Transportation Geotechnics 19 (2019) 54–60

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Geotechnics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trgeo

Strength enhancement of the subgrade soil of unpaved road with T

geosynthetic reinforcement layers
⁎
Meenakshi Singha, , Ashutosh Trivedia, Sanjay Kumar Shuklab,c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India
b
Discipline of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Edith Cowan University, Australia
c
School of Building and Civil Engineering, Fiji National University, Fiji

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Geosynthetic reinforcement layers are often used to improve the performance of pavement structures. The
Subgrade performance of an unpaved road is routinely measured in terms of the California bearing ratio (CBR), which is an
CBR value index of strength of subgrade soil of unpaved road. In the present study, an experimental investigation was
Geogrids carried out to evaluate the performance of the subgrade soil by placing a single layer and double layers of
Geomat
geosynthetic reinforcements (Glasgrid, Tenax 3D grid and Tenax multimat) horizontally at varying depths from
Reinforcement
the top surface of subgrade soil. Through a series of CBR tests in the laboratory, an attempt was made to
determine the optimum depth of the reinforcement layer. The single layer of reinforcement has been placed at
the middle, one-third and one-fourth of the height of the CBR specimen from the top surface of the soil in the
CBR mould. The double layers of reinforcement were placed at one-fourth of the specimen height from the top
surface and the bottom surface. The results show the significant contribution in terms of increased CBR value of
the soil, resulting in reduced design thickness of the pavement layers above the subgrade soil. It has been
observed that for a single layer reinforcement the Tenax 3D grid performs better than other geosynthetics used in
this study while the Tenax multimat performs best for double layers. The results indicate that for the maximum
benefit, the Tenax 3D grid reinforcement should be placed in between 0.3H and 0.36H where H is the height of
the soil specimen. For Glasgrid and Tenax multimat reinforcements, the maximum effect of reinforcement is
obtained when they are placed between 0.41H and 0.62H.

Introduction reinforcement in unpaved roads over weak subgrades to improve their

performance [9,8,18,11]. The position of the reinforcement layer in the
In the current construction practice, the geosynthetic layers are subgrade also influences the performance of the road [19,21,24]. Sev-
often utilized for improving the weak/unsuitable soil subgrade for eral field trials and full-scale laboratory investigations have illustrated
paved and unpaved roads. The geosynthetic layer as a reinforcement that the geosynthetics used to reinforce the unpaved roads on soft
can be used effectively to reinforce the unpaved road built on soft soil ground facilitate confinement, reduce the depth of ruts, improve load-
subgrades, resulting in increased life of the road. The benefits obtained bearing capacity, extend the service life and reduce the necessary fill
from the use of geosynthetic layers in unpaved roads can be observed thickness [1,2,11,10]. Relatively thicker pavement sections and base-
not only with respect to performance and durability but also with re- course layers indicate that more material is required for construction,
spect to construction and economy [23]. The concept of using geo- and therefore it increases the cost. Geosynthetics have been used as an
synthetic as reinforcement in paved/unpaved road construction started alternative to reduce the cost of these materials and improve the per-
in the 1970s. Since then, many experimental and numerical studies formance of reinforced road sections. Some studies have been carried
have been reported in the literature to evaluate the benefits of using the out to quantify the benefit of using the geogrid base reinforcement [3].
geosynthetics in road construction [5,25]. Due to the successful appli- Initial cost and maintenance cost of reinforced road section has been an
cation of geosynthetics in roads, different types of geosynthetics have important factor which should be considered for evaluating the benefits
been developed worldwide and their market is steadily growing [22]. of geosynthetic reinforcement. Palmeira and Antunes [17] have shown
Several researchers have shown the benefits of geosynthetic that the presence of geosynthetic reinforcement in unpaved road

