You are on page 1of 10

Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference

December 22-24,2013, Roorkee

GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED UNPAVED ROAD RESTING ON c-


SUBGRADE

A. Dey Assistant Professor, IIT Guwahati, Assam-781039, India, arindam.dey@iitg.ac.in


S. Meena Junior Engineer, J. Kumar Infraprojects. Ltd., Mumbai, India, rajatkiit@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: This article provides an estimate of the aggregate thickness required for unpaved roads resting on c-
soil and its diminution owing to the utility of a single geotextile layer. Extended parametric studies have been
conducted for estimating the required aggregate thickness as a function of the axle load, tire inflation pressure,
angle of internal friction and load distribution angle of the aggregate, and strength parameters of the subgrade.
Efficacy of the geotextiles has been elucidated in terms of the degree of improvement represented as reduction of
aggregate thickness. Encouraging improvement up to the level of 70% has been observed.

INTRODUCTION provided. These were further extended for few


As per the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) other rut depths to study its effect on the
world fact-book published in 2012, India has a functionality of the geotextile reinforcement [3]. It
road network of over 4,245,429 kilometers, and was observed that for smaller rut depths, the effect
ranks third in the world. Qualitatively, Indian roads of the reinforcement is negligible. The effect is
are a mix of modern paved highways and narrow, more pronounced for the cases where the rut depth
unpaved roads. As per the 2008 survey by the is higher due to proper mobilization of membrane
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways tension [4]. Instead of the rut depth, use of the
(MoRTH), nearly 48% of the total road network stiffness of the road as the key design criterion was
still belongs to the category of unpaved roads. proposed by [5]. The efficiency of geogrids has
Unpaved roads (including haul roads and access also been assessed in terms of better reinforcement
roads) are categorized as those where sand or stone action due to the mobilization of the passive
aggregate are placed directly over the local soil packing strength [6,7,8,9]. Laboratory experiments
subgrade without immediate application of any have also been conducted to comprehend the effect
permanent surfacing such as given for an asphalt or of geotextile as a reinforcing material in terms of
concrete pavement. With the constant passage of enhancement of the load-capacity of the subgrade
traffic over such roads, settlement and subsequent [10]. A treatise on a 35 year long case-history
rutting triggers its deterioration over time. showing the effect of durability of eight different
geotextile separators has been provided by [11].
The application of geotextiles for the maintenance
of unpaved roads has been initiated in the late All the earlier researches have been carried out
1970s. Based on the experimental investigations considering the subgrade to be a soft clayey or
[1], a theoretical quasi-static model to establish the peaty soil in order to accommodate the worst-
utility of geotextile in reduction of the thickness of scenario undrained analysis, and hence, only
the aggregate layer to be used over the natural undrained cohesion of the subgrade has been used
subgrade was proposed [2]. Governed by the to develop the design charts. Undrained condition
threshold rut depth, parametric studies highlighted prevails for the instant time when the vehicle
the effects of the subgrade strength, axle load, tire passes over the saturated subgrade. However,
pressure, tensile strength of the geotextile and depending on the degree of saturation and
number of vehicle passes. Design charts have for permeability of the subgrade, the state of drainage
practicing engineers considering different rut can vary (undrained, partially drained or fully
depths, tire pressures and axle loads had been drained). Different drainage state governs the

Page 1 of 1
A. Dey, & S. Meena

choice of the subgrade strength parameters QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS OF UNPAVED


