Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204210

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Laboratory performance of unpaved roads reinforced with woven coir geotextiles

E.A. Subaida*, S. Chandrakaran, N. Sankar
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Calicut, 673 601, India

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 6 June 2008 Received in revised form 5 November 2008 Accepted 7 November 2008 Available online 22 January 2009 Keywords: Woven coir geotextile Unpaved road Bearing capacity Plastic deformation

a b s t r a c t
The results of an experimental study conducted to investigate the benecial use of woven coir geotextiles as reinforcing material in a two-layer pavement section, are presented. Monotonic and repeated loads were applied on reinforced and unreinforced laboratory pavement sections through a rigid circular plate. The effects of placement position and stiffness of geotextile on the performance of reinforced sections were investigated using two base course thicknesses and two types of woven coir geotextiles. The test results indicate that the inclusion of coir geotextiles enhanced the bearing capacity of thin sections. Placement of geotextile at the interface of the subgrade and base course increased the load carrying capacity signicantly at large deformations. Considerable improvement in bearing capacity was observed when coir geotextile was placed within the base course at all levels of deformations. The plastic surface deformation under repeated loading was greatly reduced by the inclusion of coir geotextiles within the base course irrespective of base course thickness. The optimum placement position of coir geotextile was found to be within the base course at a depth of one-third of the plate diameter below the surface. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Unpaved roads are usually used for low volume trafc and serve as access roads. Being basically an agricultural country low volume roads play a very important role in the rural economy and resource industries in India. When unpaved roads are built on soft foundation soils, large deformations can occur, which increase maintenance cost and lead to interruption of trafc service. The use of geosynthetic products as an inclusion in exible pavements for reinforcement has been demonstrated to be a viable technology through studies conducted over the last three decades (Cancelli and Montanelli, 1999; Chan et al., 1989; Collin et al., 1996; Fannin and Sigurdsson, 1996; Gopal and Anil, 1994; Hufenus et al., 2006; Leng, 2000; Love et al., 1987; Miura et al., 1990; Moghaddas-Nejad and Small, 1996; Perkins, 1999; Som and Sahu, 1999) which results in increased service life of the pavement or reduced base thickness to carry the same number of load repetitions. Benets of reducing base course thickness are realized if the cost of the geosynthetic is less than the cost of the reduced base course material. In developing countries like India cost and availability of geosynthetics are the major constraining factors for the construction of reinforced soil structures. High cost of geosynthetics and stringent environmental
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 495 2286230 or 91 9847854954; fax: 91 495 2287250. E-mail addresses: easubaida@yahoo.co.in (E.A. Subaida), chandra@nitc.ac.in (S. Chandrakaran), sankar@nitc.ac.in (N. Sankar). 0266-1144/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.009

protection requirements make it important to explore alternative natural products to make the constructions cost efcient and ecofriendly (Sarsby, 2007; Rawal and Anandjiwala, 2007; Chauhan et al., 2008). But deterioration over time limits the use of natural geotextiles to temporary applications only. One of such applications can be in unpaved road over soft subgrade where the rate of plastic deformation (rut development) due to repeated trafc loads is faster during the initial stage and gets stabilized later (Fannin and Sigurdsson, 1996). In this case, it is expected that consolidation of the soft subgrade soil will make reinforcement unnecessary in the long-term. Natural bre geotextiles can be a feasible solution in such applications where these products are meant to serve only during the initial stage and nal strength is attained by soil consolidation due to passage of vehicles. These natural materials include coir, which is the husk of coconut, a common waste material where coconuts are grown and subsequently processed. Coir bre is strong and degrades slowly compared to other natural bres due to high lignin content (Rao and Balan, 2000). The degradation of coir depends on the medium of embedment and climatic conditions and is found to retain 80% of its tensile strength after 6 months of embedment in clay (Rao and Balan, 2000). Coir geotextiles are presently available with wide ranges of properties. Closely woven coir geotextiles possess high tensile strength and pullout resistance (Subaida et al., 2008) which can be economically utilized for temporary reinforcement purposes. In unpaved roads, major functions of geotextile materials include ltration, separation, and reinforcement. Coir geotextiles