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Singh), [email protected] (A. Trivedi), [email protected] (S.K. Shukla).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.01.007
Received 19 November 2018; Received in revised form 25 January 2019; Accepted 30 January 2019
Available online 31 January 2019
2214-3912/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Singh et al. Transportation Geotechnics 19 (2019) 54–60

reduces the maintenance cost which yields to the important savings in Table 1
the overall cost of the road construction. Engineering properties of subgrade soil.
The behavior of the road surface depends on the strength of the fill S. no. Particulars Subgrade soil
material and the subgrade of the pavement. The strength of the sub-
grade is most often expressed in terms of the California Bearing Ratio 1 Specific gravity 2.55
2 Liquid limit (%) 29
(CBR), which is the ratio of test load to standard load at a specific pe-
3 Plastic limit (%) 20
netration, by a standard plunger [12]. Many functions of geosynthetics 4 Plasticity index (%) 9
have been reported such as separation, reinforcement, filtration, drai- 5 IS Classification SM
nage, fluid barrier and protection [22]. One of the important applica- 6 Optimum moisture content (%) 13.91
tions of geosynthetics is reinforcement which is used to improve the 7 Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 18.74
8 California bearing ratio (CBR) (%) 1.66
strength of weak soil, that is to increase in CBR of soils [4,6,15,20]. The
soils with low CBR value have higher benefits of geosynthetic re-
inforcement in terms of improved strength than those soils with higher
CBR values [7]. The improvement in subgrade performance can facil-
itate compaction, reduces the aggregate layer thickness, delay rut for-
mation and extend the service life of unpaved roads, particularly in
cases of very soft subgrades with CBR value less than three [11]. In the
literature very conflicting results have appeared for the position of
geosynthetic as a reinforcement layer. Some researchers believe that
the maximum effect of reinforcement layer is obtained when geosyn-
thetic is placed near the load or at bottom half of the height of specimen
in the CBR mould, while others have found that placing the geosyn- Fig. 2. Geogrids and geomat used in the study: (a) Glasgrid, (b) Tenax 3D grid,
thetic reinforcement at the centre of the CBR mould is most beneficial (c) Tenax multimat.
[13].
This work presents a study on the use of three different types of Table 2. Glasgrid is a high strength, open fiberglass grid custom knitted
geosynthetics as the reinforcement at different depths within the sub- in a stable construction and coated with a patent-pending elastomeric
grade soil for improvement of its CBR value. The main objective of polymer and self-adhesive glue. Every component of the matrix shall be
research is to investigate the optimum position of geosynthetic re- stabilized against ultraviolet degradation and inert to chemicals nor-
inforcement layer within the subgrade soil thickness, which has not mally found in a natural soil environment. Tenax 3D grid is manu-
been given due attention in the past. factured from a unique extrusion technique resulting in a perforated
sheet that is specifically shaped in three directions (3D). This unique
Materials used extrusion technique produces a structure with vertical longitudinal ribs
capable to guarantee the best possible interaction mechanism between
Subgrade soil geogrids and granular soils by restricting the horizontal movement of
soil particles and preventing further displacements. This increase in
The soil used in the present research was locally available soil ob- interaction from the 3D Grids enables consistent reductions in ag-
tained from the campus of Delhi Technological University, Delhi. The gregate layer thickness. Tenax multimat is a three dimensional mat
soil is classified as silty sand (SM) using the particle-size analysis and composed by extruded and bi-oriented polypropylene grids, laid one
Atterberg limit tests as per Indian Soil Classification System (IS: 2720). upon each another and tied up by means of a black polypropylene yarn.
The particle-size distribution curve of the soil is shown in Fig. 1. The Geosynthetics are available with a variety of geometric and polymer
basic properties of the soil are also determined in the laboratory and compositions to meet a wide range of functions and applications.
they are given in Table 1. Selection of geosynthetic may have specific requirement depending on
the type of application. Geogrids are used mainly for reinforcement and
Reinforcement separation could be a function served by geogrids when soils are having
very large particle sizes. Therefore, two types of geogrids were selected
Two types of geogrids (Glasgrid, Tenax 3D grid) and one geomat for the present study and the performance of the geogrid for re-
(Tenax multimat) were used as the geosynthetic reinforcement in this inforcement relies on its rigidity, strength, stiffness and aperture size,
study. The geosynthetic samples are shown in Fig. 2. The properties of which accounts for its high capacity for interlocking with soil particles.
geogrids and geomat as provided by the manufacturer are given in The selection of a geosynthetic for a particular application is governed
by several other factors, such as specification, durability, availability
100
and cost [23,22].
90
Percentage finer by weight (%)

