Technical Paper by S.W.

Perkins

MECHANICAL RESPONSE OF GEOSYNTHETIC-

REINFORCED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

ABSTRACT: Laboratory-based, large-scale experiments are reported on pavement

test sections with aggregate base layers containing a layer of geosynthetic reinforce-
ment. The tests involved comparative reinforced and unreinforced test sections with
pavement layer materials and thicknesses commonly encountered in the field. Pave-
ment load was provided by a nontranslating, cyclic load applied to a plate resting on
the pavement surface. The test sections contained an extensive array of sensors to mea-
sure pavement load, surface deformation, stress in the base and subgrade layers, and
strain in the asphalt concrete, base, subgrade, and geosynthetic layers. Test section vari-
ables include geosynthetic type, geosynthetic placement position within the base, and
base layer thickness. The test results show a significant improvement in the permanent
deformation behavior of the pavement system due to geosynthetic reinforcement for the
variables examined. Stress and strain measurements illustrate reinforcement mecha-
nisms pertinent to paved roadways, which include a reduction of radial strain developed
in the bottom of the base, an improved vertical stress distribution on the top of the sub-
grade, and a reduction of shear deformation in the top of the subgrade. These mecha-
nisms result in lower vertical strain in the base and subgrade layers. A comparison of
benefits due to reinforcement and those realized by the addition of aggregate base
shows that geosynthetic reinforcement and additional base aggregate provide similar
structural enhancements to the pavement system.

KEYWORDS: Geogrid, Geotextile, Reinforcement, Flexible pavement, Roadway,

Base aggregate, Instrumentation.

AUTHOR: S.W. Perkins, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, Department of

Civil Engineering, 205 Cobleigh Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717,
USA, Telephone: 1/406-994-6119, Telefax: 1/406-994-6105, E-mail:
[email protected]

PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics

Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota
55113-4061, USA, Telephone: 1/651-222-2508, Telefax: 1/651-631-9334.
Geosynthetics International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349.

DATES: Original manuscript received 5 March 1999, revised version received 12

November 1999 and accepted 15 November 1999. Discussion open until 1 July 2000.

REFERENCE: Perkins, S.W., 1999, “Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced

Flexible Pavements”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 347-382.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 347

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

1 INTRODUCTION

The use of geogrid and geotextile products as an inclusion in the base-course layer
of flexible pavements for reinforcement has been demonstrated to be a viable technolo-
gy through studies conducted over the last 17 years. Perkins and Ismeik (1997a) have
provided a comprehensive review of these studies and have summarized and discussed
design procedures and numerical modeling efforts in a companion paper (Perkins and
Ismeik 1997b). Barksdale et al. (1989), Cancelli et al. (1997), Cancelli and Montanelli
(1999), Collin et al. (1996), Haas et al. (1988), Kinney et al. (1998a,b), Miura et al.
(1990), Moghaddas-Nejad and Small (1996), and Webster (1993) have demonstrated
that the service life of the pavement, as defined by the number of load repetitions carried
by the pavement to reach a particular permanent surface deformation, can be increased
by a factor ranging from just over one to in excess of 100 by the inclusion of a geosyn-
thetic in the base aggregate layer. Anderson and Killeavy (1989), Cancelli et al. (1997),
Haas et al. (1988), and Webster (1993) have shown that the base aggregate thickness
of a reinforced test section can be reduced by values ranging from 22 to 50% such that
an equal service life results.
Several studies have shown the importance of design variables such as placement
position of the geosynthetic within the base-course layer (Barksdale et al. 1989; Haas
1998; Miura et al. 1990; Moghaddas-Nejad and Small 1996; Webster 1993), strength
of the subgrade, design-section thickness, and applied load magnitude. Seemingly con-
flicting results have been obtained with respect to the influence of subgrade strength.
Cancelli et al. (1997) found that reinforcement benefit decreased as subgrade strength
increased. On the other hand, Webster (1993) showed that reinforcement benefit was
greater for a subgrade with a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 8% as compared to one
with a CBR of 3%. Attempting to make conclusions regarding a single variable can be
misleading because many of these variables appear to be synergistic. For example, opti-
mal placement position of the geosynthetic depends on the thickness of the base-course
layer and the applied load magnitude. In general, as load magnitude increases, the depth
of the optimal placement position of the geosynthetic in the base layer increases (Per-
kins and Ismeik 1997a).
Geosynthetic type also appears to be a critical factor controlling reinforcement
benefit. In general, studies using only geogrid products for reinforcement (Collin et al.
1996; Haas et al. 1988; Kinney et al. 1998a,b; Miura et al. 1990; Moghaddas-Nejad and
Small 1996; Webster 1993) have shown significant levels of improvement. Studies us-
ing both geogrid and geotextile products (Anderson and Killeavy 1989; Barksdale et
al. 1989; Cancelli et al. 1997) have shown that the geogrid products used were superior
to the geotextile products chosen. At issue is not so much whether the product is a geo-
grid or a geotextile, but, rather, how mechanical properties of the geosynthetic- and geo-
synthetic-aggregate interaction properties impact reinforcement benefits.
Historically, the main reinforcement function attributed to geosynthetics in paved
roads has commonly been referred to as base-course, lateral restraint. This function was
originally described by Bender and Barenberg (1978) and later elaborated on by Kinney
and Barenberg (1982) for geotextile-reinforced unpaved roads. This name may be
somewhat misleading in that the function, as envisioned, incorporates mechanisms in
addition to preventing lateral movement of the base-course aggregate. A more appropri-

348 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

ate description might be to describe this reinforcement function, and its associated
mechanisms, as one of a shear-resisting interface as suggested by Perkins et al. (1998a).
The reinforcement function of a shear-resisting interface, as originally envisioned,
develops through shear interaction of the base-course layer with the geosynthetic layer
or layers contained in or at the bottom of the base-aggregate layer (Figure 1) and poten-
tially consists of four separate reinforcement mechanisms. Vehicular loads applied to
the roadway surface create a lateral spreading motion of the base-course aggregate.
Tensile lateral strains are created in the base below the applied load as the material
moves down and out, away from the load. Lateral movement of the base allows for ver-
tical strains to develop leading to permanent surface deformation in the wheel path.
Placement of a geosynthetic layer or layers in the base course allows for shear inter-
action to develop between the aggregate and the geosynthetic as the base attempts to
spread laterally. Shear load is transmitted from the base aggregate to the geosynthetic
and places the geosynthetic in tension. The relatively high stiffness of the geosynthetic
acts to retard the development of lateral tensile strain in the base adjacent to the geosyn-
thetic. Lower lateral strain in the base results in less vertical deformation of the roadway
surface. Hence, the first reinforcement mechanism corresponds to direct reduction of
lateral spreading of the base aggregate.
Shear stress developed between the base-course aggregate and the geosynthetic pro-
vides an increase in lateral stress within the base. This increase in lateral confinement
leads to an increase in the mean effective stress. Granular materials generally exhibit

Base course Reduced σv , εv

Geosynthetic Increased σh
reduced εh

Reduced σv , εv

Geosynthetic (+)
tensile strain Reduced τ

(-) Subgrade

Figure 1. Illustration of proposed shear-resisting interface mechanism of reinforcement.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 349

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

an increase in elastic modulus with increasing mean stress. The second reinforcement
mechanism results from an increase in stiffness of the base-course aggregate when ade-
quate interaction develops between the base and the geosynthetic. The increased stiff-
ness of this layer results in lower vertical strains in the base. It would also be expected
that an increase in modulus of the base would result in lower dynamic, recoverable ver-
tical deformations of the roadway surface, implying that fatigue of the asphalt concrete
layer would be reduced. Reinforcement models, relying upon an increase in confine-
ment and modulus of the base, include those reported by Kinney et al. (1998a) and Sell-
meijer (1990).
The presence of a geosynthetic layer in the base can also lead to a change in the state
of stress and strain in the subgrade. For layered systems, where a less-stiff subgrade ma-
terial lies beneath the base, an increase in modulus of the base layer results in an im-
proved, more broadly distributed vertical stress on the subgrade. In general, the vertical
stress in the base and subgrade, directly beneath the applied load, should decrease as
the base layer stiffness increases. The vertical stress on the subgrade will become more
widely distributed, meaning that surface deformation will be less and more uniform.
Hence, a third reinforcement mechanism results from an improved vertical stress dis-
tribution on the subgrade.
The fourth reinforcement mechanism results from a reduction of shear stress in the
subgrade soil. Love et al. (1987) demonstrated, using monotonically loaded, scaled-
model, plane-strain footing tests involving a granular base over a weak subgrade and
for 50 mm of footing penetration, that shear stress transmitted from the base course to
the subgrade decreases as shearing of the base transmits tensile load to the reinforce-
ment. Less shear stress, coupled with less vertical stress results in a less severe state of
loading (Houlsby and Jewell 1990) leading to lower vertical strain in the subgrade. This
mechanism has not been demonstrated for paved roadways subject to cyclic traffic
loads and where the permanent surface deformation is within tolerable limits.
Prerequisite to realizing the reinforcement mechanisms described above is the de-
velopment of a strain distribution in the geosynthetic similar to that shown in Figure
1. Haas et al. (1988) and Miura et al. (1990) presented data demonstrating such trends
for paved roadways using geogrid reinforcement while Fannin and Sigurdsson (1996)
showed the same for an unpaved road using a geotextile. Haas et al. (1988) also showed
that vertical stress on the subgrade was less when reinforcement was present. While
these studies have provided data that aids in illustrating the mechanisms described
above, additional data is needed to understand the mechanisms by which geosynthetics
reinforce flexible pavements. This information is needed to proceed with the develop-
ment of numerical models that predict reinforced pavement response. Indeed, it is be-
lieved that the lack of success in developing a widely accepted design methodology for
reinforced pavements is due to the absence of a rigorous numerical model. The complex
interaction of the geosynthetic with the pavement system and the importance of a host
of variables appears to preclude the use a of purely empirical approach for assessment
of reinforced pavement performance. Described in the remainder of the current paper
is data from experimental work that illustrates the mechanical response and, hence, re-
inforcement mechanisms of geosynthetic-reinforced pavement systems and provides
the basis for the development of a numerical model for geosynthetic-reinforced pave-
ment systems.

