, Hossain M, Latorella TM (1999) Use of falling weight deflectometer and dynamic cone penetrometer in pavement evaluation. Transp Res Rec 1655(1):145–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gabr BMA, Hopkins K, Coonse J, Hearne T (2000) DCP criteria for performance evaluation of pavement layers. J Perform Constr Facil 14:141–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mohammad LN, Herath A, Abu-farsakh MY, Gaspard K, Gudishala R (2007) Prediction of resilient modulus of cohesive subgrade soils from dynamic cone penetrometer test parameters. J Mater Civ Eng 19:986–992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boutet M, Dore G, Bilodeau J, Pierre P (2011) Development of models for the interpretation of the dynamic cone penetrometer data. Int J Pavement Eng 12(3):201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2010.488727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. George V, Rao NC, Shivashankar R (2009) PFWD, DCP and CBR correlations for evaluation of lateritic subgrades. Int J Pavement Eng 10(3):189–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298430802342765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mousavi SH, Gabr MA, Borden RH (2018) Resilient modulus prediction of soft low-plasticity Piedmont residual soil using dynamic cone penetrometer. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 10:323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nguyen BT, Mohajerani A (2015) Determination of CBR for fine-grained soils using a dynamic lightweight cone penetrometer. Int J Pavement Eng 16(2):180–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.937807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rolt J, Pinard MI (2016) Designing low-volume roads using the dynamic cone penetrometer. Transportation 169:163–172

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ampadu SIK, Ackah P, Nimo FO, Boadu F (2017) A laboratory study of horizontal confinement effect on the dynamic cone penetration index of a lateritic soil. Transp Geotech 10:47–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kessler K (2009) Use of DCP (Dynamic Cone Penetrometer) and LWD (Light Weight Deflectometer) for QC/QA on Subgrade and Aggregate Base. In: Material Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Testing of Pavements 2012; GeoHunan International Conference, pp 62–67

  18. Ranasinghe RATM, Jaksa MB, Kuo YL, Nejad FP (2017) Applications of artificial neural networks for predicting the impact of rolling dynamic compaction using dynamic cone penetrometer test results. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 9:340–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yang B, Zhang R, Zha X, Liu C, Pan Q (2015) Improved testing method of dynamic cone penetrometer in laboratory for evaluating compaction properties of soil subgrade. Road Mater Pavement Des. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2015.1091375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mo P, Marshall AM, Yu H (2017) Layered effects on soil displacement around a penetrometer. Soils Found 57:669–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ma H, Zhou M, Hu Y, Hossain MS (2015) Interpretation of layer boundaries and shear strengths for soft-stiff-soft clays using CPT data: LDFE analyses. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kwon J, Tutumluer E (2009) Geogrid base reinforcement with aggregate interlock and modeling of associated stiffness enhancement in mechanistic pavement analysis. Transp Res Rec 2116:85–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mekkawy M, White DJ, Suleiman MT, Jahren CT (2011) Mechanically reinforced granular shoulders on soft subgrade: laboratory and full scale studies. Geotext Geomembr 29:149–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li C, Ashlock JC, White DJ, Vennapusa PKR (2017) Mechanistic-based comparisons of stabilised base and granular surface layers of low-volume roads. Int J Pavement Eng. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.1321417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chennarapu H, Garala TK, Chennareddy R, Balunaini U, Reddy GVN (2018) Compaction quality control of earth fills using dynamic cone penetrometer. J Constr Eng Manag 144(9):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ampadu SIK, Fiadjoe GJY (2015) The influence of water content on the Dynamic Cone Penetration Index of a lateritic soil stabilized with various percentages of a quarry by-product. Transp Geotech 5:68–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sayida MK, Evangeline SY, Girish MS (2019) Coir geotextiles for paved roads: a laboratory and field study using non-plastic soil as subgrade. J Nat Fibers. https://doi.org/10.1080/15440478.2019.1568344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh M, Trivedi A, Shukla SK (2019) Strength enhancement of the subgrade soil of unpaved road with geosynthetic reinforcement layers. Transp Geotech 19:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Webster SL, Grau RH, Williams RP (1992) Description and application of dual mass dynamic cone penetrometer. Vicksburg, MS, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Report Number GL-92-3

  30. Nair AM, Latha GM (2011) Bearing resistance of reinforced soil-aggregate systems. Proc Inst Civ Eng Ground Improv 164:83–95. https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2011.164.2.83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tingle JS, Jersey SR (2005) Cyclic plate load testing of geosynthetic-reinforced unbound aggregate roads. Transp Res Rec 1936:60–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Koerner RM (2012) Designing with geosynthetics, 6th edn. Xlibris, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shukla SK (2012) Handbook of geosynthetic engineering. ICE Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University, New Delhi, India

    Meenakshi Singh & Ashutosh Trivedi

  2. Geotechnical and Geo Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia

    Sanjay Kumar Shukla

  3. School of Building and Civil Engineering, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji

    Sanjay Kumar Shukla

Authors
  1. Meenakshi Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashutosh Trivedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sanjay Kumar Shukla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meenakshi Singh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, M., Trivedi, A. & Shukla, S.K. Influence of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on Unpaved Roads Based on CBR, and Static and Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 6, 13 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00196-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-020-00196-0

Keywords

search

Navigation