80
70
Experimental investigation
60
The standard Proctor compaction test was carried out as per IS:
50
2720 (Part VII-1980) to determine the maximum dry unit weight
40 (MDU) and optimum moisture content (OMC) for the soil. The MDU
30 and OMC of soil were found to be 18.74 kN/m3 and 13.91% respec-
20 tively.
10 The design method that determines the required layer thickness of
the aggregate with the reinforcement in the subgrade has been based on
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 the CBR of the subgrade soil [9]. If the CBR of the subgrade is improved
Particle size (mm) by providing the reinforcement, then the required thickness of the
granular subbase/base layer can be reduced for a given traffic volume
Fig. 1. Particle-size distribution of subgrade soil. or, alternatively, the traffic volume can be increased for a given

55
M. Singh et al. Transportation Geotechnics 19 (2019) 54–60

Table 2
Properties of geogrids and geomat (Courtesy of H. M. B. S Textile Private Limited, New Delhi).
Geosynthetics Description Value Unit Test method

2
Glasgrid Mass per unit area 405 g/m ASTM D5261
Grid size 12.5 × 12.5 mm
Material Fiberglass reinforcement with modified polymer coating and pressure sensitive – –
adhesive backing
Tensile strength (Ultimate) 115 × 115 ± 15 (MD × TD) kN/m ASTM D6637 EN-ISO
10319:2008
Tensile elongation (Ultimate) 2.5 ± 0.5% – ASTM D6637 EN-ISO
10319:2008
Tensile resistance@2% strain 95 × 95 ± 20 kN/m ASTM D6637 EN-ISO
10319:2008
Secant stiffness EA@1% 4600 × 4600 ± 600 (MD × TD) N/mm ASTM D6637 EN-ISO
strain 10319:2008
Damage during installation < 5% – Internal test method

Tenax 3D grid Structure Bi-oriented geogrids – –

Mesh type Quadrangular apertures – –
Polymer type Polypropylene – –
Aperture sizec,d 30 × 30 (MD × TD) mm –
Transversal rib widthe 2.6 mm –
Longitudinal rib thicknesse 3.8 mm –
Junction thicknesse 6 mm –
Stiffness at 0.5% straina,b,c 550 × 350 (MD × TD) kN/m ISO 10319
Installation damage factor 1 – ASTM D5818

Tenax multimat Structure Three dimensional geomat composed by 3 layers – –

Mesh type Rectangular apertures – –
Polymer type Polypropylene – –
Peak tensile strengthc,f 3.8 × 13 (MD × TD) kN/m ISO 10319
Yield point elongationa,c 23 × 23 (MD × TD) % ISO 10319
Mass per unit areaa 180 g/m2 ISO 9864
Thicknessa 8 mm ASTM D6525
Aperture sizea,c 7 × 9 (MD × TD) mm –

a
Typical values.
b
Tests performed using extensometers.
c
MD: machine direction (longitudinal to the roll) – TD: transverse direction (across roll width).
d
Aperture tolerance: ± 5 mm.
e
Thickness/width tolerance: −5%.
f
95% lower confidence limit values, ISO 2602.