(effective or undrained strength parameters) and ROADS
their magnitudes. Mostly, the subgrade is a c- soil Unpaved roads are usually temporary roads built
characterized by both cohesion and angle of over soft, weak subgrade with base aggregates
internal friction as the strength parameters. Thus, placed directly above it, and hence, are prone to the
application of the conventional design charts (with problems of rutting and mud-pumping especially
or without geotextile) in such conditions inevitably under saturated conditions. The aggregate cover on
lead to over-estimated magnitudes of aggregate the subgrade is primarily meant for passage of
thickness which might not be practically required traffic with lessened hindrance. The aggregate
owing to inherent subgrade strength. Hence, it is behaves as a load-dispersion mechanism and result
necessary to extend or modify the established in the reduction of the stresses, generated due to
convention and develop new design charts for vehicular load, incumbent on the subgrade.
generalized subgrade, wherein the conventional Although traffic passage is a problem of moving
scenario can be considered as a degenerated loads, the analysis is simplified on the basis of
condition. This attempt would help in achieving a considering the maximum axle load to be static at
proper safe and economic design of unpaved roads. one location, and hence, the consideration of
quasi-static analysis. Stress transferred by the
Such an attempt has been made wherein the soil is moving loads, being instantaneous, is actually
considered to be a general c- soil and estimates of lower than that of a static mechanism, and hence,
the required aggregate thickness have been the quasi-static analysis represents a worst-case
determined for several combinations of the scenario when the vehicle is static, and the axle
contributory parameters. The basic model [2] have load is fully transferred to the subgrade. For the
been modified to take into account the internal present study, the subgrade has been considered as
friction angle of subgrade soil in estimating its a c- soil, and under any incumbent stress (), the
bearing resistance which revealed a substantial shear stress () of the same is expressed as:
reduction in the aggregate thickness. Detailed c tan (1)
parametric study helped in identification of the
influence and sensitivity of the various The shear stress generated should not exceed the
contributory parameters. Tire inflation pressure and allowable bearing capacity of the subgrade soil
the angle of internal friction of the aggregate have (qall) which can be expressed using Terzaghis
been found to provide marginal influence on the proposition (1943) as:
required aggregate thickness while rut depth has
been found to be the key consideration. Explicit
qall cNc h0 Nq 0.5 B' N / FoS (2)
design charts have been developed for several where, h0 is the overburden due to the aggregate
possible combination of various parameters based layer overlying the subgrade, B' is the enhanced
on the Indian soil and Indian traffic characteristics. tire-width after load distribution (to be explained
A limitation/anomaly, in the analysis by Giroud later), and FoS is the factor of safety used to obtain
and Noiray (1981), pertaining to the deformed allowable load. The bearing capacity factors are
shape of the geotextile under the action of the dependent on the angle of internal friction of the
traffic load has been identified. It has been subgrade, and are expressed as:
observed that the deformed shape of geotextile is
governed by the thickness of aggregate itself, and Nq e
2 3 4 2

2cos 4 2 , N 2 N q 1 tan
(3)
in all cases, do not pertain to the shape as assumed
Nc N q 1 cot
by [2]. This, in turn, will result in a different
formulation of the governing equations. This issue Axle load on an unpaved road and load
needs further inspection, and hence, the present distribution
article does not provide a detailed treatise of the
same.

Page 2 of 2
Geosynthetic reinforced unpaved road resting on c- subgrade

Total load from any vehicle on the road can be


replaced by an equivalent single axle load. Dual The aggregate layer is assumed to provide a
wheels are considered because they are more pyramidal dispersion of equivalent contact stress
common than single wheels for cargo vehicles, and applied on its surface due to the vehicular load
the equivalent single axle load (P) is considered to (Fig. 2). The load-dispersion angle (0) is
be evenly distributed among the 4 wheels as shown expressed as [2]:
in Fig. 1. The axle load can be represented in terms 0 4 agg 2 (6)
of the contact areas of tires (Ac) and the tire
inflation pressures (Pc). The soil between the tires
of a dual wheel is mechanically associated with the
tires (Figure 1) and it is assumed that no failure of
the aggregate layer and subgrade soil can occur
between the tires. Hence, the same can be
represented as an equivalent rectangular contact
area of size LxB. An equivalent uniformly
distributed contact pressure (Pec) is assumed which Fig. 2 Load distribution by aggregate layer on the
should produce the same mechanical effect in the subgrade soil (a) Without geotextile (b) With
subgrade as that by the actual contact pressure geotextile
(non-uniformly distributed) between each tire and
aggregate. With and without a geotextile layer at the
aggregate-subgrade interface, the stresses
generated due to load distribution and aggregate
overburden is denoted as p and p0 respectively, and
the aggregate thicknesses are demarcated as h and
h0 respectively. Based on the force equilibrium,
the stresses generated at the aggregate-subgrade
interface for both the conditions (without and with
geotextile) can be expressed respectively as:
p0 P ( B 2h0 tan 0 )( L 2h0 tan 0 ) h0 (7)

p P ( B 2h tan )( L 2h tan ) h (8)

