Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 1

Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method

INTRODUCTION
A geogrid-reinforced unpaved design method is presented for Tenax biaxial geogrids.
This design method adopts the design model proposed by Leng and Gabr (2006), including the
simplified vertical stress analysis of an elastic two-layer system, the base layer degradation cor-
relation with geogrid tensile strength at 2% strain, and the mobilized subgrade bearing capacity
at the design rut depth. The design equations of and main design parameters are presented. The
calibration of the design model and the limitations of the design are also discussed.

TWO-LAYER SYSTEM AND INTERFACE VERTICAL STRESS

An unpaved road section can be simplified as a two-layer system. According to elastic
analysis, the vertical stresses transferred to the top of subgrade are related to the base course
thickness and the base course-subgrade elastic modulus ratio. Odemark’s method presented by
Ullidtz (1987) can be used to evaluate the interface vertical stress. It transforms the system con-
sisting of several layers with different moduli into an equivalent system where all layers have the
same modulus, and on which Boussinesq’s solution may be applied.
For a two-layer unpaved road section, the base course layer is transformed to an equiva-
lent layer with the same modulus as the underlying subgrade. To keep the same stiffness as the
original layer, the equivalent thickness he is specified as follows:
1
 E (1 − µ 2 2 )  3
he = h 1 2 
(1)
 E 2 (1 − µ 1 ) 

Where, h = base course thickness, E1 = base course elastic modulus, E2 = subgrade elastic
modulus, µ1 = Poisson’s ratio of base course (0.35 is used as default), µ2 = Poisson’s ratio of
subgrade (0.42 is used as default).
The maximum interface vertical stress on the subgrade (σc) underneath the center of a
circular loaded area can be expressed as:
 h
3

σ c = p 1 − 2 e 2 1.5  (2)
 (a + h e ) 
Where, a = radius of circular loaded area, p = applied pressure;
The maximum vertical stress on the subgrade (underneath the center of loaded area) can
be conservatively taken as the uniformly distributed stress with a stress distribution angle α. For
a circular loaded area, tan α can be calculated with base course thickness (h) and maximum ver-
tical stress measured on the subgrade (σc):
a  p 
tanα =  − 1 (3)
h  σc 

Figure 1 shows the tan α values of an elastic two-layer system with variable modulus ra-
tion (E1/ E2) and radius-thickness ration (a/h).
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 2

Figure 1. Stress distribution factor tan α for a two-layer system

BASE LAYER DEGRADATION

Based on the vertical stresses on the subgrade from the cyclic plate load tests (Gabr et al.,
2001; Leng and Gabr, 2002), the back-calculated tan α demonstrated that the load spreading ca-
pacity of base layer degrade with the increase of number of cycles and geogrid placed between
base layer and subgrade can reduce the base layer degradation. A degradation coefficient of tan
α (λ2) is introduced as follows:
tanα N 1
λ2 = = (5)
tanα1 1 + k 2 logN
Where, αΝ = stress distribution angle at the N-th load cycle, α1 = initial stress distribution angle,
k2 = a constant. The k2 value is indicative of the degradation in tan α.

Geogrid reinforcement improves the performance of unpaved roads through interlocking

the aggregates at relatively low shear strains. With aggregates of base course striking though
geogrid aperture and confined against geogrid ribs, the shear stress from base course material is
effectively transferred from interlocked aggregates to geogrid’s cross ribs, then to parallel ribs
through geogrid junctions. Giroud et al. (1984) used geogrid tensile stiffness at 2% strain in the
unpaved road design. The field test data reported by Fannin and Sigurdsson (1996) indicated that
the measured tensile strain of geogrid is 1.3% for the unpaved test section. The degradation pa-
rameter k2 is empirically correlated to the 2% tensile strength of geogrids (Jt, average value of
both machine direction and cross-machine direction) as follows:

k 2 = (a/h )
0.81 4.5
Max[(0.58 − 0.000046J t ),0.15] (6)

The minimum k2 is set to 0.15 for a/h =1.

Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 3

Figure 2. Influence of geogrid reinforcement on degradation factor k2

MOBILIZATION OF SUBGRADE BEARING CAPACITY

Geosynthetics placed between base course and soft subgrade can improve the subgrade
bearing capacity. Giroud and Han (2004) summarized the theoretical values of the bearing capac-
ity factor in the axi-symmetric cases: Nc = 5.69 (from Cox et al., 1961) for zero interface shear
strength case, and Nc = 6.04 (from Eason and Shield, 1960) for maximum interface shear
strength case. In this design method, 3.8 is used for unreinforced sections under the axi-
symmetric condition, which is an average Nc for the plane strain problem (π/2+1 to 3.3) multi-
plied by a factor of 1.3; Nc = 6.0 is used for the geogrid-reinforced sections.