thickness of granular subbase/base layer. It is not always possible to get

good quality granular material as per the design specifications either
because of unavailability or increase in cost because of long haulage
distance. Hence there is a need of subgrade soil stabilization with
geosynthetic reinforcement to increase the strength and reduce the
granular layer thickness over the subgrade soil. Therefore, the unsoaked
CBR tests were conducted on the subgrade soil without reinforcement
and with a single layer and double layer of different types of geosyn-
thetic reinforcement as described in IS: 2720 (Part 16) – 1979. To
evaluate the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement on subgrade strength,
the single layer of reinforcement was placed at different positions,
namely H/2, H/3, H/4 where H is the height of the soil specimen of the
CBR mould from the top surface and double layer of reinforcement was
placed at H/4 from top and bottom surface of the soil specimen.
The location of single and double layers of reinforcement within the
subgrade were selected based on the literature because most of the
Fig. 3. Orientation of reinforcement layer placed at predetermined depth in
researchers believe that maximum benefit of reinforcement is obtained CBR mould.
when the reinforcement layer is placed in the upper half portion of the
CBR mould. Half of the height of CBR mould was taken to place the
reinforcement layers to get the maximum benefit of reinforcement. along with the position of geosynthetic reinforcement is shown in
Therefore, three positions for single layers of reinforcement and one Fig. 4. The surcharge weights were placed on the specimen to stimulate
position for double layer of reinforcement were selected. the effect of the thickness of road construction overlying the layer being
The geosynthetic reinforcement was cut in the form of a circular tested. Load is applied to the plunger into the soil at the rate of
disk of diameter slightly less than the diameter of CBR mould. The dry 1.25 mm/min. Readings of the load were taken at penetration of
weight required for filling the mould was calculated based upon the 0.5 mm to until a total penetration of 12.5 mm. The standard CBR tests
maximum dry unit weight (MDU) and the water corresponding to OMC were performed in the laboratory to compare the performance of var-
was added in the soil and then the soil was mixed thoroughly. The ious geosynthetics under the same subgrade soil condition. The soil
mould is filled with this soil by placing geosynthetic reinforcement at specimen height in the CBR mould was taken as an equivalent to the
predetermined depth as shown in Fig. 3. The cross section of the model thickness of the prepared subgrade soil in the field. Laboratory tests can

56
M. Singh et al. Transportation Geotechnics 19 (2019) 54–60

1,400.0
Penetration Plunger 1,200.0

1,000.0

Load (N)
= Position of 800.0 Glasgrid
geosynthetic layer 600.0 Tenax 3D grid
Tenax multimat
Single layer 400.0
H=125 mm Unreinforced
reinforcement 200.0
Double layer
0.0
reinforcement
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Penetration (mm)
’ Subgrade Soil
Fig. 5. Load penetration curve with geosynthetic placed at, ξ = H/2.

1200.0
150 mm

Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the specimen in CBR test model, position of 1000.0
geosynthetic is, ξ = H/2, H/3 and H/4 for single layer of reinforcement and
ξ = ξ′ = H/4, for double layers of reinforcement. 800.0

Load (N)
Glasgrid
600.0
be conducted more quickly and usually have more alternatives but they Tenax 3D grid
are only able to simulate field conditions. Further, the scaling and 400.0 Tenax multimat
boundary effect can have influence on the final results, but any change
Unreinforced
in specimen size will create difficulty for comparative analysis. Thus the 200.0
measured values can be treated as relative measurements.
The improvement in CBR value of subgrade soil with reinforcement 0.0
is measured in terms of the reinforcement ratio η, which is defined as a 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
ratio of CBR value of soil with reinforcement (CBRR) to that of original Penetration (mm)
soil (CBR),[14,22]. Fig. 6. Load penetration curve with geosynthetic placed at, ξ = H/3.

CBRR
η= 1800.0
CBR
1600.0
This ratio indicates the contribution of geosynthetic reinforcement 1400.0
towards increasing the CBR value of a soil and compares the perfor-
1200.0
mance of geogrids and geomat reinforcement on the same soil. To
Load (N)

1000.0 Glasgrid
quantify the role of reinforcement in increasing the strength, the re-
inforcement ratio is calculated for various cases (as shown in Table 3) 800.0 Tenax 3D grid
and compared to distinguish the role of geosynthetic layer in im- 600.0 Tenax multimat
provement. 400.0 Unreinforced
200.0
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
Penetration (mm)

Fig. 7. Load penetration curve with geosynthetic placed at, ξ = H/4.