DESIGN OF UNPAVED ROAD WITHOUT


GEOTEXTILE

Fig. 1 Geometry of unpaved road, vehicle axle For all practical purpose, the design of an unpaved
loads and contact areas as adopted from [2] road without geotextile should satisfy the following
criterion: The maximum pressure on the subgrade
Based on the examination of typical dual tire soil should be less than or equal to the allowable
prints, for on-highway and off-highway trucks bearing capacity of the subgrade. As a limiting
respectively, the equivalent contact dimension of condition, it should never exceed the ultimate
the tires are as follows [2]: bearing capacity of the subgrade stratum. The
equilibrium criterion can be mathematically
LB 2 and L B 2 (4)
represented as:
B P Pc and B P Pc 2 (5)

Load distributed due to aggregate layer on


subgrade soil

Page 3 of 3
A. Dey, & S. Meena

cN c h0 N q 0.5 ( B 2h0 tan 0 ) N


FoS
(9)
P
h0
( B 2h0 tan 0 )( L 2h0 tan 0 )

The above equation is expressed in a polynomial


form as
Fig. 3 Kinematics of unpaved roads with geotextile
C1h03 C2 h02 C3 h0 C4 0 (10) as adopted from [2]
where, the coefficients of the polynomial The pressure applied by the wheels and aggregate
expression are defined as: layer on the portion AB of the geotextile (p) is
given by Eq. 8. Due to the reduction of pressure by
C1 4 tan 2 0 N tan 0 N q FOS the use of geotextile (pg), the pressure transferred

N tan 0 N q FOS L B to the subgrade soil by the portion AB of the
C2 2 tan 0 geotextile (p*) is expressed as
BN 2cN c tan 0
p* p pg (12)
C3 LB N tan 0 N q FOS (11)
Since the confinement of the subgrade soil
L B tan 0 BN 2cN c provided by the geotextile keeps the deflection to
P.FOS small magnitudes for all applied pressures less than
C4 cN c LB 0.5 LB 2 N
2 the ultimate bearing capacity, the pressure p* can
be as large as the ultimate bearing capacity of the
Solution of the above expressions will yield the
subgrade soil, which is expressed as:
estimate of the required thickness of aggregate
layer for an unpaved road resting on c- subgrade P
h pg
in the absence of a geotextile layer. 2( B 2h tan )( L 2h tan ) (13)
cNc hN q 0.5 ( B 2h tan ) N
DESIGN OF UNPAVED ROAD WITH
GEOTEXTILE The reduction of pressure due to the use of
geotextile is expressed as:
The subgrade soil is considered to be 2
a
incompressible and as a result, the settlement under pg K a 1 , a B 2h tan 2 (14)
the wheels causes heave between and beyond the 2s
wheels, and thus, causing the geotextile to attain a where, K is the tension-elongation modulus of
stretched wavy shape (Fig. 3). This phenomenon geotextile, is the elongation of geotextile, and s is
induces membrane effect as a result of which, a function of the rut depth (r) used in the design.
between the wheels (BB in Fig. 3) and beyond the The details of the derivation of the above
wheels (AC in Fig. 3), although to a lesser extent, expression can be obtained from [2]. Solution of
the pressure applied by the geotextile on the Eq. 13 results in the estimation of the aggregate
subgrade soil is higher than the pressure applied by thickness (h) required when a single layer of
the aggregate layer on the geotextile; whereas, geotextile is used at the aggregate-subgrade
under the wheels (AB in Fig. 3), the pressure interface.
applied by the geotextile on the subgrade soil is
smaller than the pressure applied by the wheels RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
plus the aggregate layer on the geotextile [2].
Based on above theoretical background, modular
MATLAB codes have been developed to compute
the required aggregate thickness for unpaved roads
in the absence and presence of geotextile layer.

