USE OF GEOSYNTHETICS FOR ROADBASE STRENGHTENING CASE

STUDY IN SWAMPY AREA

Andrus Aavik1, Artu Ellmann2, Priit Paabo3
1,2
Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
3
EstRoad Ltd., Tallinn, Estonia
1
Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia, andrus.aavik@ttu.ee
2
Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia, artu.ellmann@ttu.ee
3
Klviku tee 15-1, 11913 Tallinn, Estonia, priit@estroad.ee
Abstract. Quantity of mineral materials, suitable for road construction, is limited in Estonia and depending from the location of
actual construction site it can be a serious problem. That leads to search of alternative solutions and technologies, such as use of
recycled construction waste as mineral material, use of geosynthetics (-textiles, -nets, -membranes and -composites), soil stabilization
etc, to replace the traditional material or to reduce its supply required. Often the technical solution of replacement of traditional
technology is offered by the producer of corresponding material or possessor of technology and redesign of pavement structure,
caused by the replacement, is also usually performed by them. At the same time the redesign methodology is classified as their
business secret and therefore the client will not be able evaluate adequately the redesign result. In 2009 Estonian Road
Administration started case study to evaluate the adequacy of the redesign of 8,7 km long road section (secondary road 15111
Lokuta-Roovere), crossing swampy area. Redesign was performed by the German engineering company BBG Bauberatung
Geokunststoffe GmbH & Co. KG. According to original design about 42400 m3 unsuitable soil and peat had to be excavated and
replaced at the swampy area. Redesign suggested not to excavate that soil and peat but to use for road base strengthening solution
with geotextile and -net. Road section was built in 2009 based on the redesign and since then check-up measurements of the
pavement condition are performed annually. Current paper contains analyses of yearly measurement results of bearing capacity, IRI,
rutting, pavement defects and deformation (by geodetic leveling) taking into account road sections strengthened with geotextile and
net (ca 5,5 km) and sections without strengthening (ca 3,2 km). Most interest offers the behavior of 500 m long section with up to 2
m thick peat layer under the road structure. Current research has to answer to the following questions: Is the proposed redesign
solution suitable for that road? Does the actual pavement bearing capacity correspond to the redesign values? Do the measured
condition parameters (bearing capacity, IRI, rutting, deformation) differ depending from the presence of geosynthetics or not? What
is the economical effect of using geosynthetics? Could the similar solution be used in other similar conditions and what factors have
to be taken into account differently?
Keywords: geosynthetics, road base strengthening, road condition, bearing capacity, frost heave.

INTRODUCTION

Quantity of mineral materials, suitable for road construction, is limited in Estonia and depending
from the location of actual construction site it can be a serious problem. That leads to search of
alternative solutions and technologies, such as use of recycled construction waste as mineral
material, use of geosynthetics (-textiles, -nets, -membranes and -composites), soil stabilization etc,
to replace the traditional material or to reduce its supply required.
Often the technical solution of replacement of traditional technology is offered by the producer of
corresponding material or possessor of technology and redesign of pavement structure, caused by
the replacement, is also usually performed by them. At the same time the redesign methodology is
classified as their business secret and therefore the client will not be able evaluate adequately the
redesign result.
In 2009 Estonian Road Administration started case study to evaluate the adequacy of the redesign of
8.7 km long road section (secondary road 15111 Lokuta-Roovere), crossing swampy area. Redesign
was performed by the German engineering company BBG Bauberatung Geokunststoffe GmbH &
Co. KG. According to original design about 42400 m3 unsuitable soil and peat had to be excavated
and replaced at the swampy area. Redesign suggested not to excavate that soil and peat but to use
for road base strengthening solution with geotextile and -net.
Road section was built in 2009 based on the redesign and since then following check-up
measurements of the pavement condition are performed annually (until autumn 2013):
Geodetic leveling - every spring, summer and autumn;
Bearing capacity with falling weight deflectometer (Dynatest FWD 8000) - every spring,
summer and autumn;
Roughness (IRI) - every spring and autumn;
2 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

Rut depth every autumn;

Traffic volume once in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

1 INITIAL ROAD CONDITION, REPAIR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

1.1 Initial situation

8.7 km long road section of secondary road 15111 Lokuta-Roovere is situated in central part of
Estonia and crossing meadows, fields, swamps, forests, nari village in the center part of the road
section and Roovere village at the end of the section (Fig. 1).