350 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

2 PAVEMENT TEST FACILITY

2.1 Introduction

A test facility was designed and constructed for the purpose of conducting laborato-
ry, large-scale experiments on reinforced and unreinforced pavement sections. The fa-
cility was designed to mimic pavement-layer materials and geometry, and loading
conditions encountered in the field, as realistically as possible with an indoor, laborato-
ry-based facility. The use of this type of facility allows for greater control to be exer-
cised on the construction and quality control of pavement-layer material properties.
Perkins (1999a) has provided detailed information on the facility and the materials used
to construct the test sections. A summary of this information is given in Section 2.

2.2 Test Box and Loading Apparatus

A test box was constructed of reinforced concrete having inside dimensions of 2 m

in width and length and 1.5 m in height. Figure 2 shows a schematic, cross-section view
of the box. A load frame was constructed of steel beams that rest on I-beams set into
the concrete walls of the box. A pneumatic load actuator was used to load a 25-mm
thick, 305-mm diameter steel plate. A 4 mm-thick, waffled, butyl-rubber pad was
placed between the steel load plate and the asphalt concrete (AC) surface.

Load actuator Rollers

Surface Load cell φ 305 mm

LVDT

AC

Base

1.50 m
Geosynthetic
Subgrade

2m

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the pavement test facility.

Note: AC = asphalt concrete surface.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 351

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

A direct, computer-generated signal was sent to a binary solenoid regulator to speci-

fy the load-time history applied to the plate producing the load pulse shown in Figure
3. Load cycles were applied at a frequency of approximately 0.67 Hz, which includes
the pause time between loading cycles when the applied load was zero. The maximum
applied load of 40 kN results in a surface pressure on the pavement of 550 kPa. Also
shown in Figure 3 is a typical response from the load cell mounted between the actuator
and the load plate. The slight undulation seen along the descending branch of the curve
is due to venting of the solenoid and was typical for all load cycles.

2.3 Pavement Layer Materials

Hot-mix AC was used for all of the test sections reported in the current paper. The
AC aggregate consisted of a crushed stone having the particle size distribution shown
in Figure 4. The asphalt cement was PG-5828, providing a content of approximately
6% of the AC. As-constructed properties of the AC and the other test-section materials
are presented in Section 2.5.
The base-course aggregate was a crushed stone having the particle size distribution
shown in Figure 4. The material is classified as an A-1-a (according to the AASHTO
classification system) or a GW (according to the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS)) and has a specific gravity of 2.63. Modified Proctor density tests resulted in
a maximum dry unit weight of 21.5 kN/m3 at an optimum water content of 7.2%. This
material was typically compacted at a water content of 6.3% and to a dry unit weight

40
35 Load cell
Input pulse
30
Pavement load (kN).

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Time (seconds)
Figure 3. Input load pulse and corresponding typical load-cell measurement.

352 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

100
90 Hot-mix asphalt
80 concrete (AC) aggregate
Fraction passing (%).

70 Base-course aggregate
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle size (mm)

Figure 4. Particle size distribution of the hot-mix AC and base-course aggregates.

of 21.0 kN/m3. Consolidated, drained triaxial compression tests performed at effective

stress confinement levels ranging from 500 to 1,000 kPa resulted in a peak drained fric-
tion angle of 47.6_. Triaxial specimens were 100 mm in diameter and prepared by tamp-
ing to a dry unit weight equivalent to average values achieved in the test sections.
The test sections reported in the current paper were constructed with one subgrade.
The subgrade consisted of a clay with a liquid limit of 100% and a plastic limit of 40%.
The clay is classified as a CH or A7-(6) (according to the USCS and AASHTO classifica-
tion systems, respectively) and has a specific gravity of 2.7. Modified Proctor tests re-
sulted in a maximum dry unit weight of 16.0 kN/m3 occurring at an optimum water
content of 20.0%. The clay was compacted at a water content of approximately 45%.
Laboratory, unsoaked, CBR tests performed at this water content resulted in a CBR of
1.5%. Additional tests showed that only a relatively small change in CBR occurs for this
clay material at compacted water contents ranging from 43 to 46%.
Additional test sections were constructed with a silty-sand subgrade having a CBR
of approximately 15%. Results from these tests, reported by Perkins (1999a), were in-
conclusive due to differences in the compacted air void volume of the AC layer for rein-
forced and unreinforced test sections.
Two biaxial geogrids (Tensar BX 1100 and BX 1200, referred to as Geogrids A and
B, respectively) and one woven geotextile (Amoco 2006) were used in the test sections.
These products were chosen to provide a wide range of parameters thought to control
reinforcement ability in this application. Table 1 provides material properties for the
three geosynthetics used; these properties are based on manufacturer ’s data.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 353

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Table 1. Geosynthetic material properties.

Geosynthetic
Physical property
Geogrid A Geogrid B Geotextile
Polymer type Polypropylene Polypropylene Polypropylene
Punched, drawn, Punched, drawn,
Structure Woven
biaxial biaxial
Mass/Unit area (g/m2) 215 1 309 1 250 3
Aperture size (mm)
Machine direction 25 1 25 1
None
Cross-machine direction 33 1 33 1
Wide-width tensile strength4
(at 5% strain, kN/m)
Machine direction 91 11 1 10 3
Cross-machine direction 13 1 20 1 22 3

Ultimate, wide-width tensile strength (kN/m)4

Machine direction
13 1 19 1 31 2
Cross-machine direction 20 1 31 1 31 2

Note: 1 IFAI (1994), p. 169; 2 IFAI (1997), p. 74; 3 Amoco (1996); 4 ASTM D 4595.

An extensive series of uniaxial tension tests were performed on Geogrid A and the
geotextile. These tests included monotonic uniaxial tension tests at a fast and a slow
strain rate, two series of cyclic uniaxial tension tests, and uniaxial tension creep tests.
All tests were performed on specimens measuring approximately 280 mm in width by
750 mm in length, with measurements used to calculate axial and lateral strains made
toward the center of the specimen, avoiding end effects. These tests have been de-
scribed by Perkins (1999b). Figure 5 shows results of rapid-loading, uniaxial tension
tests performed at a rate ranging from 4 to 16% strain per second on Geogrid A and geo-
textile specimens in their machine and cross-machine directions. The geogrid speci-
mens were loaded to rupture. Loading was discontinued prior to rupture for the
geotextile specimens due to limitations in the load-transfer mechanism. As can be seen
in Figure 5, the load-strain curves for Geogrid A and the geotextile are comparable, with
the geotextile curves bracketing those of Geogrid A. Test results are not available for
Geogrid B, which is stiffer than Geogrid A. Figure 5 also contains data from a test per-
formed on Geogrid A at an orientation of 45_ from the machine and cross-machine di-
rections. This test was performed to assess the in-plane shear stiffness and strength of
the geosynthetic. The test produced a maximum load of 0.8 kN/m. A similar test per-
formed on the geotextile showed that essentially no load could be carried by the geotex-
tile in this direction. Creep tests and cyclic loading tests indicated that Geogrid A
exhibits slightly more creep than the geotextile and shows a greater accumulation of
permanent strain with increasing load cycle numbers. Details concerning the set-up and
execution of these tests, along with test results, are illustrated and compared to constitu-
tive model predictions by Perkins (1999b).
Pullout tests performed on Geogrid A and the geotextile, embedded in the base-
course aggregate, resulted in peak pullout friction angles ranging from 54 to 58_ for

354 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

30
GT-XM
25
GG-XM
GT-M
Axial load (kN/m).

20

15
GG, Geogrid A
10 GG-M
GT, geotextile
XM, cross-machine direction
5 M, machine direction
GG-45 GG-45, Geogrid A, 45 degree direction
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial strain (%)

Figure 5. Rapid-loading, uniaxial tension test results for Geogrid A and the geotextile.

Geogrid A and between 37 and 53_ for the geotextile. Results from these pullout tests
and the methods used to determine these friction angles are reported by Perkins and
Cuelho (1999).