Page 4 of 4
Geosynthetic reinforced unpaved road resting on c- subgrade

The ranges of various parameters chosen for the sufficient to reduce the required thickness of
present study as per the Indian traffic condition are aggregate layer to a practical magnitude (<1m).
as follows: Hence, for instances, where unpaved roads are to
Axle Load (P): 30 kN 360 kN [12,13] be laid over areas having subgrade strength lower
Tire inflation pressure (Pc): 150 kPa 750 than 20 kPa, it will be necessary to adopt some
kPa [14,15] ground improvement measures in order to increase
Angle of internal friction of aggregate the bearing strength of the subgrade. Application of
(agg): 25 35 geotextiles might prove beneficial in this regard.
Angle of internal friction of soil (): 0 - 50 However, it is to be borne in mind that the
[This range has been considered to cover following study investigates only the case for a
the broad domain of soil characteristic that single passage of traffic with maximum axle
can be present from purely cohesive soil to capacity. The interpretations will change for
rocky subgrade] multiple passes of vehicles, where the usage of
Soil cohesion (c): 0 500 kPa [This broad geotextile will become inevitable. It is also
range covers from purely cohesionless soil observed that the soil cohesion when surpasses a
to the presence of the hard clay in the particular magnitude, the aggregate layer is not
subgrade] required at all. This is possible since in such cases,
Unit weight of soil and aggregate (): 19 the subgrade possesses sufficient bearing strength
kN/m3 [The unit weight of soil and so as to carry the entire traffic load on itself.
aggregate has been kept same owing to the
fact that the variation in unit weight for any
type of soil is not significant]
Track widths of Indian Cargo vehicles: 1.7
m - 2.4 m
Tension-elongation modulus of geotextiles:
1 kN/m-5000 kN/m [2]
Factor of safety (FOS): 1 3 [FOS =1
indicates the consideration of ultimate
bearing capacity of subgrade for evaluation
of the thickness of aggregate layer, while
the other values of FOS considers the use of
allowable bearing strength of the subgrade]
Fig. 4 Effect of soil cohesion on aggregate layer
Fig. 4 depicts the variation of the required thickness for varying axle load (Pc = 600 kPa, agg
thickness of aggregate layer with the variation of = 35, = 0, FOS = 1)
the soil cohesion. It is observed that the effect of
soil cohesion is largely significant in determining Fig. 5 depicts the variation of the required
the required thickness of the aggregate layer. As thickness of aggregate layer with the variation of
expected, an increase in soil cohesion results in the the imposed axle loads. It is observed that the
reduction of thickness. When both the cohesion effect of axle load is significant in determining the
and internal friction of the soil is low (representing required thickness of the aggregate layer. As
a very poor/soft soil), the required thickness is expected, an increase in axle load results in the
immensely large, but quickly drops down to increment of aggregate layer thickness.
feasible magnitudes with the increase in soil
cohesion. For these representative plots, it is Fig. 6 depicts the variation of the required
observed that for a purely cohesive soil, which is thickness of aggregate layer with the variation of
devoid of any frictional resistance, an optimum the tire inflation pressures. As expected, an
bearing strength of 30 kPa for the subgrade soil is increase in axle load results in the increment of

Page 5 of 5
A. Dey, & S. Meena

aggregate layer thickness for the same bearing high load. Hence, as per the classical definition, it
strength of the subgrade primarily owing to the is observed that the increase in the internal friction
greater stress transferred to the sugbrade. However, of the aggregate, the required thickness of the
it is imminent that the effect of tire inflation aggregate layer increases. The parameter is
pressure is not so significant in determining the observed to pose moderate influence on the
required thickness of the aggregate layer in outcome.
contrary to the observations made for the earlier
two parameters.

Fig. 7 Effect of axle load on aggregate layer


Fig. 5 Effect of axle load on aggregate layer thickness for varying tire inflation pressure (agg =
thickness for varying tire inflation pressure (agg = 35, = 0, c =1 kPa, FOS = 1)
35, = 0, c =1 kPa, FOS = 1)