Kukepuu swamp

Road 15111 Lokuta-Roovere

Iidva swamp
Lokuta bog

Fig. 1. Location of road section regarding to swampy areas

That is a medieval road, mentioned already in 13th century, and because of the roads long history
the embankment contains today chaotically located different soil and material types dirt, peat,
sand, gravel, clay and between them sporadically old logs (Fig. 2).
In most critical condition was the road section km 0.4-0.9 which is located in the area of Lokuta
bog. Because of the underlying peat passing vehicles induced vertical movement of all road
structure. On the surface of the road pavement cracking was visible (Fig. 3).
The average daily traffic on the first road section (km 0-4.292) was 180 and on the second section
(km 4.292-8.7) was 148 vehicles per 24 hours in 2004. Designed traffic volume is accordingly 335
and 276 vehicles per 24 hours in 2020.

1.2 Initial design

Designed road followed the existing old alignment with two bigger and some smaller
straightenings. Existing gravel pavement and all unsuitable materials and soils had to be excavated
and hauled away. Amounts of the excavation and hauling were as follows:
Gravel and gravelly sand 11680 m3;
Unsuitable soil 20364 m3;
 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference 3

Peat 10380 m3;

New material from the quarry for embankment construction 61069 m3.

Fig. 2. Wooden logs in existing road embankment Fig. 3. Surface of the pavement at the Lokuta bog area

Total amount of the unsuitable soil to be excavated was 42424 m3. 10380 m3 of peat had to be
excavated from the Lokuta bog area (km 0.4-0.9) which had the peat layer up to 2 meters.
Designed pavement structure was changed by the client accordingly:
a) designed pavement structure: b) changed pavement structure by the client:
double surface dressing; surface dressing
crushed limestone 8 cm; asphalt concrete 5 cm;
enriched gravelly sand 10 cm; impacted crushed limestone fr. 16/32 15
gravelly sand 12 cm; cm and saturated with bitumen emulsion
fine sand 30 cm; 4 cm;
silty clayey sand. crushed gravel 30 cm;
sand 20 cm;
existing embankment.

1.3 Design with geosynthetics

Construction work started in May 2008 and after that it was clear that it will not possible to
continue the work according to the initial design because of the continuously changing geological
conditions of the area which were not taken into account in the initial design.
Comparing different alternatives solution with geogrid Secugrid 30/30 Q1 and geotextile TS 2 use
was selected.
As the design road width was 2-3 meters wider than old existing road, from both roadsides the dirt
and unsuitable soil had to be excavated and replaced with soil fulfilling requirements for use in
embankment (Fig. 4).
Pavement calculations were performed by the German company BBG Bauberatung Geokunststoffe
GmbH & Co. KG (Fig. 5).
4 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

Profile after construction Profile after settlement

Pavement structure Pavement structure
Designed slope

Gravel
Gravel

Geotextile Geotextile

Peat Existing road Peat

Existing road

Fig. 4. Widening of the embankment

Fig. 5. Designed pavement structure with E-modulus values

After negotiations between client and contractor the following pavement structure was agreed:
Surface dressing with crushed volcanic rock
Soft asphalt mix (MSE) 5 cm;
Base from crushed limestone 20 cm;
Crushed gravel 20 cm;
Natural gravel 20 cm;
Geogrid Secugrid 30/30;
Geotextile TS 2;
Levelling layer from gravel (if needed);
Existing gravel pavement (new embankment at straightening).
It was agreed to install geogrid and textile in total on 5580 m of all 8.7 km long road section (km
0-0.975; 1.2-1.425; 1.85-2.65; 4.5-4.93; 5.1-5.7; 5.8-6.15; 6.4-8.6) including swamp area at km 0.4-
0.9.

1.3 Construction

1.3.1 Swamp area (km 0.4-0.9)

At first, for lowering the groundwater level, new culverts were installed and side ditches excavated.
After removing dirt and peat from the widening area and leveling subgrade the geotextile was
installed. Geotextile was installed under the widening to prevent soil mixing and clay and peat
extraction during widening filling and compaction. (Fig. 6)
After the geotextile gravel was placed on the widening and compacted.
 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference 5

Fig. 6. Geotextile under the widening

Old existing road and widening were leveled with crushed gravel and on top of which geotextile
and geogrid were installed (both 1.5-2 meters wider than embankment to be folded back, locking 30
cm gravel layer) (Fig. 7 and 8).