2.4 Instrumentation

The test sections contained as many as 90 instruments measuring applied pavement

load, surface deflection, and stress, strain, temperature, and moisture content in the vari-
ous pavement layers. As noted in Figure 1, a load cell was used to monitor the load ap-
plied to the pavement load plate. A string of eight linear variable displacement
transducers (LVDTs) was used to monitor surface deformation of the AC layer. The two
LVDTs closest to the load plate centerline extended through the load plate and waffled
rubber pad and rested on the pavement surface.
Stress cells marketed by Dynatest, Incorporated (Ojai, California, USA) were used
to monitor dynamic stress in the base aggregate and subgrade layers. These cells have
a diameter of 68 mm and a thickness of 13 mm. Performance and calibration of the stress
cells have been discussed by Ullidtz et al. (1996) and Selig et al. (1997). Strain cells,
constructed from LVDTs fitted with steel end plates measuring 50 mm (length) by 15
mm (width) by 5 mm (thickness), were used to measure strain in the base and subgrade
layers. The strain cells were configured to have a gauge length of 70 to 80 mm. The soil
stress and strain cells were oriented to measure vertical, radial, and circumferential
strain. Also, these sensors were concentrated toward the bottom of the base and the top
of the subgrade and were placed at various radii from the load-plate centerline.
Geosynthetic strain was measured using bonded resistance foil strain gauges glued
to the ribs of the geogrid and glued to the geotextile with a heavy epoxy. Cuelho (1998)

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 355

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

has described the mounting and calibration technique for these gauges. Foil strain
gauges were placed to measure radial and circumferential strain at a number of radii
from the load-plate centerline. In addition to these sensors, temperature probes (RDP
Electronics, Pottstown, Pennsylvania, USA) and moisture content reflectometers
(Campbell Scientific, Logan, Utah, USA) were placed in the soil layers to aid in the
evaluation of construction quality control.
A data acquisition and software package was used to monitor these sensors and to
control the binary regulator attached to the pneumatic load actuator. The software re-
corded the full-time history sensor response for prescribed load cycles, along with max-
imum and minimum sensor responses for a larger number of load cycles. In this way,
both permanent and dynamic measures could be obtained from the sensors.

2.5 Test Section Construction

Table 2 provides information on the types of test sections constructed. Variables in-
cluded geosynthetic type, geosynthetic placement position in the base layer, and base-
course thickness.
The subgrade was compacted in 75 mm-thick lifts using a “jumping jack” trench
compactor. Approximately four specimens per lift were taken for determination of wa-
ter content. Five density measurements were made per lift using a nuclear density gauge
and periodically verified by sand cone tests. Water content and dry density were also
measured during excavation to verify that only minor changes took place during load-
ing for soil outside of the influence of the applied load.
Table 3 provides a summary of as-constructed properties of the subgrade for each
test section. The water content and density values listed are average values from all
specimens taken for each test section. The subgrade CBR value was estimated from lab-
oratory unsoaked CBR tests prepared at the same average water content. Dynamic cone
penetration (DCP) tests were performed on the compacted subgrade to verify this CBR
value. Correlation between dynamic penetration index and CBR values provided by
MnRoad (1993) were used. Water content and density values during excavation are also
listed in Table 3.

Table 2. Constructed, test-section variables.

Test Base thickness Subgrade

Geosynthetic Position
section a (mm) soil
C1 300 Clay Control N/A
C2 300 Clay Control N/A
C3 375 Clay Control N/A
C4 300 Clay Geotextile Base-subgrade interface
C5 300 Clay Geogrid A Base-subgrade interface
C6 375 Clay Geogrid A Base-subgrade interface
C7 300 Clay Geogrid A 100 mm above base-subgrade interface
C8 300 Clay Geogrid B Base-subgrade interface

Notes: a Nominal AC thickness = 75 mm for all test sections. N/A = not applicable.

356 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Table 3. As-constructed, subgrade properties.

Construction Excavation
Test Thickness
Water content Dry unit weight Pretest Water content Dry unit weight
section (mm)
(%) (kN/m3) CBR (%) (%) (kN/m3)
C1 1,045 44.8 11.4 1.5 43.9 11.6
C2 1,045 44.8 11.5 1.5 44.5 11.5
C3 970 44.9 11.4 1.5 44.6 11.3
C4 1,045 44.4 11.1 1.5 44.6 11.4
C5 1,045 45.1 11.4 1.5 43.7 11.5
C6 970 44.9 11.3 1.5 44.7 11.2
C7 1,045 44.2 11.4 1.5 44.7 11.4
C8 1,045 44.9 11.4 1.5 43.3 11.4

The average coefficient of variation (CV) values of water content and dry unit
weight values measured within a given test section were 1.4 and 1.6%, respectively,
with values for any given test section not exceeding 1.9 and 3.1%, respectively. A com-
parison of subgrade mean water content and dry unit weight values for different test sec-
tions resulted in CV values of 1.2 and 1.1%, respectively. These low CV values indicate
that excellent control of subgrade construction water content and dry unit weight was
achieved. Given that identical compaction techniques were used, it is reasonable to ex-
pect that comparisons between test sections can be made without having to account for
differences in as-constructed subgrade properties.
The base-course aggregate was compacted in 100 mm lifts using a vibratory plate
compactor. Water content and density were measured using the same techniques as that
of the subgrade. Table 4 lists the as-constructed properties of the base-course aggregate
for the test sections. The average dry unit weight CV value for the base within a test sec-
tion was 1.5. Considering all of the test sections, the mean density CV value for the base
was 1.0%. Given that dry unit weight is the most critical as-constructed property govern-
ing the mechanical behavior of the base, these results also indicate that comparisons
between test sections can be made without having to account for differences in base-
course aggregate properties.

Table 4. As-constructed, base-course aggregate properties.

Test Thickness Construction Excavation

section (mm) Water content (%) Dry unit weight (kN/m3) Water content (%)
C1 300 6.3 20.6 6.4
C2 300 6.9 20.7 6.1
C3 375 6.4 20.9 6.8
C4 300 5.8 21.0 5.8
C5 300 6.3 20.5 6.6
C6 375 6.7 20.5 6.2
C7 300 5.5 20.6 5.9
C8 300 6.2 20.6 5.8

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 357

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

The AC layer was placed in two lifts, corresponding to a total thickness of 75 mm, and
compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. Hot-mix was typically placed at 120_C.
The hot-mix was delivered via truck from a local batch plant in approximately 2,700 kg
loads. Hot-mix in excess of that needed for the test section was ordered, thereby allow-
ing the batch to remain hot while placement occurred. In-place density was measured
using a nuclear density gauge and later from drilled cores. These cores were taken out-
side of the loaded area after loading was completed. Other properties measured or deter-
mined from the AC cores included thickness, asphalt content, air void volume, and
Marshall stability (AASHTO T-245). The asphalt layer was allowed to cool for one day
prior to loading.
Table 5 provides a summary of AC layer as-constructed properties. Thickness and
density were determined from 100 and 150 mm-diameter cores; the number of speci-
mens used to determine the average reported value is listed in parentheses. The CV of
the specimen measurements taken within each test section is also listed; very good uni-
formity of AC layer thickness and density was achieved. Marshall stability was deter-
mined from the 100 mm-diameter cores.
To examine the variation of thickness, density, and air void volume for the test sec-
tions, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. Table 6 shows the re-
sults of this analysis for the thickness parameter. The values listed in Table 6 are
significance parameters. For values less than 0.05, it can be stated with confidence that
significant differences exist between test sections in terms of the measurement parame-
ter used in the analysis. Test section C6 was used as the reference test section because it
had the minimum AC thickness. From Table 6, it is seen that Test section C3 is the only
section with a statistically significant different AC thickness. Examination of Test sec-
tions C1 and C2 provides insight into the importance of variations in AC thickness. A 2.1
mm difference in AC thickness existed between Test sections C1 and C2, with C1 being
thicker. Other AC properties, such as, unit weight and air void volume were identical for
Test sections C1 and C2. As will be shown in Test section C3, the performance of Test
sections C1 and C2 was essentially the same, with Test section C1 performing slightly
better. This suggests that the difference in AC thickness does not have a significant im-
pact on pavement response and can be disregarded when comparing test sections.

Table 5. As-constructed, AC properties.

Unit Air Asphalt

p Marshall values
Test Thickness CV CV
weight
i h voids
id concrete Stability
section (mm) a (%) (%) Flow
(kN/ 3) a
(kN/m (%) (%) (kN)
C1 78.4 (10) 2.3 23.1 (6) 0.4 3.3 6.8 8.95 (6) 26
C2 76.3 (10) 2.7 23.1 (6) 0.7 3.3 6.1 11.24 (6) 15
C3 79.0 (10) 3.7 22.7 (6) 2.0 5.2 6.3 9.64 (6) 14
C4 75.3 (10) 1.4 23.3 (6) 0.2 3.1 6.6 10.99 (6) 18
C5 77.4 (10) 4.6 23.4 (6) 0.4 1.9 6.0 11.03 (6) 20
C6 75.1 (10) 1.6 22.9 (6) 1.0 4.3 6.5 9.74 (6) 13
C7 75.3 (10) 2.6 22.9 (6) 1.6 4.3 6.6 8.81 (6) 16
C8 76.2 (10) 3.0 22.6 (6) 2.1 5.6 6.1 10.19 (6) 13

Notes: The number of specimens is listed next to the measured quantity in parentheses. a Average thickness
and unit weight of 100 and 150 mm-diameter cores (AASHTO T-245).