A mobilized bearing capacity ratio (m) is introduced here to represent the mobilized sub-
grade resistance as a function of base course thickness and rut depth. Figure 3 demonstrates that
the modified bearing capacity ratio under static loading condition can be approximately ex-
pressed as a function of a/h as follows:
m = N cm /N c = 1 − e -0.78 (a/h )
(7)
where, Nc = subgrade bearing capacity factor; Ncm = mobilized subgrade bearing capacity factor;.

For unpaved road design under cyclic loading, a typical allowable rutting is 0.05 to 0.10
m. In this design method, it is assumed that the subgrade bearing capacity can be fully mobilized
at a critical subgrade deformation of 0.038 m after 1 load cycle and 0.05 m after 10000 load cy-
cles. The critical subgrade deformation (rcr) is then related to number of load cycles as follows:
(8) rcr = 0.025 × (0.125logN + 1.5), m
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 4

1.0
-0.78(a/h)
Ncm/Nc = 1 − e
0.8

0.6
Ncm / Nc

0.4

E1 /E2 = 1
0.2 E1 /E2 =2.5
E1 /E2 = 5
E1 /E2 =10
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

a/h

Figure 3. Subgrade Bearing Capacity Mobilization Ratio From Static Analysis

The mobilized subgrade bearing capacity ratio can be adjusted according to design rut
depth (r) used for the design as follows:
m = 1 − e
-0 .7 8 ( a / h )
 r ≤1
  rc r (9)
The modified bearing capacity can be expressed by:
q cm = mN c C u (10)
Where, Cu = subgrade undrained shear strength

PROPOSED DESIGN APPROACH

As originally proposed by Giroud and Noiry (1981), the additional vertical stress on the
subgrade layer need to be less than or equal to the mobilized subgrade bearing capacity in order
to prevent the rutting failure of subgrade. The balance equation was expressed as:
P
σc = ≤ mN c C u
π(a + htanα N )
2 (11)
Where, σc = additional vertical stress on top of the subgrade; P = single wheel load; a = radius of
the loaded area; αN = stress distribution angle at the design load cycles N; m = mobilized sub-
grade bearing capacity ratio calculated by using Equation 16; Nc = subgrade bearing capacity
factor (3.8 for the unreinforced case, 6.0 for the geogrid-reinforced case); Cu = subgrade
undrained shear strength.

The required thickness of base layer (h) can then be expressed as:
1  P 
h=  − a  (12)
tanα N  πmN C 
 c u 
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 5

Assuming that the wheel load is uniformly distributed on the contact area (P = pπa2), and
the degradation of base layer can be determined as tan αN = tan α1[1 + k2 log N], the required
base course thickness can be determined as following:
a  p 
h=  − 1 (13)

tanα1 [1 + k 2 logN]  mNc C u 
Since h or a/h values (expressed within the “m” parameter) are on both sides of the de-
sign equations (Equation 13), an iteration scheme is necessary in order to solve for h. The re-
quired base course thickness in this model is a function of the base course-subgrade modulus ra-
tio (E1/E2), the subgrade undrained shear strength (Cu), the geogrid tensile strength at 2% strain,
the bearing capacity factor (Nc), the single wheel load (P), the radius of loaded area (a), and the
number of design load cycles (N).

MAIN DESIGN PARAMETERS

CBR values of subgrade and base course aggregate have been widely used in roadway
design practice. Some empirical relationships in the literature are available to evaluate the
undrained shear strength and the moduli of subgrade and base course layers as follows:

i) Subgrade undrained shear strength

The empirical relationship between subgrade undrained shear strength was proposed by Giroud
and Noiray (1981):
Cu = 30 CBRsb (kPa) (14)

ii) Subgrade modulus

The relation of subgrade resilient modulus (E2) and CBR is the one developed by Shell (Heu-
kelom and Klomp, 1962), for fine grained soils with CBR of 10 or less.
E2 (MPa) = 10 CBRsb (MPa) (15)

iii) Base course modulus

Using the design chart of the AASHTO Design Guide for Pavement Structure (1993),
Giroud and Han (2004) obtained the following empirical relationship of base course modulus
and base course CBR value.
E1 = 36 CBRbc0.3 (MPa) (16)

DESIGN APPROACH CALIBRATION AND LIMITATIONS

For working platform of surfaced pavements or permanent unpaved structures, a rela-
tively low rut depth of 1.5 inches (or 38 mm) is recommended; for temporary haul roads or ac-
cess roads, a relatively large rut depth of 3.0 inches (or 76 mm) is recommended.
The above described design model is based on the cyclic loading plate tests performed on
the unpaved test sections in the laboratory under axisymmetric condition. In order to simulate
the unpaved road in the field condition, a calibration factor is proposed on the right side of equa-
tion (13) for the unpaved road design. For rut depth of 1.5 inches (or 38 mm) and 3.0 inches (or
76 mm), the required base course thickness can be determined with equation 17 and 18 respec-
tively:
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 6