Fig. 7. Geotextile and -grid Fig. 8. Geotextile and grid folded back

After folding back geotextile and grid, section was covered with crushed gravel layer which was
leveled and compacted. On top of gravel the base from crushed limestone was constructed, covered
with soft asphalt concrete (MSE) pavement and surface dressed (Fig. 9)

1.3.2 Other sections

Besides the swamp section there were 8 other road sections where geotextile and grid were
installed. Technology used on these sections was similar to the technology used at swamp area but it
had following differences:
Embankment was widened to both sides of the existing road;
Geotextile was not installed under the widening (Fig. 10).
6 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

Fig. 9. Completed construction on swamp area in September 2009

Fig. 10. Widening at km 7.5 Fig. 11. Crushed gravel layer

1.4 Construction cost

Economical comparison of two design solutions (initial and with geosynthetics, Table 1)) is
complicated as:
Part of earthworks were performed according to the initial design and part according to the
design with geosynthetics and the border between the earthwork volumes of two designs is a
little bit gloominess and the earthwork volumes of two designs for economical comparison
were evaluated by opinion.
With the change of the pavement structure contractor took all risks of the earthworks growth
and rise in prices. Money, left after the design correction from the contract price, was
divided between the expenditure items.
Table 1. Comparison of construction costs of different design solutions, EUR
Design with
Initial design, EUR
geosynthetics, EUR
Earthworks 520 581 396 785
Pavement 1 101 290 1 321 068
Total cost 1 621 871 1 717 853
Unforeseen works (5% of total cost) 81 094 -
Total cost with unforeseen works 1 702 965 1 717 853
COST DIFFERENECE 14888
 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference 7

The cost of earthworks decreased about 24 % and cost of pavement structure increased 20 %. Total
construction cost, not taking into account unforeseen works, increased for the contractor about 6 %
(96 000 EUR).
On the other hand, the total need of mineral material for the road section according to the initial
design was about 140 000 m3 and on that construction site area that amount of new material was not
available at contractors quarries as well other competitive contractors refused to provide needed
amount. That means part of needed mineral aggregate had to be transported from long distances and
that means substantial growth of transport expenses and with that also growth of total construction
cost which probably exceeded remarkably the 6 % cost growth of initial design.
It can be concluded that the economical effectiveness of geosynthetics use is dependant from the
local situation and existence of alternatives. Price of the mineral material at the quarries and the
location of quarries from one side and the technical solution, type and price of geosynthetics from
the other side are determining the economical efficiency of geosynthetics for road construction.

2 PAVEMENT CONDITION DATA ANALYSES

2.1 Bearing capacity

Bearing capacity of the road section is measured annually at spring summer and autumn using
Dynatest 800 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) device. FWD measurement data is used for
calculation of the pavement E-modulus. The required E-modulus of the pavement according to the
traffic volume is 109 MPa. Calculated redesigned (with geosynthetics) pavement E-modulus is 151
MPa. After the construction in 2009 the average E-modulus of the section was 191 MPa (min value
136 MPa and max value 269 MPa).
All measured E-modulus values are over the required value 109 MPa but on some sections are
smaller than calculated E-modulus 151 MPa (Fig. 12, Table 2).

Spring E-modulus
350
300
250 Sections with
200 geosynthetics:
150 0 - 450
E-modulus, MPa

100 450 - 975

50 1200 - 1425
0 1850 - 2650
4500 - 4930
100
350
600
850
1100
1350
1600
1850
2100
2350
2600
2850
3100
3350
3600
3850
4100
4350
4600
4850
5100
5350
5600
5850
6100
6350
6600
6850
7100
7350
7600
7850
8100
8350
8595

5100 - 5700
5800 - 6150
Road section, m

12.05.2010 11.05.2011 18.05.2012

Fig. 12. E-modulus of the road section in spring, MPa

Analyzing separately bearing capacity of road sections with and without geosynthetics (Table 3) can
be concluded that the E-modulus value of road sections with geosynthetics is about 6 % smaller
than E-modulus value of sections without geosynthetics. Cause of that can be pure soil and water
conditions of the sections with geosynthetics and as the result of that also lower bearing capacity of
those sections.
8 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