E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204210

205

were reported to possess good ltration and drainage properties (Ramanatha Ayyar et al., 2002; Lekha and Kavitha, 2006; Babu, 2007). The benets of using reinforcements in exible pavements depend largely on the quality and thickness of the granular base and location of the geosynthetics within the pavement structure (Chan et al., 1989) along with other factors such as mechanical properties of reinforcement material (Perkins, 1999), subgrade strength (Cancelli et al., 1997), nature of interaction between soil and geosynthetics (Ghosh and Madhav, 1994) and applied load magnitude. The reinforcement mechanisms in geosynthetic reinforced pavement include base course lateral restraint, increase in stiffness of the base course aggregate layer (Bender and Barenberg, 1978), reduction of shear stress in the subgrade soil (Love et al., 1987), improved vertical stress distribution on the subgrade (Milligan et al., 1989) and tensile membrane action (Giroud and Noiray, 1981). Signicant rut depth and high stiffness of the geosynthetic must be provided to initiate the membrane effect and thus to enhance the bearing capacity of the subgrade (Som and Sahu, 1999; Gobel et al., 1994). The placement position of reinforcement is the main factor affecting the bearing capacity of reinforced granular soil and higher bearing capacity has been observed when the depth of placement of reinforcement is decreased (Akinmusuru and Akinbolade, 1981; Fragazy and Lawton, 1984; Sankariah and Narahari, 1988; Reymond, 1992). The optimal position was reported to lie at the base of the ll with a very soft subgrade and a ll thickness less than 0.4 m (Cancelli and Montanelli, 1999; Haas et al., 1988; Miura et al., 1990). Babu (2007) reported increased bearing capacity when woven and non-woven coir geotextiles were used at the interface of silty clay subgrade and granular base course of 150 mm thickness. It has been found that the membrane effect of reinforcement diminishes with an increase in the thickness of the road aggregate layer (Hufenus et al., 2006; Kinney et al., 1998). With higher lls, the depth effect of a wheel load is generally too small to mobilize a noticeable tensile force within the reinforcement when placed just above the subgrade. At small deformations an efcient mobilization of tensile strength of reinforcement is dependent on both interlock and stiffness (Fannin and Sigurdsson, 1996) in which case the effective location appears to depend on both the quality and thickness of the granular material in which the geotextile is installed and the magnitude of the applied loads. Also the role of geotextile/geogrid used as aggregate reinforcement is purely structural, and no separation benet should be expected. In this case it is not placed directly at the interface, but rather at an optimum depth within the granular base (Ashmawy and Bourdeau, 1995). The interaction between soil and inclusion depends upon the limiting friction or adhesion at their interface (Ghosh and Madhav, 1994). Reinforcement placed high up in the granular layer hinders lateral movement of the aggregate due to frictional interaction and interlocking between the ll material and the reinforcement which raises the apparent load-spreading ability of the aggregate and reduces the necessary ll thickness (Chan et al., 1989; Gobel et al., 1994; Miura et al., 1990; Moghaddas-Nejad and Small, 1996; Perkins, 1999). Coir geotextile develops good interface friction with granular ll (Ajitha and Jayadeep, 1997; Subaida et al., 2008) which can induce tensile stress in the reinforcement when embedded within the ll material. Such minor changes in horizontal stress distribution can cause signicant changes in system performance. Hence, when used as reinforcement in unpaved roads, laying of coir geotextile must be carried out so as to take full advantage of this biodegradable material during the early period of construction when much of the working of membrane action cannot be expected. No signicant study has been reported on the use of coir geotextiles as aggregate reinforcement in unpaved road sections. Hence a detailed experimental study has been planned to investigate the reinforcing benets of woven coir geotextiles in