Table 3
Results of CBR tests for different positions of geosynthetics.
Results and discussion
Type of Position of CBR (%) Increase in CBR Reinforcement
geosynthetic geosynthetic with respect to ratio (η) CBR value
reinforcement unreinforced
section (%)
Figs. 5–7 present the variation of the load-penetration curves ob-
Glasgrid H/2 2.21 33.13 1.33 tained from the CBR tests for unreinforced and reinforced sections with
H/3 1.76 6.02 1.06 a single layer of reinforcement. It can be observed that placing the
H/4 2.04 22.89 1.23
geosynthetic reinforcement at varying depths increases the CBR value
Double layers 3.52 112.05 2.12
significantly. The amount of increase in the CBR value depends on the
Tenax 3D grid H/2 1.76 6.02 1.06 position of geosynthetic reinforcement (ξ) and type of reinforcement.
H/3 2.08 25.30 1.25
H/4 2.04 22.89 1.23
The CBR value of the unreinforced soil specimen corresponding to
Double layers 6.25 276.51 3.77 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm penetrations were found to be 1.26% and 1.66%
respectively as shown in Fig. 5, which were increased to 1.79% and
Tenax H/2 2.63 58.43 1.58
multimat H/3 1.74 4.82 1.05 2.21% respectively, when Glasgrid reinforcement was placed at depth
H/4 1.94 16.87 1.17 H/2. Further placing Tenax multimat reinforcement at same depth H/2,
Double layers 7.05 324.70 4.25 enhanced the CBR value to 2.16% and 2.63% respectively

57
M. Singh et al. Transportation Geotechnics 19 (2019) 54–60

corresponding to 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm penetrations. When Tenax 3D reinforced with double layers of Tenax multimat reinforcement. It is
grid reinforcement layer was placed at the same depth H/2, it decreased clearly observed that Tenax multimat performs far better in terms of
the CBR value at 2.5 mm penetration to 1.19% but increased the CBR at increase in CBR and load carrying capacity for double layers of re-
5.0 mm penetration to 1.76%. The maximum value of CBR obtained at inforcement. The highest increase in CBR value was achieved when the
5.0 mm penetration is 2.63% when Tenax multimat reinforcement layer subgrade soil was reinforced with double layers of reinforcement as
was placed at depth H/2. Similar results have been observed for other compared to the unreinforced section and the section reinforced with a
geosynthetic reinforcements placed at depth H/3 and H/4 as shown in single layer of reinforcement.
Figs. 6 and 7. The reason for the improvement in the strength of the subgrade soil
Fig. 6 presents the variation of load-penetration curve for the soil reinforced with single and double layers of reinforcement is that, the
specimen without reinforcement and soil specimen reinforced with geosynthetics used in the study has good interlocking and frictional
different types of geosynthetic reinforcement layer at depth H/3. The capability which can provide tensile resistance to any lateral move-
increase in the CBR value of the Tenax 3D grid reinforced soil specimen ments. Thus it improves the strength of the soil with low CBR. Another
corresponding to 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm penetrations were found to be reason for the improvement in the strength of the subgrade with low
1.41% and 2.08% respectively. In case of Tenax multimat reinforce- CBR is that, through the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement layers
ment it increased to 1.30% and 1.74% respectively corresponding to the maximum vertical stress on the subgrade is reduced. The vertical
2.5 mm and 5.0 mm penetrations. Only in case of Glasgrid reinforced stress on the subgrade is more uniformly distributed than on the ab-
specimen the CBR value decreased at 2.5 mm penetration to 1.19% and sence of a geosynthetic. Therefore, reinforcement helps to improve the
increased at 5.0 mm penetration to 1.76% as compared to the un- bearing capacity of the soil with low CBR. Also, the combining action of
reinforced specimen. The maximum value of CBR obtained at 5.0 mm geosynthetic tension and geosynthetic improved load distribution re-
penetration is 2.08% when Tenax 3D grid reinforcement was placed at sults in vertical restraint of the subgrade.
depth H/3.
Fig. 7 represents the influence of the position of the reinforcing Effect of multiple layer reinforcements
layer on the load-penetration curve for both unreinforced and re-
inforced specimens obtained from the CBR tests when the reinforce- Table 3 shows the results of the CBR tests on soil reinforced with
ment was placed at depth H/4. The CBR value of the Tenax multimat three different types of geosynthetics and presents the reinforcement
reinforced soil corresponding to 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm penetrations were ratio for these three types of geosynthetic reinforcement placed at depth
found to be 1.34% and 1.94% respectively. For Glasgrid and Tenax 3D H/2, H/3 and H/4 and double layers. It is clear that there is a con-
grid reinforced soil specimen, the same CBR value was obtained at siderable amount of increase in the CBR value of a soil reinforced with
5.0 mm penetration is 2.03% but it decreased to 1.19% and 1.12% at different types of geosynthetics at various depths. As the reinforcement
2.5 mm penetration corresponding to Glasgrid and Tenax3D grid re- ratio exceeds unity (η > 1) throughout the tests for different types of
inforcement respectively. The results are in good agreement with data geosynthetic reinforcement used in the tests as shown in Table 3, which
presented by Williams [7] on effect of geosynthetic reinforcement on indicates the beneficial effect of reinforcement at varying depth to in-
CBR strength of soil that leads to improve the strength of soil, resulting crease the subgrade strength of geosynthetic reinforced unpaved road.
in a decrease in the surface penetration and deformation with stress The location of the geosynthetic reinforcement within the subgrade is
distribution over a wider area. This means that the inclusion of single an important factor for the performance of unpaved road. The re-
layer of geosynthetic reinforcement increases soil resistance against inforcement ratio varies from 1.05 to 1.58 for a single layer of geo-
loading. synthetic reinforcement and 2.12 to 4.25 for double layers of geosyn-
Fig. 8 shows the variation of the load-penetration curves obtained thetic reinforcement respectively. Out of three types of geosynthetic
from the CBR tests for unreinforced and reinforced sections with double reinforcement used in the study, geogrids perform better than geomat
layers of reinforcement. The CBR value of the soil increased to 1.86% for soil reinforced with a single layer of reinforcement. Only in one case
and 3.52% corresponding to 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm penetrations respec- geomat reinforcement yields the maximum strength when it is placed at
tively when the subgrade is reinforced with double layers of Glasgrid ξ = H/2 from the top, when compared to the other two geogrids.
reinforcement. The strength of the soil increased further by placing Geomat performs best among the three types of geosynthetic when soil
double layers of Tenax 3D grid reinforcement and Tenax multimat re- is reinforced with double layers of reinforcement. An increase in the
inforcements. The CBR value of soil reinforced with double layers of number of reinforcement layers led to the further increase in strength
Tenax 3D grid reinforcement corresponding to 2.5 mm and 5.0 mm and load carrying capacity of soil. The reinforcement ratio lies between
penetrations were found to be 3.72% and 6.25% respectively as shown 2 and 5 which indicates that an introduction of geosynthetic as double
in Fig. 8, which were increased to 4.16% and 7.05% when the soil was layers of reinforcement offers a good resistance against the penetration.