Table 2. Pavement E-modulus values calculated using FWD measurement data, MPa
E-modulus, MPa
Value Date of FWD measurement
29.09.2009 12.05.2010 27.07.2010 5.10.2010 11.05.2011 26.07.2011 16.09.2011 18.05.2012 17.07.2012 26.09.2012
average 191 188 215 197 220 224 199 210 204 198
min 136 123 149 140 140 153 142 150 144 140
max 269 281 301 274 302 305 287 306 298 281

Table 3. Pavement E-modulus values calculated using FWD measurement data on the sections with and without geosynthetics, MPa

E-modulus, MPa Difference

from the
Date of FWD measurement section
Value
Average without
29.09.2009 12.05.2010 27.07.2010 5.10.2010 11.05.2011 26.07.2011 16.09.2011 18.05.2012 17.07.2012 26.09.2012 geosynthetics,
%
Sections with geosynthetics
average 187 182 211 193 215 220 195 206 201 194 200 -5,89
min 136 123 149 140 140 153 142 152 144 140 142 -8,58
max 245 234 276 246 269 282 254 268 264 256 259 -10,76
Sections without geosynthetics
average 200 201 223 203 230 230 207 216 212 207 213 -
min 153 126 168 149 151 185 149 150 161 159 155 -
max 269 281 301 274 302 305 287 306 298 281 291 -
 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference 9

Also following FWD deflection bowl parameters are analyzed:

Surface Curvature Index (SCI) difference of deflections measured with load cells in the
center of the loading plate (d0) and 300 mm from the center (d300) , which is characterizing
condition of the pavement layers:
SCI = d0 d300 (1)
Base Damage Index (BDI) difference of deflections measured with load cells in the
distance 300 mm (d300) and 600 mm (d600), which is characterizing condition of the base
layers:
BDI = d300 d600 (2)
Base Curvature Index (BCI) difference of deflections measured with load cells in the
distance 1200 mm (d1200) and 1500 mm (d1500), which is characterizing condition of the
subgrade:
BCI = d1200 d1500 (3)
Before analyses all FWD measurement data is corrected to fit to the standard load (50 kN) and
temperature (10 oC).
Based on the section required E-modulus 109 MPa and calculated E-modulus 151 MPa the limit
values of the deflection bowl characteristics for the road section with cold asphalt mix (MSE)
pavement can be calculated (Table 4).

Table 4. Limit values of the deflection bowl parameters SCI, BDI and BCI at the test section
Limit values
Deflection bowl parameter
Erequired=109 MPa Ecalculated=151 MPa
SCI 580 350
BDI 366 201
BCI 87 45

The bigger is the SCI, BDI or BCI value the worth is the pavement structural condition at
determined depth.
In the case of the required pavement E-modulus 109 MPa the calculated deflection bowl parameters
are all smaller than the limit values (Table 5). It means that pavement structural condition from the
point of pavement bearing capacity should be sufficient.
In the case of the calculated pavement E-modulus 151 MPa the situation is different and there are
existing SCI, BDI and BCI values over limit value which means that the real structural condition of
the pavement is not corresponding to the calculated and designed bearing capacity (Fig. 13, Table
5). But as the calculated pavement E-modulus is higher 42 MPa from the required E-modulus, it
should not be a problem.
Comparison of deflection bowl values of road sections with and without geosynthetics is presented
in Table 6. It can be concluded that:
SCI values of sections with geosynthetics are in average about 1.5 % (min values 24 %, max
values 6 %) less than SCI values of sections with geosynthetics. That indicates that upper
part of pavement with geosynthetics is in better condition that without geosynthetics.
Average BDI values are 6 % (min values 15 %, max values 7 %) bigger at sections with
geosynthetics which means that base layers (at the depth 300-600 mm) of those sections are
in worse condition in comparison with sections without geosynthetics.
Average BCI values of sections with geosynthetics are about 24 % bigger than BCI values
of sections without geosynthetics which means that subgrade soils (at the depth 1200-1500
mm) are worse bearing properties than soils at the sections without geosynthetics.
 10 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