a laboratory two-layer pavement section and the present paper describes the results so obtained. Two types of woven coir geotextiles and two base course thicknesses were adopted in the study. The effectiveness of such applications was investigated through a series of monotonic and repeated loading tests conducted under well-controlled testing conditions. 2. Materials used for the study The subgrade of test sections consisted of clay having a liquid limit of 60% and plastic limit of 25%. The clay is classied as CH (as per Indian Standards) and had a specic gravity of 2.47. Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density were obtained as 25% and 15 kN/m3 respectively in standard proctor test. To prepare the test sections clay was compacted to a dry density of 12 kN/m3 at a water content of 46%, to simulate the natural condition of the clay deposit during the time of collection. The CBR value obtained at this water content and density was 1.2%. The base course aggregate was a crushed stone with the particle size distribution shown in Fig. 1. The material is classied as GW as per Indian Standards and had a specic gravity of 2.67. Maximum dry density obtained was 20 kN/m3 at a water content of 5.5%. The material was compacted to 90% of maximum dry density at a moisture content of 5% to make the base course in all tests. Direct shear tests performed at stress levels ranging from 100 to 300 kPa resulted in a friction angle of 48.3 . Two types of woven coir geotextiles designated as MMA2 and MMA3 were used as reinforcements in the study. Woven coir geotextile is designated as mesh matting based on the type of warp yarn. Fig. 2 shows photographs of these two types of geotextiles. The properties of geotextiles used are presented in Table 1. 3. Test set-up The experiments were conducted in a concrete tank of size 1.5 m length, 1 m width and 1 m depth. A reaction frame was fabricated using steel channels and plates to take up the loading and to hold the loading devices to be placed at the centre of the tank. Load was applied through a circular plate, 200 mm in diameter and 25 mm thick. The vertical load was applied on the footing through a steel shaft using a mechanical device based on the principle of screw motion that was measured using a proving ring of 50 kN capacity. Load was transferred to the plate through a steel ball kept in a groove which was made at the centre of the footing to ensure the applied load to be vertical. The settlement of the plate was

100

80

Fraction passing (%)

60

40

20

0 0.01

0.1

10

100

Particle size (mm)

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of base course material.

206

E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204210

Fig. 2. Photographs of woven coir geotextiles used for the study.

measured using two dial gauges, tted on the plate on either side of the loading shaft. Three more dial gauges were placed at radial distances of 200, 300 and 400 mm from the centre of the plate to measure the surface deformations. Fig. 3 shows the schematic diagram of the test set-up. 4. Test section construction Table 2 provides information on the types of test sections constructed and the loading applied. Variables included geotextile type, geotextile placement position in the base layer, and base course thickness. Subgrade was prepared by compacting clay in layers of 50 mm thickness. Pulverized clay required for each layer was weighed and mixed with the desired quantity of water. The layer was compacted to the required thickness using a hammer of 4.5 kg. Uniformity of water content and density were checked by taking samples using cylindrical tubes at different locations within

Fig. 3. Experimental set-up. (a) Loading arrangement. (b) Arrangement of dial gauges. Table 2 Test-section variables. Test section A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S Base thickness (mm) 0 167 167 167 267 267 267 167 167 167 167 167 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 Subgrade soil Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay Type of Geotextile Control MMA2 MMA2 Control MMA2 MMA2 Control MMA2 MMA2 MMA3 MMA3 Control MMA2 MMA2 MMA2 MMA2 MMA2 MMA3 Type of loading Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Monotonic Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Repeated Position of Geotextile

Table 1 Properties of woven coir geotextiles used for the study. Particulars Mass/unit area (g/m2) Thickness (mm) Number of ends/decimeter Number of picks/decimeter Tensile strength (kN/m) Warp Weft Failure strain (%) Warp Weft MMA2 1286.56 8.39 18.90 10.90 36.00 20.70 36.12 28.45 MMA3 710.50 8.47 8.90 6.50 12.60 9.12 20.70 23.00

N/A N/A Base-subgrade interface Mid depth of base N/A Base-subgrade interface Mid depth of base N/A Base-subgrade interface Mid depth of base Base-subgrade interface Mid depth of base N/A Within base(U/D 0.2) Within base(U/D 0.3) Within base(U/D 0.6) Within base (U/D 1) Base-subgrade interface Within base(U/D 0.3)