Comparison of different types of geosynthetic reinforcement

6000.0

5000.0 Fig. 9 shows the relative influence of geosynthetic reinforcement at

different positions on the reinforcement ratio. Three different types of
4000.0 geosynthetic were used in the test and properties of these geosynthetic
material were presented earlier in Table 2. The comparison of the
Load (N)

Glasgrid
3000.0 ability of different types of geosynthetic used in this study to reinforce
Tenax 3D grid
the weak subgrade soil can only be accomplished if the conditions be-
2000.0 Tenax multimat tween each of the individual tests are identical. The comparison be-
Unreinforced tween the different types of geosynthetic reinforcement, in terms of
1000.0
reinforcement ratio is described in Fig. 9 for the section with a single
0.0
layer of reinforcement placed at H/2, H/3, H/4 and double layers of
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 reinforcement. It can be observed that the reinforced section with
Penetration (mm) double layers of reinforcement has higher strength than the section
reinforced with a single layer of reinforcement. Comparing the per-
Fig. 8. Load penetration curve with double geosynthetic layer placed at formance of different types of geosynthetic reinforcement is difficult
ξ = ξ′ = H/4. because all three geosynthetics used are individually different from

58
M. Singh et al. Transportation Geotechnics 19 (2019) 54–60

4.5 3.0

4 2.5
Glasgrid
3.5 Tenax 3D grid
2.0
Reinforcement ratio ( )

CBR (%)
3 Tenax multimat
1.5 Glasgrid
2.5
Tenax 3D grid
1.0
2 Tenax multimat

1.5 0.5

1 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.5
Position of geosynthetic ( /H)
0 Fig. 10. Optimum position of geosynthetic based on CBR value of soil re-
H/2 H/3 H/4 Double layer inforced with different types of geosynthetics.
Position of geosynthetic reinforcement ( )