SCI in spring BDI in spring

500 350
400 300
250
300 200
200 150

BDI
100
SCI

100 50
0 0

100
350
600
850
1100
1350
1600
1850
2100
2350
2600
2850
3100
3350
3600
3850
4100
4350
4600
4850
5100
5350
5600
5850
6100
6350
6600
6850
7100
7350
7600
7850
8100
8350
8595
100
350
600
850
1100
1350
1600
1850
2100
2350
2600
2850
3100
3350
3600
3850
4100
4350
4600
4850
5100
5350
5600
5850
6100
6350
6600
6850
7100
7350
7600
7850
8100
8350
8595
Road section, m
Road section, m

12.05.2010 Limit value 11.05.2011 18.05.2012

12.05.2010 Limit value 11.05.2011 18.05.2012

BCI in spring
70
Sections with
60 geosynthetics:
50 0 - 450
40
450 - 975
BCI

30
20 1200 - 1425
10 1850 - 2650
0 4500 - 4930
100
350
600
850
1100
1350
1600
1850
2100
2350
2600
2850
3100
3350
3600
3850
4100
4350
4600
4850
5100
5350
5600
5850
6100
6350
6600
6850
7100
7350
7600
7850
8100
8350
8595
5100 - 5700
Road section, m 5800 - 6150
12.05.2010 Limit value 11.05.2011 18.05.2012

Fig. 13. Values of deflection bowl parameters SCI, BDI and BCI at the road section in spring

Table 5. Limit values of the deflection bowl parameters SCI, BDI and BCI at the test section
Limit value Deflection bowl parameter values
Deflection bowl
Erequired=109 Ecalculated=151
parameter Average Minimum Maximum
MPa MPa
29.09.09 232 149 340
12.05.10 205 69 424
27.07.10 153 49 281
5.10.10 124 31 239
11.05.11 153 87 284
SCI 26.07.11 580 350 135 81 202
16.09.11 135 67 231
18.05.12 208 107 383
17.07.12 202 145 309
26.09.12 184 121 278
29.09.09 140 90 216
12.05.10 156 89 291
27.07.10 109 64 168
5.10.10 120 72 190
11.05.11 125 73 225
BDI 366 201
26.07.11 104 60 152
16.09.11 130 75 199
18.05.12 141 69 255
17.07.12 129 70 204
26.09.12 138 77 206
29.09.09 18 8 56
12.05.10 22 9 65
27.07.10 18 7 57
5.10.10 18 8 45
BCI 11.05.11 87 45 20 7 56
26.07.11 21 6 68
16.09.11 23 1 74
18.05.12 21 6 52
17.07.12 19 6 51
26.09.12 19 5 52
 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference 11

Table 6. Deflection bowl parameters SCI, BDI and BCI calculated using FWD measurement data on the sections with and without geosynthetics
Date of FWD measurement
Difference from the section
Value 29.09.09 12.05.10 27.07.10 05.10.10 11.05.11 26.07.11 16.09.11 18.05.12 17.07.12 26.09.12 Average
without geosynthetics, %
SCI
Sections with geosynthetics
Average 236 210 151 123 151 132 133 206 199 183 172 -1,42
Min 162 69 49 31 87 81 67 107 151 121 92 -24,21
Max 305 424 281 239 208 200 185 271 274 258 265 -5,83
Sections without geosynthetics
Average 225 196 156 127 157 141 140 214 207 186 175 -
Min 149 129 94 87 116 111 101 157 145 132 122 -
Max 340 361 239 180 284 202 231 383 309 278 281 -
BDI
Sections with geosynthetics
Average 142 162 112 122 129 105 131 143 130 141 132 +6,06
Min 90 102 67 86 91 64 86 93 75 94 85 +14,59
Max 216 291 168 181 225 152 181 255 204 206 208 +6,80
Sections without geosynthetics
Average 136 144 105 117 118 100 127 138 126 132 124 -
Min 91 89 64 72 73 60 75 69 70 77 74 -
Max 194 248 167 190 216 137 199 224 182 191 195 -
BCI
Sections with geosynthetics
Average 19 23 19 19 22 23 25 22 20 20 21 +23,60
Min 8 9 7 9 7 6 1 7 7 5 7 -5,10
Max 56 65 57 45 56 68 74 52 51 52 58 +100,37
Sections without geosynthetics
Average 16 18 16 16 18 19 19 18 17 16 17 -
Min 9 9 7 8 9 8 1 6 6 8 7 -
Max 26 30 27 27 28 33 31 29 29 26 29 -
12 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