358 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Table 6. Significance of variations in AC layer thickness values for each test section.

Reference ANOVA values for the different test section AC thickness values
test section C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C7 C8
C6 0.062 0.978 0.011 1.000 0.469 1.000 0.978

Table 7. Significance of variations in AC layer air-void volume values for each test section.

Reference ANOVA values for the different test section air-void volume values
test section C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
C1 1.000 0.218 1.000 0.631 0.916 0.908 0.067

The ANOVA analysis shows that no statistically significant differences existed be-
tween the air-void volume values for the AC layer of the different test sections (Table
7). Test section C1 was chosen as the reference test section because it was an unrein-
forced section. Table 7 shows that Test section C8 was quite close to being statistically
different with a significance parameter of 0.067. As such, it might be expected that Test
section C8 would have produced better performance had its AC air-void volume value
been closer to the lower values seen in the other test sections. With all other clay test
sections, it is believed that only minor changes in test section performance would result
from the changes in AC air-void volume values given in Table 5. Several test sections,
having statistically different AC air-void volume values (i.e. 7.9%), were replicated and
showed that pavement performance was deleteriously affected by this magnitude of dis-
crepancy when comparing AC air-void volume values.

3 RESULTS

3.1 General

Section 2 describes the quality control measures taken during construction of the test
sections, which was necessary as a first step to allow for behavior evaluation of the rein-
forced test sections as compared to sections without reinforcement. These quality con-
trol measures illustrated that excellent reproducibility of material properties was
attained for the subgrade and base-course layers, and for the AC layer. The second step
necessary to provide confidence for comparisons is to demonstrate that the measured
response of identical test sections and/or the measured response from two similar sen-
sors placed within a given test section yields reproducible results.
To evaluate the reproducibility of a given sensor measuring stress or strain at a given
point in the pavement, a preliminary clay section (PCS), not listed in Table 2, was
constructed. This test section had layer thicknesses and material properties identical to
Test sections C1 and C2. Figure 6 shows the peak vertical strain response in the base
at a depth of 300 mm below the pavement surface plotted against radial distance from
the centerline of the applied load. Sensors 1 and 2 in Figure 6 correspond to two different
sensors placed in this test section at the same depth, but separated by a lateral distance
of 400 mm. A sensor response, as a function of radial distance, was generated from a

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 359

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

0.20

Sensor 1
0.15 Sensor 2
Peak vertical strain (%)

0.10

0.05

600 800 1000

0.00
200 400
-0.05
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)

Figure 6. Peak vertical strain in the base versus radial distance at a depth, z = 300 mm,
below the pavement surface, for the preliminary clay section (PCS).

single load pulse applied at different locations on the pavement surface. The data points
in Figure 6 are the average of peak vertical strains measured from three load pulses ap-
plied at a given location. The data shows very good repeatability from two different sen-
sors in the same test section. Figure 7 shows a similar set of results for peak vertical
stress in the subgrade at a depth of 675 mm below the pavement surface. Perkins (1999a)
provided additional results that illustrate sensor repeatability.
Figure 8 provides results from two separate but identical unreinforced test sections
(Test sections C1 and C2) and illustrates the permanent surface deformation developed
below the load plate as a function of the applied load cycle. (Results presented in Figure
20 show the dynamic vertical stress developed in the subgrade at a depth of 450 mm
below the load plate centerline (R = 0) as a function of the applied load cycle for identi-
cal Test sections C1 and C2.) The results from Figure 8 indicate excellent repeatability
of overall rutting behavior and sensor response for two separately constructed, yet,
identical test sections and provides confidence in using the quality control measures
discussed in Section 2.4 as indicators of repeatability.

3.2 Rutting Behavior

Figure 9 shows the development of permanent surface deformation with applied

load cycles for the test sections listed in Table 2. Permanent surface deformation, also
referred to as rut depth, was defined as the average of the two inner-most LVDTs extend-
ing through the load plate when the applied load had been returned to zero. Figure 10

360 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

40

35
Peak vertical stress (kPa) .

30
25
20

15
10

5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)
Figure 7. Peak vertical stress in the subgrade versus radial distance at a depth, z = 675
mm, below the pavement surface, for the preliminary clay section (PCS).

30
Permanent surface deformation (mm) .

25
C2
20

15

10
C1

0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Load cycle number

Figure 8. Permanent surface deformation versus load cycle for unreinforced Test sections
C1 and C2.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 361

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

C1 (control) C2 (control)
25 C5 (Geogrid A)
C3 (control)
C4 (geotextile)
Permanent surface deformation (mm) .

20
C6 (Geogrid A)

15 C8 (Geogrid B)

C7 (Geogrid A)
10

0
0 200,000 400,000 600,000
Load cycle number
Figure 9. Permanent surface deformation versus load cycle for each test section.

100 C7 (Geogrid A)
C8 (Geogrid B)
Traffic benefit ratio (TBR).

C5 (Geogrid A)
10 C4 (geotextile)
C6 (Geogrid A)

C3 (control)
1

0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25
Permanent surface deformation (mm)
Figure 10. Traffic benefit ratio (TBR) versus permanent surface deformation.

362 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

shows the traffic benefit ratio (TBR) plotted against permanent surface deformation,
where TBR is defined as the number of cycles to reach a particular permanent surface
deformation, for a reinforced test section, divided by the number of cycles to reach this
same deformation in an unreinforced test section with the same layer thicknesses. In
Figure 10, Test sections C4, C3, C5, C7, and C8 used Test section C1 as the reference
test section, whereas Test section C6 used Test section C3 as the reference test section.
Using the above definition of TBR for Test section C3 reflects the “reinforcement” pro-
vided by an additional 75 mm of base aggregate.
The overall results for the clay subgrade test sections show a definite and substantial
reinforcement effect on rutting behavior. In light of the discussion in Section 2.4, Test
sections C1, C2, C4, C3, C5, and C7 have statistically comparable as-constructed mate-
rial properties and can be directly compared with confidence. Given the significance
of asphalt air-void volume values on overall behavior, it is believed that Test section
C8 would have performed better had its AC air-void volume value been closer to that
of Test section C1 and would have most likely performed better than Test section C7.
Figure 9 shows that all of the geosynthetic products used provided a performance
benefit as defined by permanent surface deformation. The two geogrid products used
provided improvement that was superior to the geotextile product. This should not be
interpreted to mean that all geogrid products will be superior to all geotextile products
in this application, but simply that the characteristics of the selected geogrid and geo-
textile products, applied in the manner used in the current research, were such that supe-
rior performance was measured for the geogrids. These characteristics include intrinsic
material properties of the geosynthetic and shear-interaction properties of the geosyn-
thetic with the surrounding soil.
A comparison of Test sections C5 and C8 suggests that, with all other factors being
equal, an increase in geosynthetic stiffness and strength results in superior pavement
performance. A comparison of Test sections C5 and C7 indicates that geosynthetic
placement position in the base-course layer has a significant impact on pavement perfor-
mance. In this particular case, placing the geogrid at a depth of 100 mm in the 300 mm-
thick base provided superior performance to placing the same geogrid at the interface.
These results suggest that the improvement measured, by moving Geogrid A to a depth
of 100 mm above the bottom of the base, was superior to placing the stiffer Geogrid B
at the interface. In light of the statistical analysis performed in Section 2.4, it is believed
that Test section C8 would have performed as well and, most likely, better than Test sec-
tion C7 had the AC air-void volume value for Test section C8 been equivalent to the
air-void volume value for Test section C7. Nevertheless, placement position and geo-
synthetic stiffness both appear to be critical design parameters.
Figure 10 shows that maximum TBR values for Test sections C8, C4, C7, and C5
ranged from 8 to 56. Figure 9 shows that Test section C4 initially developed permanent
deformation similarly to the unreinforced test sections (C1 and C2) and began to per-
form better than the control test sections at permanent surface deformations of approxi-
mately 6 to 7 mm. Figure 10 also shows this phenomenon where it is seen that the TBR
value is less than or equal to 1 up to a permanent surface deformation of 6 mm. In con-
trast, the geogrid-reinforced test sections, with the exception of Test section C6, per-
formed substantially better than the control test sections for all levels of permanent
surface deformation. A TBR value greater than 1 was obtained for Test section C6 after
a permanent surface deformation of approximately 3 mm. TBR values for the geogrid-