Fig. 9. Variation in reinforcement ratio for the various positions of geosynthetic reinforcement and the extent of improvement is independent of type of
reinforcement. geosynthetic. Tenax multimat is composed of tieing three layers of
extruded and bi-oriented polypropylene grids. The non uniform texture
each other based on the properties given in Table 2. Important para- of top and bottom layers of Tenax multimat offers good tensile re-
meters which are responsible for comparing the performance of various sistance to the lateral movement. The relative cost of reinforcement
geosynthetics to increase the subgrade strength are (1) type of geo- type is also a factor which should be considered before the final se-
synthetic used, (2) properties of geosynthetic, such as strength, stiff- lection is made.
ness, aperture size etc., (3) number of geosynthetic layers, and (4) depth
of geosynthetic reinforcement. It is hard to identify which parameter Optimum position of the geosynthetic
has more important effect on the enhancement of subgrade strength
reinforced with different types of geosynthetic. Therefore, it is better to Fig. 10 shows the effect of placement of a single layer of geosyn-
investigate and quantify the mechanism that is responsible for the im- thetic reinforcement along the height of the specimen on CBR. A set of
proved strength when different types of geosynthetics are used for experiments were carried out to determine the optimum position of
comparison. The performance of the subgrade soil of an unpaved road is placing the geosynthetic reinforcement along the depth of the subgrade
improved through three mechanisms: (1) impact of load distribution on in order to produce a maximum gain in the strength. The results of CBR
subgrade soil resilient modulus, (2) subgrade soil vertical restraint, and tests indicates that for the maximum benefit, the geosynthetic re-
(3) load transfer by the tensioned membrane effect [22]. The presence inforcement layer should be placed either at the middle of the height of
of geosynthetic in the subgrade soil reduces the maximum vertical specimen or between the upper one-third layer and middle layer which
stress on it and also more uniformly distributes the vertical stress on the yields the higher strength as compared to the other locations. The tests
subgrade soil than in the absence of a geosynthetic. Tensioned mem- were conducted at three different positions of geosynthetic and the
brane effect becomes important only when large deformations occur in maximum value of all strength parameters was obtained in the case
subgrade soil, when it is weak/soft. when Tenax multimat reinforcement layer was placed at middle half of
Out of three types of geosynthetics used to reinforce subgrade with a the specimen. Based on the properties of these geosynthetics, an in-
single layer of reinforcement at varying depths, both geogrid re- crease in the strength of subgrade depends on the value of ξ i.e the
inforcements perform better than the geomat reinforcement except one depth of placement of reinforcement. Placing the geosynthetic at base
case when geomat reinforcement it is placed at ξ = H/2 which yields of the specimen is just as good as having no reinforcement in the
the maximum strength when compared to the other two geogrids. Both sample. The beneficial position of the geosynthetic reinforcement was
geogrid reinforcements behaved similarly and gain the similar strength obtained by plotting the graph between CBR of the soil and depth of the
when placed at ξ = H/4. The same order was obtained for achieving the geosynthetic placement from top as shown in Fig. 8. The optimum
improvement when reinforcement layer was placed at ξ = H/3 and position of the geosynthetic reinforcement layer should be taken as
ξ = H/4 where Tenax 3D grid yields the maximum improvement. The 0.3H to 0.36H for Tenax 3D grid reinforcement and 0.41H to 0.62H for
results show that the behaviour of reinforced subgrade was better than Glasgrid reinforcement and Tenax multimat reinforcement where H is
that of the unreinforced subgrade and improvement with reinforcement the height of the soil specimen. Naeini and Moayed [16] have also
is more pronounced when reinforcement layer is placed near to the shown that the best location of geosynthetic reinforcement layer is at
load. The overall preference of choosing reinforcement type should be 30% of the thickness measured from the top of CBR mould. Re-
given to Tenax 3D grid which performs better than other geosynthetics inforcement inclusion can be less effective if it is not placed at the
because of the higher tensile strength and has relatively higher stiffness. proper location. Thus reinforcement layer should be located at the
Even handling of Tenax 3D grid over Glasgrid was easier because of the optimal depth to improve contribution of the geosynthetic reinforce-
pressure sensitive adhesive provided at the back creates little incon- ment. For field applications, the finding of optimal location of geo-
venience. Aperture size is different for all types of geosynthetic which synthetic reinforcement for maximum enhancement in CBR is essential.
governs the lateral confinement effect and justifies the selection of
geogrid over geomat for subgrade reinforcement. To ensure effective
Conclusions
interlocking between geosynthetic and soil, aperture size is a factor to
be considered. The results of subgrade soil reinforced with double
In the present study, reinforcement benefits of different types of
layers of reinforcement shows that Tenax multimat reinforcement type
geosynthetics in unpaved road have been evaluated in terms of their
performs best because they offer good interlocking and frictional re-
CBR value. The performance of several geosynthetics in terms of in-
sistance. Increasing the number of reinforcement layers leads to en-
crease in CBR value of soil with reinforcement can be compared with
hance the strength significantly, as compared to the single layer of
each other because all the tests are performed under the same