2.2 Evenness (IRI)

International Roughness Index (IRI) is measured annually in spring and autumn in two directions
(Lokuta-Roovere and Roovere-Lokuta) with 20 m sections.
Average and minimum IRI values are remained almost the same during the years 2009-2012 (Table
7). Maximum IRI values are grown and especially on the direction 2 (Roovere-Lokuta) max value
7.14 mm/m on the Lokuta bog section area (km 0.44-0.975). Worse evenness of all 8.7 km long test
section appears on that bog section (Fig. 14).

Table 7. IRI average, min and max values in 2009-2012, mm/m

IRI values, mm/m
IRI value Direction 1 - Lokuta-Roovere
15.09.2009 12.11.2009 12.05.2010 8.10.2010 11.05.2011 25.09.2011 18.05.2012 26.09.2012
Average 1,49 1,51 1,52 1,44 1,46 1,47 1,45 1,42
Min 0,62 0,82 0,76 0,64 0,65 0,71 0,65 0,62
Max 4,00 3,73 3,70 4,03 3,87 4,72 3,45 4,67
Direction 2 - Roovere-Lokuta
IRI value
15.09.09 12.11.09 12.05.2010 8.10.2010 11.05.2011 25.09.2011 18.05.2012 26.09.2012
Average 1,50 1,49 1,54 1,49 1,63 1,53 1,56 1,50
Min 0,62 0,69 0,73 0,56 0,74 0,57 0,62 0,46
Max 4,20 3,93 4,13 4,39 5,89 6,70 6,52 7,14

IRI spring 2010, 2011, 2012 - direction 1

4,5
4
3,5
3
2,5
IRI, mm/m

2
1,5
1
0,5
0
20

400

780

1160

1540

1920

2300

2680

3060

3440

3820

4200

4580

4960

5340

5720

6100

6480

6860

7240

7620

8000

8380

Road section, m
12.05.2010 11.05.2011 18.05.2012

IRI spring 2010, 2011, 2012 - suund 2

4
IRI, mm/m

0
20

400

780

1160

1540

1920

2300

2680

3060

3440

3820

4200

4580

4960

5340

5720

6100

6480

6860

7240

7620

8000

8380

Road section, m
12.05.2010 11.05.2011 18.05.2012

Fig. 14. IRI values of the test section 2010-2012, mm/m

 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference 13

Analyzing IRI on sections with and without geosynthetics can be determined that IRI values on
sections with geosynthetics are in average about 6.4 % (max values ca 30%) bigger than IRI values
of sections without geosynthetics (Table 8). Bigger IRI values on sections with geosynthetics are
indicating pure structural condition of those sections.

2.3 Rutting

Rut depth is measured once per year usually at summer time in two directions (Fig. 15). During the
measurements rut depth at the right and left wheel path is determined and also is determined the
height of the top between the wheel paths (Table 9).

Table 9. IRI average, min and max values in 2009-2012, mm/m

Direction 1 (Lokuta-Roovere)
Value Rut depth at right wheel path Rut depth at left wheel path Height of top between wheel path
2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012
Average 4 4 6 6 5 2 2 2 -6 2 2 1
Min -4 -4 -6 -9 -3 -10 -10 -14 2 12 11 14
Max 13 16 26 26 19 20 14 23 -16 -5 -6 -10
Direction 2 (Roovere-Lokuta)
Value Rut depth at right wheel path Rut depth at left wheel path Height of top between wheel path
2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012 2009 2010 2011 2012
Average 5 4 6 6 5 3 4 3 -7 1 0 -1
Min -2 -4 -4 -11 -3 -9 -6 -9 3 11 11 14
Max 16 18 23 18 25 20 24 17 -16 -7 -7 -10
Negative value means, that the pavement surface is higher from the measurement level and positive value that pavement surface is
lower than the measurement level

Average rut depth values are in the range of 2-6 mm which is corresponding to the very good
pavement condition. Maximum values in 2012 are in the range of 17-26 mm which is satisfactory or
even pure pavement condition. Rut depth at the right wheel path is about 2 times bigger than rut
depth at the left wheel path. As the existing road was widened on both sides, then obviously the
widening is submerging under the traffic load.