E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204210 Table 3 Subgrade properties for different test sections. Test section Before test Water content (%) Top 200 Middle 200 mm layer mm layer A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S 45.9 45.6 45.8 45.3 46.1 45.7 45.2 45.5 45.5 45.6 45.7 45.3 45.8 45.7 45.5 46.0 45.9 45.9 46.1 46.0 45..8 46.1 45.5 46.3 45.6 45.4 45.4 45.7 45.5 45.8 45.6 45.5 45.5 45.3 46.2 45.8 46.1 46.3 Bottom 200 mm layer 46.2 45.8 46.0 45.5 46.1 45.8 45.4 45.2 45.8 45.6 45.9 45.4 45.6 45.7 45.3 46.0 45.7 46.1 46.1 Dry unit weight (kN/m3) Top 200 Middle 200 mm layer mm layer 12.15 12.06 11.81 12.23 11.71 11.84 12.22 12.131 11.72 11.51 12.32 12.15 12.14 12.21 11.92 12.34 12.12 12.23 12.3 12.04 11.87 11.81 12.00 11.72 11.80 12.14 12.08 11.65 11.53 12.30 12.13 12.08 12.26 12.06 12.41 12.15 12.20 12.17 Bottom 200 mm layer 12.07 11.86 12.04 11.95 11.63 11.91 12.30 12.23 11.80 11.50 12.06 12.16 12.16 12.19 11.96 12.37 12.14 12.22 12.28 After test Water content (%) Top 200 Middle 200 mm layer mm layer 45 44.9 45.2 45.6 45.2 45.4 45.0 45.3 45.2 45.5 45.4 45.3 45.6 45.4 45.3 45.7 45.6 45.5 45.4 44..8 44.6 45.0 45.8 45.1 45.0 45.8 45.6 44.9 45.3 45.3 45.1 45.3 45.5 44.9 46.0 45.2 45.4 45.1 Bottom 200 mm layer 45.1 45.0 45.1 45.6 45.3 45.3 45.6 45.5 44.8 45.2 45.1 45.2 45.5 45.4 44.8 46.1 44.9 45.2 45.5 Dry unit weight (kN/m3) Top 200 Middle 200 mm layer mm layer 12.4 12.2 11.7 12.3 11.9 11.7 12.1 11.8 12.1 11.6 12.2 12.2 12.4 12.3 12.1 11.9 11.7 12.1 11.8 12..20 12.10 11.81 12.02 11.92 11.75 12.20 11.92 11.97 11.53 12.18 12.23 12.37 12.26 12.31 12.04 11.69 12.16 11.85

207

Bottom 200 mm layer 12.26 12.04 11.79 12.25 11.86 11.67 12.08 11.90 12.03 11.56 12.21 12.20 12.41 12.21 12.2 12.01 11.67 12.09 11.78

the tank. To check the vertical uniformity of the bed, one sample was taken from every 200 mm thickness of bed layer at the same location. Table 3 shows the mean values of water content and dry unit weight of subgrade measured at different locations for different tests. The base course aggregate was compacted using a hammer of 10 kg falling from a height of 200 mm. The plate diameter, thickness of layers and load intensity were scaled to a factor of 2/3 with respect to a full scale wheel load size of 300 mm. Sections were constructed with two base course thicknesses of 167 and 267 mm to represent thin and thick pavement sections of 250 and 400 mm respectively. The thicknesses of base course layers for compaction were conveniently decided based on the location of geotextile in each case. Uniformity in water content and density of base course was achieved for the different tests. To prepare reinforced sections geotextile was placed at the base/subgrade interface or within the base at the desired location. Since the width of the geotextile roll was equal to the internal width of the test tank a single piece of geotextile was used to cover the entire surface of the test section. 5. Test procedure Monotonic load tests were conducted on reinforced and unreinforced sections as per Indian Standards (IS 1888, 1982). The test bed was levelled and the footing was placed centrally over it. Load was applied by rotating the wheel of the screw jack manually. A seating pressure of 7 kPa was applied. Dial gauge readings were taken at every load increments of 10 kN. Each load increment was applied when the settlement became less than 0.025 mm/min. Effect of reinforcement location on bearing capacity was studied by keeping the geotextile at the base/subgrade interface and at mid depth of base course. Tests were conducted on two types of test sections with base thicknesses of 167 and 267 mm. Only MMA2 was used as reinforcement in these tests. To investigate the inuence of coir geotextile reinforcement on the behaviour of the pavement section under repeated loading, 100 cycles of load were applied on sections of 167 mm base thickness in tests H, I, J, K and L with a stress intensity of 260 kPa. The stress level corresponded to 60% of the strength of reinforced pavement using MMA2 under monotonic load tests. In tests M, N, O, P, Q, R and S,