Fig. 8 Effect of angle of internal friction of soil on


Fig. 6 Effect of tire inflation pressure on aggregate the aggregate layer thickness for varying axle load
layer thickness for varying axle load (agg = 35, (Pc = 600 kPa, agg = 35, c = 1 kPa, FOS = 1)
= 0, c =1 kPa, FOS = 1)
Fig. 8 depicts the variation of the required
Fig. 7 depicts the variation of the required thickness of aggregate layer with the variation of
thickness of aggregate layer with the variation of the angle of internal friction of the subgrade soil.
the angle of internal friction of the aggregate. It has An increase in the angle of internal friction of the
been mentioned earlier that the angle of internal subgrade soil results in the increase in the bearing
friction of the aggregate governs the load strength of the subgrade, and hence results in the
distribution angle of the pyramid assuming reduction of the required thickness of aggregate
complete punching of the aggregate layer under layer. It is evident from the figures that the

Page 6 of 6
Geosynthetic reinforced unpaved road resting on c- subgrade

parameter in discussion has significant influence in the soil should be more than 40 to withstand the
reduction of the thickness. Most of the prior studies traffic load on its own. However, it is to be
[2,16] are primarily based on the assumption that remembered that this analysis has been carried out
the subgrade is purely cohesive, and the strength is on the assumption of light traffic passage. The
solely governed by the magnitude of soil cohesion. conclusions made here would change if the traffic
Hence, it can be pointed out that those studies were volume to be sustained is large.
mostly conservative owing to the fact that such
purely cohesive soil will not be prevalent in most Table 1 Combinations of the subgrade strength
parts of the world. Rather it will definitely be a c- parameters for no requirement of aggregate layer
soil over which is the road aggregate should have
Angle of internal Soil Cohesion (c kPa)
to be laid. In many regions, it will not be cohesive friction ( deg)
at all; rather, only granular subgrade would be 0 100
present. Keeping in view these conditions, the 5 ~ 50
present study reports the effect of strength of 10 50
subgrade in terms of the angle of internal friction 20 10-50
30 10
of soil as well. 35 5
40 0

Fig 10 presents a typical chart to comprehend the


effect of the variation in the overall bearing
strength of the subgrade in the estimation of the
aggregate layer thickness. FOS of magnitude 1
refers to the ultimate bearing capacity of the
subgrade. Design based on the ultimate strength is
mainly limit design wherein the total failure of the
soil subgrade is considered as the limiting criterion.
However, validated by the experiments conducted
[17], it has been stated and observed that the large
scale ruts begin to develop at lower values of
bearing capacity of the subgrade. Although this
Fig. 9 Effect of angle of internal friction of soil on does not comply with the failure of the subgrade,
the aggregate layer thickness for varying axle load rather limits the design to the failure of the
(P = 190 kN, Pc = 600 kPa, agg = 35, FOS = 1) aggregate. This has been studied for purely
cohesive subgrade where in the bearing capacity
It is observed from Fig. 9 that a simultaneous factor N is chosen to be 3.14 instead of 5.14,
increase in both the strength parameters of the
subgrade leads to a significant reduction of the which indirectly hints of using a factor of safety of
aggregate layer thickness and in various 1.6. Hence, in the light of the above, a study has
combinations of the two parameters, the aggregate been carried out to estimate the aggregate layer
layer might not be required at all whence the thickness for varying bearing strength of the
subgrade possess sufficient strength to withstand subgrade governed by the FOS. As expected, the
the entire traffic load. The combinations of the required aggregate layer thickness increases with
strength parameters for which there would be no the increase in the chosen FOS.
requirement of the aggregate layer are enlisted in
Table 1. Hence, it is evident that if the subgrade is The on-highway and off-highway vehicles or
purely cohesive having cohesion equal or above trucks mainly differ in terms of their contact area
100 kPa, it will be self sufficient to bear the entire and the tire inflation pressures. An off-road vehicle
traffic load. On the other hand, if the subgrade is is considered to be any type of vehicle capable of
purely cohesionless, the angle of internal friction of driving on and off paved or gravel surface. These