2.4 Defects

Pavement defects were evaluated in spring 2010 during regular pavement evaluation for Road
Register data collection (Table 10). Main defect type on the pavement at this time was narrow
longitudinal crack (up to 55 m on some 100 m sections).
Photos from 2011 and 2012 spring are showing classical cracking due to the frost heave (Fig. 15).
Reason for that kind of cracking is usually caused by the different behavior of different soils at the
same moisture and temperature conditions. During the widening the old road was not scattered but
the widening was attached to the existing road (Fig. 4 and 10). As different soil and materials were
used for widening, they are also behaving differently during winter time and forming crack.
Consequently the used technology already determined possible frost heave cracking development in
the road structure.
14 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

Table 8. IRI values on the sections with and without geosynthetics, mm/m

IRI, mm/m Difference from

the section
Value Date of measurement without
Average geosynthetics,
15.09.2009 12.11.2009 12.05.2010 8.10.2010 11.05.2011 25.09.2011 18.05.2012 26.09.2012
%
Direction 1 (Lokuta-Roovere)
Sections with geosynthetics
Average 1,50 1,55 1,57 1,45 1,50 1,52 1,48 1,45 1,50 +6,37
Min 0,62 0,83 0,78 0,64 0,65 0,75 0,65 0,63 0,69 -5,47
Max 4,00 3,73 3,70 4,03 3,87 4,72 3,45 4,67 4,02 +30,06
Sections without geosynthetics
Average 1,46 1,44 1,45 1,40 1,39 1,39 1,40 1,37 1,41 -
Min 0,75 0,82 0,76 0,65 0,74 0,71 0,72 0,71 0,73 -
Max 2,77 3,06 2,96 3,48 2,93 3,12 3,26 3,15 3,09 -
Direction 2 (Roovere-Lokuta)
Sections with geosynthetics
Average 1,48 1,50 1,54 1,50 1,65 1,54 1,59 1,53 1,54 +1,92
Min 0,62 0,69 0,74 0,56 0,74 0,57 0,62 0,46 0,63 -15,33
Max 3,20 3,93 4,12 4,39 5,89 6,70 6,52 7,14 5,23 +30,83
Sections without geosynthetics
Average 1,54 1,48 1,54 1,47 1,60 1,52 1,50 1,46 1,51 -
Min 0,74 0,89 0,73 0,71 0,76 0,74 0,63 0,71 0,74 -
Max 4,20 3,69 4,13 3,80 3,88 4,51 3,80 3,99 4,00 -
15
8580 8580
8500 8500
8420 8420
8340 8340
8260 8260
8180 8180
8100 8100
8020 8020
7940 7940
7860 7860
7780 7780
7700 7700
7620 7620
7540 7540
7460 7460
7380 7380
7300 7300
7220 7220
7140 7140
7060 7060
6980 6980
6900 6900
6820 6820
6740 6740
6660 6660

Fig. 15. Rut depth measurement data at right wheel path in both directions 2009-2012, mm
6580 6580
6500 6500

Right rut 2012

6420

Right rut 2012

6420
6340 6340
6260 6260
6180 6180
6100 6100
6020 6020
5940 5940
5860 5860

Right rut depth - direction 2 (Lokuta-Roovere) 0-8600 m

Right rut depth - direction 1 (Lokuta-Roovere) 0-8600 m

5780 5780
5700 5700
5620 5620
5540 5540
5460 5460
5380 5380
5300 5300

Right rut 2011

5220 5220
Right rut 2011

5140 5140
5060 5060
4980 4980
4900 4900
4820 4820
4740 4740
4660 4660
4580 4580
4500 4500
4420 4420
4340 4340
4260 4260
4180 4180

rut 2010 m
2010 m

4100 4100

Right Kaugus,
Kaugus,

4020 4020
3940 3940
The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

3860 3860
3780 3780
Right rut

3700 3700
3620 3620
3540 3540
3460 3460
3380 3380
3300 3300
3220 3220
3140 3140
3060 3060
2980 2980
2900 2900
2820 2820 Right rut 2009
Right rut 2009