0.7 a  p 
h=  − 1
tanα1 [1 + k 2 logN]  mNc C u 

(17)

0.85a  p 
h=  − 1
tanα1 [1 + k 2 logN]  mNc C u 
 (18)

Austin and Coleman (1993) reported the field test data of geosynthetic-reinforced haul
roads over soft soils. The subgrade CBR is There are three control sections of unreinforced haul
road and two test sections with Tenax type 1 geogrid. There following inputs are used for the un-
paved road design calculation, including:
o Average subgrade CBRsb = 0.9, undrained shear strength Su= 27 kPa;
o Average base course CBRbc = 15;
o tire load P = 40 kN and tire pressure p = 550 kPa

Figure 4 summarizes the base layer thickness vs. number of passes of design calculation
and the field test data. For the unreinforced cases, the proposed design method predicts larger
base layer thickness (or more conservative) than the field test results; for the reinforced cases
with Typ1 geogrid, the results from proposed design method match very well with the field test
results.
0.8 0.8
Proposed design, NR Proposed design, Type1
0.7 0.7
Base layer thickness, m

Field test data, NR

Base layer thickness, m

0.6 0.6 Field test data, Type1

0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Number of passes, N Number of passes, N

(a) unreinforced cases (b) reinforced cases with Type1 geogrid

Figure 4. Comparison between the proposed design calculation and field test data (Austin and
Coleman, 1993): P = 40 kN, p = 550 kPa, r = 0.075 mm, CBRbc = 15 and CBRsb = 0.9

The limitations of this design method can be summarized as:

• This design method is specifically for extruded biaxial polypropylene geogrids;
• Typical subgrade CBR is less or equal to 4;
• Typical geogrid tensile strength at 2% strain is less than or equal to 10 kN/m;
• For construction purpose, the minimum base thickness is limited to 0.10 m.
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 7

DESIGN PROCEDURES AND EXAMPLE

The unpaved Road Design Procedures include:
• Step 1: Prepare necessary inputs
o Subgrade CBR or undrained shear strength (Cu);
o Base course CBR;
o Geogrid tensile strength at 2% strain;
o Design load (P, half of single axle load) and tire pressure (p);
o Design number of passes (N) and rut depth (r);
o Radius of the contract area (a = SQRT [P/(p *л)]);
o Elastic moduli of base course (E1) and subgrade (E2);

• Step 2: Check the subgrade bearing capacity:

o Calculate the subgrade bearing capacity ( qc = Nc Cu = 3.8 Cu);
o Compare the subgrade bearing capacity to tire load (p): If p > qc, goes to the next
step; if p ≤ qc, design stops here;

• Step 3: Calculate the required base thickness:

o Assume a base thickness value (h);
o Determine tan α1 with equations 1, 2, 3 or Figure 1;
o Calculate tan αN = tan α1[1 + k2 log N];
o Calculate modified bearing capacity ratio (m) with equation 9;
o Calculate the required base course thickness value (hcal) with equation 17 or 18;
o If h ≠ hcal, assume h = hcal and reiterate the above calculations; if h = hcal, design
stops here;
o Compare the required base thickness to the minimum base thickness

Unpaved Road Design Example:

An unpaved road is going to be built on the soft subgrade condition with CBR of 0.5. It is re-
quired to carry 1000 ESAL passes. Determine the required base thickness for both unreinforced
and reinforced cases.

• Step 1: Prepare necessary inputs:

o Given subgrade CBR = 0.5, undrained shear strength Su= 15 kPa;
o Select base course CBR = 10;
o Geogrid tensile strength at 2% strain = 7.5 kN/m;
o Single tire load P = 40 kN and tire pressure p = 550 kPa;
o Design number of passes N = 1000, and rut depth r = 0.075mm;
o Radius of the contract area a = SQRT [P/(p *л)] = 0.153 m;
o Base course modulus E1 = 36 CBRbc0.3 = 71.9Mpa, subgrade modulus E2 = 10
CBRsb = 5 MPa;
o Select E1 / E2 = 10.

• Step 2: Check the subgrade bearing capacity:

o subgrade bearing capacity q = 3.8 Cu = 3.8 * 15 = 57 kPa;
o As p > q, goes to the next step;
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 8

• Step 3: Determine the required base thickness for unreinforced case:

o Assume a base thickness value h = 0.40 m;
o Calculate tan α1, tan αN = tan α1[1 + k2 log N], modified bearing capacity ratio
(m), and the required base course thickness value (hcal);
o If h ≠ hcal, assume h = hcal and reiterate the above calculations; if h = hcal, design
stops here;
o The final calculated base thickness = 0.67 m for unreinforced case.

h (m) tan α1 tan αN m hcal (m) hcal = h?