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 363

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

reinforced test sections, with the exception of Test section C6, are in the range of 7 to
25 for the initial 1 mm of permanent surface deformation, illustrating that the effect of
the reinforcement is immediate and that, in general, excessive roadway rutting is not
required to mobilize the reinforcement.
A comparison of Test sections C3 and C6 in Figure 9 also shows a significant im-
provement due to reinforcement for the 375 mm-thick base, although not quite as great
as with the 300 mm-thick, base-course test sections. Figure 10 further illustrates this
point where a maximum TBR value of 14 is measured for Test section C6. This may
imply that, when using a thicker base and placing the geosynthetic at the bottom of the
base and, hence, further away from the applied load, additional rutting is required to
mobilize the reinforcement. This may also imply that the effects of reinforcement di-
minish as the base thickness increases over some threshold value. The latter conclusion
has been clearly demonstrated by Collin et al. (1996). It is believed that the additional
rutting needed to mobilize the reinforcement results from a downward progression of
shear flow in the base that is necessary before the base aggregate begins to interact with
the geogrid. This does not imply that higher deformations are needed to mobilize a
membrane type of reinforcement mechanism, which is supported by recognizing the
low level of permanent surface deformation where reinforcement is initially realized
(approximately 3 mm) and that membrane reinforcement would not be expected to oc-
cur at such a low level. These results also suggest that moving the geogrid closer to the
surface of the base layer would have provided better performance in this situation.
A closer examination of Figure 9 for permanent surface deformations less than 5 mm
shows that, while initial permanent surface deformation is relatively rapid, the majority
of the initial deformation does not take place within the first several load cycles. For
instance, the two control test sections (C1 and C2) reached a permanent surface de-
formation of 5 mm in 110 load cycles, while Test sections C4, C5, C8, and C7 reached
a permanent surface deformation of 5 mm in 200, 3,570, 4,570, and 5,760 load cycles,
respectively. This indicates that the rate of initial rutting is significantly influenced by
reinforcement. It should also be noted that Test sections C1, C2, C4, and C5 had the
lowest AC air-void volume values. This further supports the statement that reinforce-
ment is responsible for the reduced rate of rutting in the beginning of these tests. It is
shown in Section 3.3 that this initial rutting is due to deformation of all layers and not
due to only compression of the AC layer air voids.
Test section C3, which was an unreinforced section with a 375 mm-thick base, is
compared to Test section C1 in Figure 10 in terms of TBR values to illustrate the benefits
of an additional 75 mm of base aggregate. It is seen that an additional 75 mm of base
aggregate results in a peak TBR value of 3.2. All reinforced test sections provided a TBR
value greater than the addition of 75 mm of base aggregate, indicating that each rein-
forcement product is equivalent to at least 75 mm of base aggregate. Mechanical benefits
associated with the addition of 75 mm of base aggregate are further explored in Section
3.4 to examine how these benefits compare to those obtained using reinforcement.
An examination of the permanent surface deformation profile, or the permanent de-
formation bowl, after the first load cycle shows that the results for the geogrid-rein-
forced test sections are clustered together and produce a maximum permanent
deformation of approximately 0.2 mm. The geotextile-reinforced test section shows a
maximum permanent deformation of 1 mm and is comparable to the two unreinforced
test sections (C1 and C2). An evaluation of the dynamic surface deformation bowls,

364 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

given by the difference between the deformation at peak load and the permanent de-
formation at the end of that same load cycle for the first load cycle, shows similar re-
sults, where the maximum dynamic deformation for the control test sections and the
geotextile-reinforced test section is approximately 3 mm and ranges between 1.2 and
1.8 mm for the geogrid-reinforced test sections. The shapes of the dynamic deformation
bowls for the test sections are similar. The difference in the maximum dynamic de-
formation caused by the first load cycle for the geogrid-reinforced test sections does not
necessarily correlate to long-term performance. This is further illustrated in Figure 11
where the dynamic deformation of each clay subgrade section is plotted against the load
cycle. Figure 11 illustrates problems associated with using dynamic pavement response
techniques, such as the falling weight deflectometer, to evaluate long-term perfor-
mance of reinforced pavements.

3.3 Mechanical Response: Reinforcement Mechanisms

Stress- and strain-cell measured data, which illustrate the reinforcement mecha-
nisms outlined in Section 1, are presented in this section.

3.3.1 Base-Course Aggregate Lateral Restraint

A possible reinforcement mechanism for this application is the reduction of lateral

movement of the base-course aggregate through the development of shearing resistance
with the geosynthetic. Figure 12 shows the permanent radial strain developed in the bot-

4.0
C1 (control)
Dynamic surface deformation (mm).

C8 (Geogrid B)
3.5 C2 (control)
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5 C4 (geotextile) C7 (Geogrid A)

1.0
C5 (Geogrid A)
0.5

0.0
0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000
Load cycle number

Figure 11. Dynamic surface deformation versus load cycle for each test section.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 365

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

C7 (Geogrid A)
0.0

-0.5
Permanent radial strain (%).

-1.0

-1.5
C5 (Geogrid A) C8 (Geogrid B)
-2.0
C4 (geotextile)
-2.5
C2 (control)
-3.0

-3.5 C1 (control)
-4.0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Load cycle number
Figure 12. Permanent radial strain in the base versus load cycle (radial distance from the
load-plate centerline, R = 100 mm, and depth below the pavement surface, z = 325 mm).

tom of the base approximately 50 mm above the geosynthetic and at a radius of 100 mm
from the load-plate centerline, where it is seen that all test sections develop tensile strain
at this radius; the unreinforced test sections (C1 and C2) exhibit considerably more
strain than the reinforced test sections. In Figure 12 and all remaining figures, R is de-
fined as the radial distance from the load-plate centerline and z is defined as the depth
below the pavement surface. The development of radial strain in the reinforced test sec-
tions as compared to the unreinforced test sections is a good indicator of improvement
due to reinforcement; however, the difference between the reinforced test sections is
not particularly significant. Test section C4 initially exhibits greater lateral strain com-
parable to the control test sections for the first seven to eight load cycles, where after,
the radial strain is similar to the other reinforced test sections.
Figure 13 shows the permanent radial strain in the bottom of the base plotted against
radial distance after the application of 40,000 load cycles. The data shows that the rein-
forcement allows the base at this level to remain in extension for effectively all radii and
prevents the large gradient between extension and compression as seen in the unrein-
forced test sections from developing. A similar pattern of deformation is seen for the
first load application (Figure 14) indicating that this effect is immediate. Figures 13 and
14 clearly illustrate the ability of the geosynthetic to minimize lateral movement of the
base aggregate. Similar results are observed between the 375 mm-thick base test sec-
tions (Perkins 1999a).

366 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

1
Permanent radial strain (%)

100
0
200 300 400 500 600
-1
C1 (control)
C2 (control)
-2
C4 (geotextile)
C5 (Geogrid A)
-3
C7 (Geogrid A)
C8 (Geogrid B)
-4
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)

Figure 13. Permanent radial strain in the base versus radial distance at load cycle 40,000
(depth below the pavement surface, z = 325 mm).

0.04
Permanent radial strain (%)

0.02
100 200 300
0
400 500 600
-0.02
C1 (control)
-0.04
C2 (control)
-0.06 C4 (geotextile)
C5 (Geogrid A)
-0.08
C7 (Geogrid A)
-0.1 C8 (Geogrid B)
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)

Figure 14. Permanent radial strain in the base versus radial distance for the first load
cycle (depth below the pavement surface, z = 325 mm).

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 367

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

A manifestation of lateral base restraint is the development of significant geosyn-

thetic tensile strain. Figure 15 shows significant development of permanent radial strain
directly beneath the load in the machine direction of the geosynthetics. The magnitude
of permanent geosynthetic strain does not necessarily correlate with long-term perfor-
mance of the test sections, as can be seen by comparing Figures 9 and 15. This is to be
expected because the development of permanent geosynthetic strain is dependent on
geosynthetic material properties along with soil-geosynthetic interaction properties.
Figure 16 illustrates a profile of permanent geosynthetic radial strain versus radial dis-
tance in the machine direction at 7,500 load cycles. This load-cycle level was chosen
because, after this level, some foil strain gauges became inoperable. These results illus-
trate a pattern of strain development that is similar to that shown in Figure 1. The data
shows that significant permanent strain is developed in the area beneath the load plate
where the greatest lateral movement of the base occurs. The development of slight com-
pressional strains at a radius beyond 200 mm clearly shows that tensile reinforcement
is not due to a tensioned, membrane-type mechanism. Perkins et al. (1997b, 1998a,b)
have shown similar results for a stiffer silty-sand subgrade.
Figure 17 shows that permanent geosynthetic strain accumulates under relatively
constant dynamic strain for each load cycle. Constant dynamic geosynthetic strain im-
plies that the dynamic load induced in the geosynthetics is also nearly constant. The
dynamic strains suggest that the dynamic load induced in the geosynthetics is signifi-
cant. Examination of permanent and dynamic strain for the first load cycle shows that
the reinforcement is mobilized immediately upon load application (Figure 18).

2.5

C8 (Geogrid B)
Permanent radial strain (%).

2.0 C5
(Geogrid A) C4, zz == 375
C4, 375mm
mm
C5, zz == 375
C5, 375mm
mm
1.5
C7,
C7, zz == 275
275mm
mm
C8, z = 375
C8, z = 375 mmmm
C7 (Geogrid A)
1.0

0.5 C4 (geotextile)

0.0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Load cycle number
Figure 15. Permanent radial strain in the machine direction of the geosynthetics versus
load cycle (radial distance from the load-plate centerline, R = 15 mm).