2740 2740
2660 2660
2580 2580
2500 2500
2420 2420
2340 2340
2260 2260
2180 2180
2100 2100
2020 2020
1940 1940
1860 1860
1780 1780
1700 1700
1620 1620
1540 1540
1460 1460
1380 1380
1300 1300
1220 1220
1140 1140
1060 1060
980 980
900 900
820 820
740 740
660 660
580 580
500 500
420 420
340 340
260 260
180 180
100 100
20 20
-5

25

20

15

10

-5

-10

-15
30

25

20

15

10

-10

-15

Rut depth, mm Rut depth, mm

16 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

Fig. 15. Defects on the pavement in spring 2011 and 2012

 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference 17

2.5 Geodetic leveling

Utmost settlement values were determined on the Lokuta bog area km 0.125-0.975 (Fig. 16).

Teeligu PK125...PK975 krguslik asend 2010-2012 (sept.2009 a suhtes)

20,0

0,0
125 225 325 475 525 575 625 675 725 775 825 875 925 975
Vajum [mm]mm

-20,0

May 2010
Settlement,

Mai 2010 (III-I)

-40,0
Aug.
Aug. 2010
2010 (IV-I)
-60,0 Nov.2010
Nov. 2010
(V-I)

-80,0 May
Mai 2011
2011 (VI-I)
Aug.
Aug. 2011
2011 (VII-I)
-100,0 Oct.2011
Okt. 2011
(VIII-I)

-120,0
April
aprill 2012
2012 (IX-I)
July2012
Juuli 2012
(X-I)
Distance (m) from the Piketi
beginning
nr. of the section
Nov.2012
Nov. 2012
(XI-I)

May 2010
Aug. 2010
Nov. 2010
May 2011
Aug. 2011
Oct. 2011
April 2012
July 2012
Settlement, mm

Nov. 2012

Distance (m) from the beginning of the section

Fig. 16. Dynamics of the cross profile settlement 2010-2012 (in comparison of 2009)

Section km 1.275-2.275 settlements are maximum 9 mm (km 1.325-1.375). Section km 4.575-7.775

has remarkable frost heave areas in April 2012 (up to 55 mm on km 6.525, Fig. 16). All frost heave
sections are showing low bearing capacity values (Fig. 12).

CONCLUSIONS

As the result of the current research following can be concluded:

Total amount of the unsuitable soil to be excavated was 42 424 m3 (including 10 380 m3 of
peat from the Lokuta bog area) which had to be replaced with long hauled new material.
Design with geosynthetics was about 15 000 Euros more expensive in comparison with
initial design solution.
Taking into account that filling sand price is in average 6 Euros/m3 (without hauling, in the
quarry), savings from the use of geosynthetics instead of soil replacement are at least about
250 000 Euros (+ hauling cost) which is about 15 % of the initial project cost.
All measured E-modulus values are over the required value 109 MPa but on some sections
are smaller than calculated E-modulus 151 MPa.
18 The XXVIII International Baltic Road Conference

E-modulus value of road sections with geosynthetics is about 6 % smaller than E-modulus
value of sections without geosynthetics. Cause of that can be pure soil and water conditions
of the sections with geosynthetics and as the result of that also lower bearing capacity of
those sections.
Average IRI value of the section is about 1.5 mm/m. Maximum IRI value is 7.14 mm/m on
the Lokuta bog section area (km 0.44-0.975).
Average rut depth values are in the range of 2-6 mm which is corresponding to the very
good pavement condition. Maximum values in 2012 are in the range of 17-26 mm which is
satisfactory or even pure pavement condition.
Main defect type of the pavement structure is the classical cracking due to the frost heave.
Reason for that kind of cracking is usually caused by the different behavior of different soils
at the same moisture and temperature conditions. During the widening the old road was not
scattered but the widening was attached to the existing road. Consequently the used
technology already determined possible frost heave cracking development in the road
structure.
Economical effectiveness of the geosynthetics instead of removing and replacing unsuitable
soils is dependant from the local situation and existence of alternatives. Price of the mineral
material at the quarries and the location of quarries from one side and the technical solution,
type and price of geosynthetics from the other side are determining the economical
efficiency of geosynthetics for road construction.