0.45 1.41 0.82 0.37 0.65 NO
0.65 1.50 0.98 0.26 0.67 NO
0.67 1.51 0.99 0.26 0.67 YES

• Step 4: Determine the required base thickness with Type 1 and Type 2 geogrids:
o Geogrid tensile strength at 2% strain = 5.3 kN/m (Type 1), 7.5 kN/m (Type 2);
o Assume a base thickness value h = 0.25 m;
o Calculate tan α1, tan αN = tan α1[1 + k2 log N], modified bearing capacity ratio
(m), and the required base course thickness value (hcal);
o If h ≠ hcal, assume h = hcal and reiterate the above calculations; if h = hcal, design
stops here;
o The final calculated base course thickness = 0.46 m with Type 1 geogrid, 0.33 m
with Type 2 geogrid.

With Type 1 geogrid

h (m) tan α1 tan αN m hcal (m) hcal = h?
0.30 1.28 0.97 0.51 0.46 NO
0.46 1.42 0.88 0.36 0.46 YES

With Type 2 geogrid

h (m) tan α1 tan αN m hcal (m) hcal = h?
0.25 1.11 0.97 0.51 0.33 NO
0.33 1.31 1.02 0.48 0.33 YES
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 9

1.0
NR, N=10
NR, N=100
0.8
NR, N=1000

Base Thickness, m
NR, N=10000
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Subgrade CBR

(a) unreinforced cases

1.0
G1, N=10
G1, N=100
0.8
G1, N=1000
Base Thickness, m

G1, N=10000
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Subgrade CBR

(b) reinforced cases with type1 geogrid

1.0
G2, N=10
G2, N=100
0.8
G2, N=1000
Base Thickness, m

G2, N=10000
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Subgrade CBR

(c) reinforced cases with type2 geogrid

Figure 5. Design chart of unpaved road: P = 40 kN, p = 550 kPa, r = 0.075 mm, CBRbc = 20
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design Method 10

REFERENCES
1. Austin, D. N., and Coleman, D. M., (1993), “A Field Evaluation of Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Haul Road Over Soft Foundation Soils”, Geosynthetics '93 Conference Pro-
ceedings--Vancouver, Canada, pp. 65-80.
2. Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R. and Perkins, S.W. (2000), Geosynthetic Reinforcement of
the Aggregate Base/Subbase Courses of Flexible Pavement Structures - GMA White Pa-
per II, Geosynthetic Materials Association, Roseville, MN, USA, 176 p.
3. Cox, A. D., Eason, G., and Hopkins, H. G. (1961), “Axially Symmetric Plastic Deforma-
tions in Soil”, Phil. Transactions Royal Society, Series A, Vol. 254, No. 1036, pp. 1-45.
4. Eason, G., and Shield, R. T. (1960), “The Plastic Indentation of a Semi-infinite Solid by a
Perfectly Rough Circular Punch”, Zeit. Angew. Math. Phys., ZAMP, Vol. 11, pp. 33-43.
5. Fannin, R.J., and Sigurdsson, O., (1996), “Field Observations on Stabilization of Un-
paved Roads with Geosynthetics”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geo-
technical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 7, pp. 544-553.
6. Giroud, J.P. and Noiray, L. (1981), "Geotextile-reinforced Unpaved road design", Journal
of Geotechncial Engineering, ASEC, Vol. 107, pp. 1233-1254.
7. Giroud, J.P., Ah-Line, C. and Bonaparte, R. (1984), "Design of unpaved roads and traf-
ficked areas with geogrids", Polymer grid reinforcement, Thomas Telford, 1985, Pro-
ceedings of a conference held in London. UK 1984, pp. 116-127.
8. Giroud, J.P. and Han, J. (2004). “Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads –
Part I: theoretical development.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 130(8), 776-786.
9. Heukelom, W., and Foster, C. R. (1960), “Dynamic testing of pavements”, Journal of
Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 86,
No. SM1.
10. Leng, J. and Gabr, M. A., (2002), “Characteristics of geogrid-reinforced aggregate under
cyclic load”, Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 1786, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 29-35, November 2002.
11. Leng, J. and Gabr, M. A., (2005), “Numerical analysis of stress-deformation response in
reinforced unpaved road sections”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 12(2), pp. 111-119.
12. Leng, J. and Gabr, M. A., (2006), “Deformation-Resistance Model for Geogrid-
Reinforced Unpaved Road”, Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 1975, Na-
tional Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 146-154, November 2006.
13. Ullidtz P. (1987), Pavements Analysis, Elsevier Science Publisher, New York.