368 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

1.8
1.6
C4 (geotextile)
Permanent radial strain (%)

1.4 C5 (Geogrid A)
1.2 C7 (Geogrid A)
1.0 C8 (Geogrid B)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2 200 400 600 800

Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)

Figure 16. Permanent radial strain in the geosynthetic machine direction versus radial
distance from the load-plate centerline, R, at load cycle 7,500.

0.5 C4, zz==375

C5 (Geogrid A) C4, 375mm
mm
C5, z = 375 mm
C5, z = 375 mm
0.4 C7, zz==275
C7, 275mm
mm
Dynamic radial strain (%).

C8 (Geogrid B) C8, zz==375

C8, 375mm
mm

0.3 C7 (Geogrid A)

0.2
C4 (geotextile)

0.1

0.0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Load cycle number
Figure 17. Dynamic radial strain in the geosynthetic machine direction versus radial
distance from the load-plate centerline, R, at load cycle 7,500.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 369

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

0.4
Dynamic radial strain (%) C4 (geotextile)
0.3 C5 (Geogrid A)
C7 (Geogrid A)
0.2 C8 (Geogrid B)

0.1
600
0.0
200 400 800
-0.1
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)
Figure 18. Dynamic radial strain in the geosynthetic machine direction versus radial
distance from the load-plate centerline, R, for the first load cycle.

Figure 19 shows that the lateral, base-course restraint mechanism results in a reduc-
tion of permanent vertical strain in the base layer. Additionally, with the exception of
Test section C8, the reinforced test sections are grouped closely together, indicating
that, although greater differences existed with lateral strains, the impact on the differ-
ences in vertical base strain is much less significant. It is noted that the vertical strain
shown in Figure 19 for Test section C4 is not much different from other test sections
even though the overall rutting performance of this test section is not as good as other
test sections. This indicates that base movement is apparently not the cause of the de-
creased performance. Results for other elevations in the base are not available, which
would have allowed for broad conclusions to be made for the entire base layer.

3.3.2 Vertical Stress Distribution on Subgrade

Figure 20 shows that the dynamic vertical stress induced in the top of the subgrade,
directly beneath the load-plate centerline, is reduced by the presence of reinforcement.
Similar results are seen deeper in the subgrade, with this effect beginning to diminish
at a depth of 1 m below the pavement surface where dynamic stresses are on the order
of 20 kPa. This data indicates that the greatest improvement in vertical stress for this
pavement configuration occurs in the top 300 mm of the subgrade. Figure 20 also shows
that Test section C4, reinforced with the geotextile, shows greater vertical stress than
the other reinforced test sections.
Figure 21 shows a distribution of dynamic vertical stress across the top of the sub-
grade after 40,000 load cycles. A more widely distributed vertical stress profile is seen
for the reinforced test sections, while the geotextile-reinforced test section (C4) did not
provide quite the same level of improvement in load spreading as the geogrid-reinforced

370 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

C2, z = 300 mm
0.9
C4, z = 300 mm
0.8
Permanent vertical strain (%) .
C5, z = 300 mm
0.7 C7, z = 200 mm
C2 (control) C8, z = 300 mm
0.6
C5 (Geogrid A)
0.5
C4 (geotextile)
0.4
0.3
C7 (Geogrid A)
0.2
0.1 C8 (Geogrid B)
0
0 100,000 200,000 300,000
Load cycle number

Figure 19. Permanent vertical strain in the base versus load cycle (radial distance from
the load-plate centerline, R = 65 mm).

120 C1 (control) C2 (control)

Dynamic vertical stress (kPa) .

100 C4 (geotextile)

80

60

40 C8 (Geogrid B)
C5 (Geogrid A)
20
C7 (Geogrid A)
0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Load cycle number
Figure 20. Dynamic vertical stress in the subgrade versus load cycle (radial distance from
the load-plate centerline, R = 0, and the depth below the pavement surface, z = 450 mm).

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 371

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

120
C1 (control)

Dynamic vertical stress (kPa) . 100 C4 (geotextile)

C5 (Geogrid A)

80 C7 (Geogrid A)
C8 (Geogrid B)

60

40

20

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)
Figure 21. Dynamic vertical stress in the subgrade versus radial distance at load cycle
40,000 (depth below the pavement surface, z = 450 mm).

test sections. As with other reinforcement effects, the improved load spreading demon-
strated in Figure 21 was seen to occur immediately upon load application.

3.3.3 Shear in the Top of Subgrade

In Section 1, it was recognized that, for a model-scale, plane-strain footing, a layer

of geosynthetic reinforcement reduces the shear stress transmitted from the base layer
to the subgrade (Love et al. 1987). It was speculated that this same effect may be true
for a paved road. Shear stress created in the bottom of the base layer is intercepted and
carried by the geosynthetic as base layer-geosynthetic interface friction develops. As
a result, less shear stress is experienced in the materials below the geosynthetic. A re-
duction in shear stress results in a less severe loading condition and, as a result, less ver-
tical strain will develop. The instrumentation used in the current study could not
measure shear stresses in the soil layers, however, it is expected that reduced shear stress
will result in less shear strain, which in turn will result in lower radial strain.
Figure 22 shows a profile of radial strain in the top of the subgrade versus radial dis-
tance for load cycle 40,000. These results show a pattern of radial strain in the unrein-
forced test sections that is similar to that developed in the bottom of the base. The
presence of reinforcement significantly reduces both tensile and compressional strains.
No clear differences between the reinforced test sections is exhibited by this data. Simi-
lar to other findings, data plotted for the first load cycle shows that this effect is also

372 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

1.5
1.0
Permanent radial strain (%)
0.5 200
0.0
-0.5 100 300 400 500
C1 (control)
-1.0
C2 (control)
-1.5 C4 (geotextile)
-2.0 C5 (Geogrid A)
C7 (Geogrid A)
-2.5
C8 (Geogrid B)
-3.0
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)
Figure 22. Permanent radial strain in the subgrade versus radial distance at load cycle
40,000 (depth below the pavement surface, z = 415 mm).

immediate. Radial strain measurements were not taken deeper in the subgrade, making
it impossible to comment on how deep into the subgrade this effect is seen.
The result of an improved vertical stress distribution on the subgrade and reduced
radial strain in the top of the subgrade is a reduction of permanent vertical strain. Figure
23 shows the permanent vertical strain developed in the top of the subgrade beneath the
load-plate centerline. The geosynthetic-reinforced test sections show considerably less
vertical strain than the unreinforced test sections. In addition, Test section C4 shows
more vertical strain than the geogrid-reinforced test sections. Given that the radial
strain data for the top of the subgrade shows similar effects for the geogrid- and geotex-
tile-reinforced test sections, the difference in vertical strain is most likely due to differ-
ences seen in the load spreading characteristics of these materials.

3.3.4 Other Effects

The mechanisms of lateral, base-aggregate restraint and an improved vertical stress

distribution on the subgrade suggests that geosynthetic-reinforcement causes certain
stress effects to take place in the base layer. As described in Section 1, lateral restraint
of the base layer would be expected to result in an increase in lateral or radial stress.
This additional confinement would then be expected to result in an increase in stiffness
or elastic modulus for a portion of the base layer. This in turn would alter the vertical
stress distribution in the base layer similar to that seen in the subgrade. Stress-cell instru-
mentation contained in the base layer did not demonstrate these effects. This does not

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 373

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

5.0
C1 (control)
4.5
Permanent vertical strain (%).

4.0
3.5
3.0 C8 (Geogrid B)
2.5
C4 (geotextile)
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 C5 (Geogid A) C7 (Geogrid A)
0.0
0 100,000 200,000 300,000
Load cycle number
Figure 23. Permanent vertical strain in the subgrade versus load cycle (radial distance from
the load-plate centerline, R = 65 mm, and depth below the pavement surface, z = 450 mm).

necessarily imply that these effects did not take place, but may indicate that it is difficult
to demonstrate these effects using the instrumentation employed in the current study.
The stress cells measuring radial stress had a diameter of 68 mm and were typically
placed 75 mm above the geosynthetic. The sensors measuring radial strain were located
50 mm above the geosynthetic. It is possible that any increase in radial stress in the base
occurred for a layer that was less than 75 mm in thickness, meaning that the stress cells
were simply too large to account for this radial stress increase. It is also possible that the
radial spacing of the cells measuring radial stress was inadequate for sensing this effect.
Measurement of dynamic vertical stress in the bottom of the base versus radial dis-
tance for load cycle 40,000 for Test sections C1, C5, and C6 is shown in Figure 24.
The two reinforced test sections show lower dynamic vertical stress at the load-plate
centerline (R = 0) as compared to measurements taken at R = 150 mm. Integration
under these curves with respect to radius and rotation about R = 0 must produce a
constant that is equal to the applied surface load. Assuming that the values shown in
Figure 24 are correct, it becomes clear that sufficient data points are not available to
define variations in these curves.
This data may suggest that a stress-arching effect occurs in the base, which could be
responsible for an improved vertical stress distribution on the subgrade. Shear interac-
tion along the geosynthetic interface creates shear forces, acting on the base aggregate,
that are directed toward the load centerline. This may be responsible for the develop-
ment of an arching effect in the base that causes vertical stress to be reduced directly
beneath the load plate and increased at the periphery of the arch. If this effect occurs,
dramatic variations in the curves shown in Figure 24 would be expected. For example,