Page 7 of 7
A. Dey, & S. Meena

are generally characterized by having large tires The concept of off-highway vehicle has been
with deep and open treads with flexible suspension. accounted in this study by considering the tire
Common types of vehicles belonging to this width which in turn is related to the tire inflation
category are caterpillar trucks, tractors, forklifts, pressure. Fig. 11 depicts the difference in the
cranes, backhoes, bulldozers and gold carts. To be results due to the consideration of the on-highway
able to drive off the pavement, these vehicles need and off-highway vehicles. It is observed that the
several characteristics. They need to have a low results for both the categories do not differ by large
ground pressure so as not to sink in the soft amounts. This is attributed to the fact that the
ground, they need to have a large ground clearance widths of the tires for both the vehicles are related
to not get hung up on the obstacles, and they need by a multiplier factor of 1.414 which is not
to keep their wheels or tracks on the ground so as significant enough to induce large change in the
not to lose traction. More details about the off- result.
highway vehicles can be obtained in [18].
Fig. 12 depicts the variation of the required
thickness of aggregate layer with the variation in
the tensile strength of the geotextile. Tensile
strength of the geotextile having a value of zero
signifies its absence in the design. It is observed
that the tensile strength of geotextile have a
significant contribution in reducing the required
thickness of the aggregate layer. Two typical
combinations of the axle load and tire pressure is
reported herein. The extensive study in this
direction has not been carried out. Charts
developed similar to as depicted in the figure can
be used for designing geotextile reinforced
unpaved roads by any engineer provided either the
Fig. 10 Effect of bearing strength of subgrade on tensile strength of the geotextile or the required
the aggregate layer thickness for varying axle load improvement in terms of reduction of thickness is
(Pc = 600 kPa, agg = 35, soil = 10, c = 1 kPa) known a-priori. The charts can be useful aid to
design engineer in the following two aspects. If the
tensile strength of the available geotextile is
known, then the amount of aggregate required for
the construction can be determined, or if the target
thickness of the layer is predetermined, proper
choice of a compatible geotextile can be arrived at.
The efficacy of the application of geotextile can be
described by the degree of improvement which is
defined by the percentage reduction of the
aggregate layer thickness with reference to the
thickness required for an unreinforced unpaved
road i.e. I f Ki K0 / K0 100 . It can be noted
that depending on the tensile capacity of the
Fig. 11 Effect of bearing strength of subgrade on geotextile, significant amount of reduction in the
the aggregate layer thickness for varying axle load aggregate thickness layer can be achieved. In
(Pc = 600 kPa, agg = 35, soil = 10, c = 1 kPa) cases, where the improvement is 100%,
theoretically signifies that aggregate is not
necessary. However, acknowledging that this

Page 8 of 8
Geosynthetic reinforced unpaved road resting on c- subgrade

design methodology is solely based on the tensile same. Similar phenomenon is reflected in Fig. 15,
strength and not the other properties of geotextiles, depicting the degree of improvement in such
and hence in such conditions, a nominal cover of conditions. This phenomenon can be suitable
20 mm is to be provided. Fig. 13 depicts the degree explained based in the mobilization of the
of improvement with the increase in tensile deformation of the geotextile. The reduction in the
strength of geotextile. subgrade affected by the geotextile depends on its
deformation and elongation, which in turn is
governed by the rut depth in the unpaved road. If
the rut depth is extremely small, the geotextile does
not get significantly deformed, and hence does not
exercise contributory reduction in imposed
pressure on the subgrade. Hence, more is the
elongation of deformation of the geotextile; more
is its efficacy in reducing the thickness of
aggregate layer. Insufficient deformation in the
geotextile does not allow the full tensile capacity of
the geotextile to be mobilized. Hence, in such
circumstance, further improvement is not achieved
Fig. 12 Effect of tensile strength of geotextile on with the tensile strength of the geotextile.
the required thickness of aggregate layer (agg =
35, soil = 35, c = 1 kPa, FOS = 1, e=2.6m,
r=0.3m)

Fig. 14 Effect of design rut depth on the required


thickness of aggregate layer (agg = 35, soil =
35, c = 1 kPa, FOS = 1, e=2.6m, r=0.3m)
Fig. 13 Effect of tensile strength of geotextile on
the degree of improvement (agg = 35, soil = 35,
c = 1 kPa, FOS = 1, e=2.6m, r=0.3m)

Fig. 14 depicts the effect of design rut depth on the


variation of the required thickness of aggregate. It
is noticeable that the for higher allowable rut
depths as 0.3m, the reduction in aggregate layer
thickness effected by the application of geotextile
is significantly contributory as compared for
smaller magnitudes of allowable rut depth of
0.075m. For the latter case, irrespective of the
Fig. 15 Effect of design rut depth on the degree of
tensile strength of the geotextile, the required
improvement (agg = 35, soil = 35, c = 1 kPa,
thickness of aggregate layer remains nearly the
FOS = 1, e=2.6m, r=0.3m)