1000 cycles of load intensity of 400 kPa (equivalent to a tyre pressure of 600 kPa) was applied on pavement sections of 267 mm thickness. Pressure on the footing is increased from zero to the required level by rotating the wheel. The maximum desired pressure is applied for 1 s and then load is released to zero. The period of rest for the section was also maintained as 1 s in all the tests. Two types of geotextiles MMA2 and MMA3 were used in these tests. 6. Results and discussion 6.1. Monotonic load tests Monotonic load tests were conducted on sections of 167 and 267 mm base thicknesses. Fig. 4 shows the relationship between the bearing stress and settlement of the footing with and without coir geotextile reinforcement in a pavement of 167 mm base thickness. The unreinforced pavement failed at strength of 247 kPa. The ultimate bearing capacity increased to 366 kPa when the geotextile MMA2 was placed at the interface of subgrade and base course and to 433 kPa when the same geotextile was placed within the base course at mid depth. In the reinforced pavement, deformation is restrained because of the presence of geotextile. The increases in bearing capacity observed are 45 and 75% respectively

Test A 500 Test B

Test C Test D

Bearing preesure (kPa)

400 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Settlement (mm)
Fig. 4. Bearing pressure-settlement of plate curves for 167 mm thick base under monotonic load tests.

208

E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204210

Table 4 Load capacity ratio at different settlements under monotonic loading (167 mm base). Settlement (mm) Load capacity ratio MMA2 at interface 20 50 1.23 1.47 MMA2 at mid depth of base

7 unreinforced MMA2 at mid depth of base 5 MMA2 at interface

Heave (mm)

1.87 1.86

when the geotextile is placed at the interface and within the base respectively. Table 4 illustrates the ratio of load required to produce the specied settlement (load capacity ratio) for reinforced and unreinforced sections. Load capacity ratios corresponding to settlements of 20 and 50 mm have been shown to represent relatively smaller and higher settlements. When MMA2 is placed at the base/subgrade interface, a signicant increase in the load is observed only at higher settlements which may be due to membrane action. Whereas, placing the geotextile within the base resulted in a considerable increase in load at small as well as large settlements. For pavement section with 267 mm base thickness ultimate bearing capacity increased by 11.8% when the geotextile MMA2 is placed at the interface of subgrade and base course (Fig. 5). Shifting of the position of geotextile to the middle of the base course resulted in an increase in the ultimate bearing capacity to 17.9% of that of the unreinforced section. The results indicate that the percentage increase in the bearing capacity due to coir geotextile reinforcement is signicant only for pavement sections with thin base courses. Fig. 6 shows the surface deformation at a distance of 300 mm from the footing centre for reinforced and unreinforced sections of 167 mm base thickness. In the case of unreinforced section heaving of surface takes place after a footing settlement of 5.41 mm. When MMA2 is placed at the interface of base and subgrade, the ll surface is found to undergo settlement in the initial stages of loading up to a footing penetration of 22 mm followed by slight heaving at relatively larger settlement of the footing. In the case of reinforced section with MMA2 placed within the base course, heaving starts at a footing settlement of 11.24 mm. The results show that geotextile kept at the interface inhibits the development of rupture planes in the soil bed by enhancing the subgrade connement which gives rise to reduction of surface heaving. Geotextile placed within the base course is found to be less effective in reducing the heaving due to lack of subgrade connement. In the case of 267 mm base thickness the heaving of the surface was not considerable both for reinforced and unreinforced sections under monotonic loading due to lower footing penetration.

0 -1

10

20

30

40

50

60

Settlement of plate (mm)

Fig. 6. Heave at 300 mm from footing centre under monotonic loading (167 mm base).

6.2. Repeated load test The relationship between number of load applications and permanent surface deformation in sections of 167 mm thick bases are shown in Figs. 7 and 8 respectively. Plastic deformation is found to be reduced due to the introduction of coir geotextile reinforcement. The performance of sections in which coir geotextile is placed within the base is superior to the section with geotextile placed at the interface. Lateral movement of the base allows for vertical strains to develop leading to permanent surface deformation of the loaded area. Placement of a geotextile layer in the base course allows for shear interaction to develop between the aggregate and the geotextile as the base attempts to spread laterally. Shear load is transmitted from the base aggregate to the geotextile and places the geotextile in tension which retards the development of lateral tensile strain in the base adjacent to the geotextile. Lower lateral strain in the base results in less vertical deformation of the surface. Smooth interface between soft subgrade and geotextile placed at the interface of base and subgrade results in a decrease in the percentage reduction of plastic deformation. Reduction in permanent deformation is more due to inclusion of MMA2, compared to MMA3, because of higher stiffness which suggests that, with all other factors being the same, an increase in reinforcement stiffness and strength results in superior pavement performance. Rut depth is 68 and 44% that of unreinforced section when MMA2 is placed at the interface and mid depth of the base respectively. Use of MMA3 at the interface and mid depth of base resulted in respective plastic surface deformations of 86 and 74% that of unreinforced section. Improved performance with respect to bearing capacity and resistance to plastic deformation is observed when coir geotextiles are placed within the base course.