374 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

250
C1 (control)
Dynamic vertical stress (kPa).
C4 (geotextile)
200 C8 (Geogrid B)

150

100

50

0
0 100 200 300 400
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)

Figure 24. Dynamic vertical stress in the base versus radial distance at load cycle 40,000
(depth below the pavement surface, z = 300 mm).

it is possible that between a radius of 0 and 150 mm, the curves reach a peak well above
250 kPa, corresponding to a radius at the periphery of the stress arch. A considerably
more detailed instrumentation plan would be required to illustrate this effect.
Excavation of the geotextile-reinforced test section showed that a dimpling pattern
had occurred as larger aggregate stones had caused the geotextile to penetrate slightly
into the subgrade. It is believed that the majority of this dimpling occurred during load
application as base aggregate moved down and along the geotextile surface. Repeated
load applications were most likely necessary to create this pattern, which explains why
the geotextile-reinforced test section initially deformed like the unreinforced test sec-
tions. It is also possible that particle lateral movement was necessary to remove crimp
in the geotextile before tensile load could be developed. As a result of this dimpling
pattern, a pseudo-interlocking effect occurred between the base aggregate and the geo-
textile. This condition indicates complications associated with using shear-interaction
tests (i.e. pullout or direct shear tests) for the purpose of defining shear-interaction me-
chanical properties. It may be necessary to perform application-specific interaction
tests to adequately define interaction properties.

3.4 Improvements of Increased Base-Course Thickness

The effect of 75 mm of additional base aggregate is described by comparing the un-

reinforced test sections with the thinner, 300 mm-thick base test sections (C1 and C2)
to the thicker, 375 mm-thick base test section (C3). It is noted that due to the different

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 375

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

base thicknesses, the depth of the instruments that are being compared is different for
each test section. The measurements are common, however, with respect to the distance
above or below the base-subgrade interface. Figure 25 shows that an additional 75 mm
of base has the effect of reducing lateral strain in the base layer similar to the effects
of adding reinforcement. The 375 mm-thick base test section exhibits a better load dis-
tribution on the top of the subgrade in terms of applied dynamic vertical stress (Figure
26). A similar effect is shown with a reduction in radial strain in the top of the subgrade
(Figure 27). The effect of the addition of 75 mm of base is to reduce permanent vertical
strain in the subgrade. The effects illustrated in Figures 25 to 27 are very similar to the
effects associated with reinforcement discussed previously in Section 3.3. This data in-
dicates that the structural contribution of geosynthetic reinforcement is very similar to
that of additional base-course material.

4 SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS

A pavement test facility has been developed for the purpose of examining the me-
chanical behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced pavement systems. The data provided by
the current study is being used to develop mechanical models of the reinforced pave-
ment system from which a design methodology will be developed. The facility consists
of a large concrete box in which field-scale subgrade, base, geosynthetic, and asphalt
concrete (AC) layers can be placed. Pavement system performance was assessed by ap-
plying a cyclic, nontranslating, 40 kN load to a circular plate resting on the pavement
surface. Pavement distress results from the development of permanent deformation of
the pavement surface.
Variables included in the test sections constructed were geosynthetic type and place-
ment position in the base layer and base layer thickness. An array of sensors to measure
stress, strain, displacement, load, temperature, and moisture content has been included
in the test sections.
Extensive measures were taken to provide for quality control during construction of
the test sections. A statistical analysis of constructed pavement layer properties has
shown that no statistically significant variations in material properties existed between
the reported test sections, with the exception of the AC air-void volume values for Test
section C8, which was nearly statistically different. A test section specifically
constructed to illustrate the repeatability of response from instrumentation placed in the
test section has shown good repeatability in sensor response. A comparison of responses
from duplicated control test sections has shown good repeatability of instrument re-
sponse and overall rutting behavior. These results indicate that direct comparisons can
be made between the clay subgrade sections, while considering that Test section C8
would have most likely performed better had its AC air-void volume value been more
comparable to the other test sections.
The overall test section results have demonstrated that significant improvement in
pavement performance, as defined by permanent surface deformation, results from the
inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement. Substantial improvement was measured when
a soft clay subgrade having a CBR of 1.5% was used. For all test sections, mixing of
the subgrade and base-course aggregate was not observed, indicating that any improve-
ment in pavement performance was due to reinforcement functions. Reinforcement

376 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

2
Permanent radial strain (%)
1

0
100 200 300 400 500 600
-1

-2 C1 (control), z = 325 mm
C2 (control), z = 325 mm
-3 C3 (control), z = 400 mm

-4
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)
Figure 25. Permanent radial strain in the base versus radial distance from the load-plate
centerline, R, at load cycle 40,000.

120
C1 (control)
Dynamic vertical stress (kPa).

100
C3 (control)

80

60

40

20

0
0 100 200 300 400
Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)

Figure 26. Dynamic vertical stress in the subgrade versus radial distance from the
load-plate centerline, R, at load cycle 40,000.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 377

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

1.5
1.0
Permanent radial strain (%)
0.5 200
0.0
-0.5 100 300 400 500
-1.0
-1.5
C1 (control), z = 415 mm
-2.0
C2 (control), z = 415 mm
-2.5
C3 (control), z = 590 mm
-3.0
-3.5 Radial distance from load centerline, R (mm)

Figure 27. Permanent radial strain in the subgrade versus radial distance from the
load-plate centerline, R, at load cycle 40,000.

benefits were seen to occur typically within the first applied load cycle. Together with
an examination of strain developed in the geosynthetic, these results indicate that sig-
nificant deformation of the pavement layers is not necessary to mobilize the reinforce-
ment, indicating that a tensioned, membrane-type reinforcement function is not
responsible for improvements provided by the geosynthetic.
Regarding the geogrid products used, the stiffer geogrid (Geogrid B) provided for
better pavement performance as compared to Geogrid A, which has been demonstrated
in many other studies. Geogrids A and B were identical in terms of composition and
size and differed only in strength and stiffness. The importance of geosynthetic place-
ment position was seen by comparing two test sections with Geogrid A placed at the
subgrade-base course interface and 100 mm up into a base layer having a thickness of
300 mm. Significantly better performance was observed when the geogrid was elevated
in the base. Additionally, when Geogrid A was placed at the bottom of a thicker base
(375 mm), improvement, as compared to a similar unreinforced test section, was not
as great as the same reinforcement configuration for a base layer having a thickness of
300 mm. This also indicates that placement position of the geosynthetic in proximity
to the applied load is an important design consideration and substantiates this observa-
tion, which has been made in other studies.
Test sections reinforced with either of the two geogrids used in the current study per-
formed better than the geotextile-reinforced test sections; however, geotextile-rein-
forced test section improvement was still appreciable. An examination of the stress and
strain measurements in the pavement layers showed that the greatest difference in re-
sponse was the vertical stress distribution in the top of the subgrade, which led to greater
vertical strain in the subgrade. The geotextile-reinforced test section was also seen to

378 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

deform more like the unreinforced test sections during the early portion of loading. The
differences between the geogrid- and geotextile-reinforced test sections is believed to
be primarily due to differences in shear-interaction properties of the geosynthetic with
the surrounding base aggregate and the intrinsic load-strain geosynthetic properties.
Relatively high traffic benefit ratios (TBR) were measured for the reinforced test
sections. For the geogrid-reinforced test sections, significant TBR values were mea-
sured for the initial 1 mm of permanent deformation, indicating that benefits due to rein-
forcement were realized immediately upon load application. Examination of stress and
strain measurements in the pavement materials also showed that reinforcement mecha-
nisms occurred immediately upon load application. Additionally, the high rate of rut-
ting at the beginning of each test was reduced by the reinforcement. Deformations
corresponding to this test stage were seen in all pavement layers and were reduced by
the presence of reinforcement.
Comparisons of reinforced test sections having a 300 mm-thick base with an unrein-
forced test section having a 375 mm-thick base showed better performance with the re-
inforced test sections, indicating that the reinforcement allows for at least a 20%
reduction in base thickness. Given the substantially better performance of the reinforced
test sections as compared to this unreinforced test section, this number is likely consider-
ably greater than 20%. Comparisons of two unreinforced test sections with 300 and 375
mm-thick base layers showed that improvements, due to a thicker base test section, as
described by stress and strain measurements in the pavement layers, were similar to
those seen by the addition of reinforcement.
An examination of stress and strain measurements in the pavement layers illustrates
several reinforcement mechanisms taking place in this application. Reinforcement has
the effect of considerably reducing the radial strain developed in the bottom of the base
layer, which leads to a vertical strain reduction in the base. In conjunction with this ef-
fect is the development of significant geosynthetic tensile strains. Dynamic strains were
used to show that dynamic loads as great as 2.6 kN/m were developed in the geogrids.
Incremental permanent strains were developed in the geosynthetics, indicating that ad-
vanced material modeling, accounting for creep-related ratcheting effects, will be re-
quired to fully describe the reinforcement effect. Ratcheting describes the
accumulation of permanent strain under repeated tensile load and was accounted for by
material creep properties (Perkins 1999b).
In the subgrade layer, reinforcement has the effect of distributing the vertical stress
more widely, which leads to a reduction of vertical strain beneath the load plate. Al-
though stress-measuring instrumentation in the base could not confirm this effect, it is
believed that an improved vertical stress distribution is due to an increase in radial stress
in the bottom of the base, which leads to a layer of stiffer base aggregate. Limited data
was also presented suggesting that an improved vertical stress distribution on the sub-
grade is due to a stress-arching effect in the base, which is initiated by base restraint and
corresponding restoring shear stresses acting on the base as provided by the reinforce-
ment.
Similar to the pattern of radial strain in the base, the reinforcement had the effect
of reducing radial strain in the top of the subgrade. This is believed to be an indication
of less shear stress reaching the top of the subgrade due to shear transfer to the geosyn-
thetic. Similar to the result of an improved vertical stress distribution, less radial strain
results in less vertical strain in the subgrade.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 379