Page 9 of 9
A. Dey, & S. Meena

CONCLUSIONS multifunctional geogrid composites for sub-


The results reported herein hints that the base stabilization, Pearson, USA.
conventional estimates of aggregate thickness 7. Giroud, J. P. & Han, J. (2004), Design methods
considering only the undrained cohesive property for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads I-
of the subgrade soil may lead to over-estimated Development of design method, Journal of
magnitudes. The present study illustrated that Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
consideration of both the strength parameters of the Engineering, ASCE, 130(8), 775-786.
subgrade aids to a more economical design. 8. Giroud, J. P. & Han, J. (2004), Design methods
Amongst the contributory factors, angle of internal for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads II-
friction of the aggregate has moderate influence, Calibration and application, Journal of
while the axle load and subgrade strength Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
parameters have substantial effect on the estimated Engineering, ASCE, 130(8), 787-797.
aggregate thickness. Tensile strength of the 9. Giroud, J. P. (2009), An assessment of the use
geotextile significantly affects the degree of of geogrids in unpaved roads and unpaved
improvement represented in terms of the reduction areas, Jubilee Symposium on Polymer Geogrid
in the aggregate thickness. However, beneficial Reinforcement: Identifying the direction of
effect of geotextile is observed with prominence future research, 1-14.
for higher rut depths which can elevate the 10. Som, N. & Sahu, R. B. (1999), Bearing
tensioned membrane effect of the geotextile. This capacity of a geotextile reinforced unpaved
study can help preparing design charts for road as a function of deformation: A model
engineers to identify the aggregate thickness study, Geosynthetics International, 6(1), 1-17.
required and compatible geotextile tensile strength. 11. Hawkins, W. M. (2008), Geotextiles in
Unpaved Roads: A 35-Year Case History,
REFERENCES Geosynthetics Magazine.
1. Barenberg, E. J. (1980), Design procedure for 12. MORTH. (2005), Specification of maximum
soil-fabric-aggregate systems with Mirafi 500x gross vehicle weight and maximum safe axle
fabric, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil weight, Ministry of Road Transport and
Engineering, University of Illinois, USA. Highways, Government of India.
2. Giroud, J. P. & Noiray, L. (1981), Geotextile 13. IRC-37 (2001), Guidelines for the design of
reinforced unpaved road design, Journal of flexible pavements, Indian Roads Congress.
Geotechnical Engineering Division: 14. Air Force Joint Manual (1994), Pavement
Proceedings of the ASCE, 107(GT9), 1233- design for roads, streets and open storage areas:
1254. Elastic Layered Method, Technical Manual No.
3. Holtz, R. D. and Sivakugan, N. (1987), Design 5-822-13/AFJMAN 32-1018, Department of the
charts for road with geotextiles, Geotextiles Army and the Air Forces, Washington D.C.
and Geomembranes. 5, 191-199. 15. Khanna, S. K. & Justo, C. E. G. (2001),
4. Houlsby, G. T. & Jewell, R. A. (1990), Design Highway Engineering, Nem Chand and
of reinforced unpaved roads for small rut Brothers, Roorkee.
depths, Geotextiles, Geomembranes and 16. Koerner, R. M. (2005), Designing with
Related Products. Balkema, Rotterdam: Den Geosynthetics, 5ed. Prentice Hall, Pearsons,
Hoedt. 171-176. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458, USA.
5. Douglas, R. A. & Valsangkar, A. J. (1992), 17. Barenberg, E. J. and Bender, D. A. (1978),
Unpaved geosynthetic-built resource access Design and behavior of soil-fabric-aggregate
road: stiffness rather than rut depth as the key systems, Paper presented at the 57th
design parameter, Geotextiles and Transportation Research Board Meeting.
Geomembranes. 11, 45-59. 18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-road_vehicle
6. Elias, J. M. & Meyer, N. (1999), Design
methods for roads reinforced with

Page 10 of 10

You might also like