Unreinforced

1000

MMA2-subgrade/base interface

Bearing pressure (kPa)

Plastic deformation (mm)

MMA2-mid depth of base

100 80 60 40 20 0 0

Unreinforced MMA3 MMA2

800 600 400 200 0 0 10 20 30 40

Settlement (mm)
Fig. 5. Bearing pressure-settlement of plate curves for 267 mm thick base under monotonic load tests.

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of load applications

Fig. 7. Plastic surface deformation of 167 mm thick base (Geotextile at interface).

E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204210

209

100

Un reinforced MMA3

80 Unreinforced MMA3 60 MMA2

Plastic deformation (mm)

80 60 40 20 0 0

Plastic deformation (mm)

40 60 80 100 120

MMA2

40

20

20

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Number of load applications

Fig. 8. Plastic surface deformation of 167 mm thick base (Geotextile at mid depth of base).

Number of load applications

Fig. 10. Plastic surface deformation of 267 mm thick base (U/D 0.3).

Repeated load tests were conducted on 267 mm thick sections keeping the geotextile at different positions within the base to locate the optimum placement depth of coir geotextile within the base. The variation of rut depth with the number of load applications for different placement locations of reinforcement is illustrated in Fig. 9. All of the curves exhibit a transition to a stable response at large numbers of load applications. The general responses of reinforced sections are similar to that of unreinforced section. However the curves indicate improvement in the performances of reinforced sections over the unreinforced section. Test results indicate that plastic surface deformation is a minimum when the geotextile is placed at a depth of one-third of the diameter of the plate (U/D 0.3, where U is the depth of placement of coir geotextile below the surface and D is the diameter of plate) among the different locations adopted in this study. A coir geotextile layer is able to mobilize stresses within the reinforced sections due to high interface friction, preventing local shear failure and deformations. When the placement depth of geotextile is much less (U/D 0.2) the overburden is not sufcient to develop frictional resistance at the interface of the reinforcement and the ll resulting in lower reduction in plastic surface deformation. When the placement location is increased beyond U/D 0.3, reductions in plastic deformation continue to decrease. Complete restraining of lateral spreading of base course material due to geotextile may not take place when kept at higher depths because of increased ll thickness and hence the reinforcement effect may be retarded. These results indicate that the performance of the unpaved road

system can be improved by keeping coir geotextile at a depth sufcient to mobilize the reinforcement within the base course. For the load intensity adopted in the study the optimum location appears to lie within the base at a depth of one-third of the plate diameter below the surface. Fig. 10 shows the inuence of geotextile strength in reducing the rut formation in 267 mm thick base. Reinforcement using MMA2 resulted in better performance than MMA3 in reducing the rut formation as in the case of 167 mm thick section. When placed within the base course, both types of geotextile exhibited good performance with respect to plastic deformation irrespective of base thickness. The test results obtained in the present study regarding the location of reinforcement may be comparable with the ndings of previous researchers using geosynthetics. Brown et al. (1985), through wheel tracking of geogrid reinforced asphalt sections, reported signicant reductions in surface rutting for a U/D of 0.3, while there was negligible benet for a U/D of 1. Perkins (1999) also reported enhanced performance of asphalt section under dynamic loading by raising the position of geogrid above subgrade/base interface. Raymond and Ismail (2003) based on experiments carried out at one-tenth scale concluded that the geogrids should be placed as close as possible to the underside of the sleeper within the ballast. In contrast to these, test results by Brown et al. (2007) indicated that geogrid placed at the mid depth of ballast showed no better performance than that placed at the bottom of the ballast layer. 7. Conclusions