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

An examination of dynamic surface deformations and dynamic stress and strain

measurements in the pavement layers illustrates problems with correlating dynamic re-
sponse to long-term rutting behavior. In general, single, pulse-dynamic responses rarely
provided a good correlation to long-term performance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully recognizes the generous financial and technical support of the
Montana Department of Transportation for this project. The effort of personnel at the
MDT-Bozeman Maintenance Yard, where this experimental work was performed, is
greatly appreciated. The tireless and dedicated efforts of Dr. M. Ismeik, Mr. M. Fogel-
song, Mr. Y. Wang, Mr. E. Cuelho, and a host of undergraduate student researchers is
gratefully recognized. The Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Company and Tensar Earth
Technologies, Incorporated graciously donated geosynthetic materials for the project.
Finally, the author wishes to acknowledge the reviewer comments that materially im-
proved the original manuscript submission.

REFERENCES

AASHTO T-245, “Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall

Apparatus”, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials,
Washington, DC, USA.
AMOCO, 1996, Personal fax communication, 6 December 1996.
Anderson, P. and Killeavy, M., 1989, “Geotextiles and Geogrids: Cost Effective Alter-
nate Materials for Pavement Design and Construction”, Proceedings of Geosynthet-
ics ’89, IFAI, Vol. 2, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 353-360.
ASTM D 4595, “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Geotextiles by the
Wide-Width Strip Method”, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Con-
shohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
Barksdale, R.D., Brown, S.F. and Chan, F., 1989, “Potential Benefits of Geosynthetics
in Flexible Pavement Systems”, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report No. 315, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Wash-
ington DC, USA, 56 p.
Bender, D.A. and Barenberg, E.J., 1978, “Design and Behavior of Soil-Fabric-Aggre-
gate Systems”, Transportation Research Record 671, Washington, DC, USA, pp.
64-75.
Cancelli, A., Montanelli, F., Rimoldi, P. and Zhao, A., 1997, “Full Scale Laboratory
Testing on Geosynthetics Reinforced Paved Roads”, Earth Reinforcement, Ochiai,
H., Yaufuku, N. and Omine, K., Editors, Balkema, 1997, Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, Vol. 1, Fukuoka, Kyushu, Japan, Novem-
ber 1996, pp. 573-578.

380 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Cancelli, A., and Montanelli, F., 1999, “In-Ground Test for Geosynthetic Reinforced
Flexible Paved Roads”, Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’99, IFAI, Vol. 2, Boston, Mas-
sachusetts, USA, April 1999, pp. 863-879.
Collin, J.G., Kinney, T.C. and Fu, X., 1996, “Full Scale Highway Load Test of Flexible
Pavement Systems With Geogrid Reinforced Base Courses”, Geosynthetics Interna-
tional, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 537-549.
Cuelho, E.V., 1998, “Determination of Geosynthetic Constitutive Parameters and Soil/
Geosynthetic Interaction by In-Air and In-Soil Experiments”, M.S. Thesis, Montana
State University , Bozeman, Montana, USA, 227 p.
Fannin, R.J. and Sigurdsson, O., 1996, “Field Observations on Stabilization of Unpaved
Roads With Geosynthetics, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 7,
pp. 544-553.
IFAI, 1994, 1995 Specifier ’s Guide, Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 12, No. 9, 194
p.
IFAI, 1997, 1998 Specifier ’s Guide, Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 15, No. 9, 230
p.
Haas R., Walls, J. and Carroll, R.G., 1988, “Geogrid Reinforcement of Granular Bases
in Flexible Pavements”, Transportation Research Record 1188, Washington, DC,
USA, pp. 19-27.
Houlsby, G.T. and Jewell, R.A., 1990, “Design of Reinforced Unpaved Roads for Small
Rut Depths”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, Balkema, Vol. 1, The Hague, The Nether-
lands, May 1990, pp. 171-176.
Kinney, T.C. and Barenberg, E.J., 1982, “The Strengthening Effect of Geotextiles on
Soil-Geotextile-Aggregate Systems”, Proceedings of the Second International Con-
ference on Geotextiles, IFAI, Vol. 2, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, August 1982, pp.
347-352.
Kinney, T.C., Stone, D.K. and Schuler, J., 1998a, “Using Geogrids for Base Reinforce-
ment as Measured by Falling Weight Deflectometer in Full-Scale Laboratory Study”,
Transportation Research Record 1611, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 70-77.
Kinney, T.C., Abbott, J. and Schuler, J., 1998b, “Benefits of Using Geogrids for Base
Reinforcement with Regard to Rutting”, Transportation Research Record 1611,
Washington, DC, USA, pp. 86-96.
Love, J.P., Burd, H.J., Milligan, G.W.E. and Houlsby, G.T., 1987, “Analytical and Mod-
el Studies of Reinforcement of a Layer of Granular Fill on a Soft Clay Subgrade”,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 611-622.
Miura, N., Sakai, A., Taesiri, Y., Yamanouchi, T. and Yasuhara, K., 1990, “Polymer
Grid Reinforced Pavement on Soft Clay Grounds”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 99-123.
MnRoad, 1993, “User Guide to the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer”, Office of Minnesota
Road Research, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Maplewood, Minnesota,
USA, 18 p.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5 381

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 PERKINS D Mechanical Response of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Flexible Pavements

Moghaddas-Nejad, F. and Small, J.C., 1996, “Effect of Geogrid Reinforcement in Mod-

el Track Tests on Pavements”, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 122, No.
6, pp. 468-474.
Perkins, S.W., 1999a, “Geosynthetic Reinforcement of Flexible Pavements: Laboratory
Based Pavement Test Sections”, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal High-
way Administration, Washington, DC, Report No. FHWA/MT-99/8106-1, March
1999, 140 p.
Perkins, S.W., 1999b, “Constitutive Modeling of Geosynthetics”, Geotextiles and Geo-
membranes (to be published).
Perkins, S.W. and Cuelho, E.V., 1999, “Soil-Geosynthetic Interface Strength and Stiff-
ness Relationships From Pullout Tests”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6, No. 5,
pp. 321-346.
Perkins, S.W. and Ismeik, M., 1997a, “A Synthesis and Evaluation of Geosynthetic Re-
inforced Base Course Layers in Flexible Pavements: Part I Experimental Work”,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 549-604.
Perkins, S.W. and Ismeik, M., 1997b, “A Synthesis and Evaluation of Geosynthetic Re-
inforced Base Course Layers in Flexible Pavements: Part II Analytical Work”, Geo-
synthetics International, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 605-621.
Perkins, S.W., Ismeik, M. and Fogelsong, M.L., 1998a, “Mechanical Response of a
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Pavement System to Cyclic Loading”, Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfields, Nor-
dal, R.S. and Refsdal, G., Editors, Norweigan University of Science and Technology,
Vol. 3, Trondheim, Norway, July 1998, pp. 1503-1512.
Perkins, S.W., Ismeik, M., Fogelsong, M.L., Wang, Y. and Cuelho, E.V., 1998b, “Geo-
synthetic-Reinforced Pavements: Overview and Preliminary Results”, Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics, IFAI, Vol. 2, Atlanta, Geor-
gia, USA, April 1998, pp. 951-958.
Selig, E.T., Zhang, J. and Ebersöhn, W., 1997, “Evaluation of Dynamic Earth Pressure
Cells for Subgrade”, Transportation Research Record 1596, Washington, DC, USA,
pp. 1-6.
Sellmeijer, J.B., 1990, “Design of Geotextile Reinforced Paved Roads and Parking
Areas”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geo-
membranes and Related Products, Balkema, Vol. 1, The Hague, The Netherlands,
May 1990, pp. 177-182.
Ullidtz, P., Askegaard, V. and Sjolin, F.O., 1996, “Normal Stresses in a Granular Materi-
al Under FWD Loading”, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting Preprint,
Washington, DC, USA, Paper No. 960024, 15 p.
Webster, S.L., 1993, “Geogrid Reinforced Base Courses For Flexible Pavements For
Light Aircraft, Test Section Construction, Behavior Under Traffic, Laboratory Tests,
and Design Criteria”, Technical Report GL-93-6, USAE Waterways Experiment Sta-
tion, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA, 86 p.

382 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1999, VOL. 6, NO. 5

Downloaded by [ Central Road Research Institute] on [10/06/25]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.