100

Unreinforced U/D-0.2 U/D-0.3

The following conclusions can be drawn from the test results of the present investigation:  The bearing capacity of thin unpaved road section can be increased by the inclusion of woven coir geotextile. Signicant increases in ultimate bearing capacity and bearing capacity at any settlement were obtained when coir geotextile was placed at mid depth of the base course. For thicker sections the improvement in bearing capacity due to inclusion of coir geotextile was only marginal. Coir geotextile placed at the base/ subgrade interface enhanced subgrade connement and reduced heaving considerably.  Woven coir geotextile signicantly decreased the permanent vertical deformation over the loaded area of the pavement under repeated loading by restraining the lateral spreading of base material. Location and stiffness of geotextile greatly inuenced the performance of reinforced sections. Enhanced performance was obtained by keeping the coir geotextile

Plastic deformation (mm)

80

U/D-0.6 U/D=1 Base-subgrade interface

60

40

20

0 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Number of load applications

Fig. 9. Plastic surface deformations of 267 mm base for different positions of MMA2.

210

E.A. Subaida et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 204210 Collin, J.G., Kinney, T.C., Fu, X., 1996. Full scale highway load test of exible pavement systems with geogrid reinforced base courses. Geosynthetics International 3 (4), 537549. Chauhan, M.S., Mittal, S., Mohanty, B., 2008. Performance evaluation of silty sand subgrade reinforced with y ash and bre. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (5), 429435. Fannin, R.J., Sigurdsson, O., 1996. Field observations on stabilization of unpaved roads with geotextiles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 26 (7), 544553. Fragazy, R.J., Lawton, E., 1984. Bearing capacity of reinforced sand subgrades. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 110 (10), 15001507. Ghosh, C., Madhav, M.R., 1994. Reinforced granular ll-soft soil system: membrane effect. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13, 743759. Giroud, J.P., Noiray, L., 1981. Geotextile reinforced unpaved road design. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 107 (9), 12331254. Gobel, C.H., Weisemann, U.C., Kirschner, R.A., 1994. Effectiveness of a reinforcing geogrid in a railway subbase under dynamic loads. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 13 (1), 9199. Gopal, S., Anil, D., 1994. Reinforced pavement behaviour under static and cyclic loading, in: Proc.. of 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. New Delhi, India, pp. 1819-1822. Haas, R., Walls, J., Carroll, R.G., 1988. Geogrid reinforcement of granular bases in exible pavements. Transportation Research Record 1188, 1927. Washington, DC. Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor, P., Springman, S.M., Bronnimann, R., 2006. Full-scale eld tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads on soft subgrade. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (1), 2137. Kinney, T.C., Abbott, J., Schuler, J., 1998. Benets of using geogrids for base reinforcement with regard to rutting. Transportation Research Record 1611, 8696. Washington, DC. Lekha, K.R., Kavitha, V., 2006. Coir geotextile reinforced clay dykes for drainage of low-lying areas. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (1), 3851. Leng, J., 2000. Characteristics and behaviour of geogrid-reinforced aggregate under cyclic load. D.Phil thesis, North Carolina State University, USA. Love, J.P., Burd, H.J., Milligan, G.W.E., Houlsby, G.T., 1987. Analytical and model studies of reinforcement of a layer of granular ll on a soft clay subgrade. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 24, 611622. Milligan, G.W.E., Jewell, R.A., Houlsby, G.T., Burd, H.J., 1989. A new approach to design of unpaved roads, Part I. Ground Engineering 22 (3), 2529. Miura, N., Sakai, A., Taesiri, Y., Yamanouchi, T., Yasuhara, K., 1990. Polymer grid reinforced pavement on soft clay grounds. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 9 (2), 99123. Moghaddas-Nejad, F., Small, J.C., 1996. Effect of geogrid reinforcement in model track tests on pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering 122 (6), 468474. Perkins, S.W., 1999. Mechanical response of geosynthetic reinforced exible pavements. Geosynthetics International 6 (5), 347382. Ramanatha Ayyar, T.S., Ramachandran Nair, C.G., Balakrishnan Nair, N. (Eds.), 2002. Comprehensive reference book on coir geotextiles. Centre for Development of Coir Technology (Publishers), Kerala. Rao, G.V., Balan, K. (Eds.), 2000. Coir Geotextiles Emerging Trends. The Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd (Publishers), Alappuzha, Kerala. Rawal, A., Anandjiwala, R., 2007. Comparative study between needle punched nonwoven geotextile structures made from ax and polyester bres. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (1), 6165. Reymond, G.P., 1992. Reinforced sand behaviour overlying compressible subgrades. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 118 (11), 16631680. Raymond, G.P., Ismail, I., 2003. The effect of geogrid reinforcement on unbound aggregates. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21 (6), 355380. Sankariah, B., Narahari, R., 1988. Bearing capacity of reinforced sand beds, in: Proc.. on First Indian Geotextile Conference on Reinforced soil and Geotextiles, Bombay, India, pp. C11-C13. Sarsby, R.W., 2007. Use of Limited Life Geotextiles (LLGs) for basal reinforcement of embankments built on soft clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (4-5), 302310. Som, N., Sahu, R.B., 1999. Bearing capacity of a geotextile-reinforced unpaved road as a function of deformation a model study. Geosynthetics International 6 (1), 117. Subaida, E.A., Chandrakaran, S., Sankar, N., 2008. Experimental investigations on tensile and pullout behaviour of woven coir geotextiles. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (5), 384392.

within the base for thin as well as thick sections. The reductions in plastic deformation were of the order of 30 and 14% when MMA2 and MMA3 were placed at the base/subgrade interface of 167 mm section. Placing of geotextile at the mid depth of base resulted in reductions in vertical deformations of the order of 50 and 25% for MMA2 and MMA3 respectively.  Placement location of coir geotextile within the base course signicantly affected the performance of thick sections. For the test conditions adopted in the study the optimum depth of placement of woven coir geotextile was obtained as one-third of the plate diameter below the surface.  To get satisfactory performance of reinforced systems, woven coir geotextiles may be placed within the base course of unpaved roads keeping sufcient ll thickness above the geotextile layer to mobilize frictional resistance at the interface of reinforcement and ll which will avoid damage to geotextile due to trafc also. The results presented in this paper should be interpreted in the light of the small plate diameter and lower pressure used. The small scale model test results provide insight into the load deformation behaviour of the coir geotextile reinforced unpaved sections. Further study is required to interpret the performance of large scale sections from small scale laboratory tests. Acknowledgements The nancial support of DOCT, Government of Kerala, India for conducting the experimental investigation is gratefully acknowledged by the authors. References
Ajitha, B., Jayadeep, T., 1997. Interfacial frictional properties of geotextiles and biomats, in: Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Vadodara, India, Vol. 1, pp. 287290. Akinmusuru, O., Akinbolade, J.A., 1981. Stability of loaded footing on reinforced soil. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE 107 (6), 819827. Ashmawy, A.K., Bourdeau, P.L., 1995. Geosynthetic-reinforced soils under repeated loading a review and comparative design study. Geosynthetics International 2 (4), 643668. Babu, K.K., 2007. Utilisation of coir geotextiles for unpaved roads and embankments. PhD thesis, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kochi, India. Bender, D.A., Barenberg, E.J., 1978. Design and behaviour of soil-fabric-aggregate systems. Transportation Research Record 671, 6475. Washington, DC. Brown, S.F., Brunton, J.M., Hughes, D.A.B., Brodrick, B.V., 1985. Polymer grid reinforcement of asphalt. Asphalt Paving Technology 54, 1841. Brown, S.F., Kwan, J., Thom, N.H., 2007. Identifying the key parameters that inuence geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (6), 326335. Cancelli, A., Montanelli, F., Rimoldi, P., Zhao, A., 1997. Full scale laboratory testing on geosynthetics reinforced paved roads, in: Ochiai, H., Yaufuku, N., Omine, K., (Eds.), Earth Reinforcement, Balkema, 1997, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, Vol. 1, Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan, November, 1996, pp. 573578. Cancelli, A., Montanelli, F., 1999. In-ground test for geosynthetic reinforced exible paved roads. Proceedings of Geosynthetics 99, Vol. 2, Boston, USA, pp. 863879. Chan, F., Barksdale, R.D., Brown, S.F., 1989. Aggregate base reinforcement of surfaced pavements. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 8 (3), 165189.