59
M. Singh et al. Transportation Geotechnics 19 (2019) 54–60

condition, that is, with the same subgrade soil. All these experiments reinforced/stabilized paved roads built over soft soil under cyclic plate loads.
can be related to an unpaved road as to whether the geosynthetic re- Geotext Geomembr 2016;44:845–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.
06.009.
inforcement can really improve the subgrade soil strength where the [3] Abu-Farsakh M, Souci G, Voyiadjis GZ, Chen Q. Evaluation of factors affecting the
specimen height is considered as the depth of compacted subgrade soil performance of geogrid-reinforced granular base material using repeated load
in field. The findings indicate that there is a considerable amount of triaxial tests. J Mater Civ Eng 2012;24:72–83. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.
1943-5533.0000349.
increase in strength of subgrade soil reinforced with geosynthetics and [4] Adams CA, Apraku E, Opoku-boahen R. Effect of triaxial geogrid reinforcement on
the amount of increase depends on the properties and type of geosyn- CBR strength of natural gravel soil for road pavements. J Civ Eng Res 2015;5:45–51.
thetics, depth and number of reinforcement layers, and mechanisms https://doi.org/10.5923/j.jce.20150502.05.
[5] Al-Qadi IL, Brandon TL, Valentine RJ, Lacina BA, Smith TE. Laboratory evaluation
involved. It is important to mention here that these findings are based of geosynthetic-reinforced pavement sections. Transp Res Rec 1994:25–31.
on the laboratory investigations carried out in this study. It is possible [6] Choudhary A, Gill K, Jha J, Shukla S. Improvement in CBR of the expansive soil
that these findings may vary if conducted in the field. Therefore, actual subgrades with a single reinforcement layer. Proc Indian Geotech Conf. 2012. p.
289–92.
field trials must be made to have more confidence in these results.
[7] Duncan-Williams E, Attoh-Okine NO. Effect of geogrid in granular base strength –
The important findings of this research are summarized below: an experimental investigation. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:2180–4. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.08.008.
1. The inclusion of a single layer and double layers of geosynthetic [8] Fannin RJ, Sigurdsson O. Field observations on stabilization of unpaved roads with
geosynthetics. J Geotech Eng 1996;122:544–53. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
reinforcements at varying depths in soil enhances the strength of the 0733-9410(1996) 122:7(544).
subgrade soil in terms of CBR value [9] Giroud JP, Noiray L. Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design. J Geotech Eng
2. The CBR value of the soil increases by 5–60% when a single layer of 1981;107(9):1233–54.
[10] Góngora IAG, Palmeira EM. Influence of fill and geogrid characteristics on the
reinforcement is placed within the subgrade soil and strength in- performance of unpaved roads on weak subgrades. Geosynth Int 2012;19:191–9.
creases by 112–325% when it is reinforced with double layers of https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2012.19.2.191.
reinforcement. The amount of improvement depends upon the po- [11] Hufenus R, Rueegger R, Banjac R, Mayor P, Springman SM, Brönnimann R. Full-
scale field tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads on soft subgrade. Geotext
sition of reinforcement layer and type of reinforcement. Geomembr 2006;24:21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.06.002.
3. Placing the geosynthetic reinforcement in the double layers yields [12] IS : 2720 (Part VII-1980). IS : 2720 (Part VII-1980), Methods of Test for Soils,
the largest improvement regardless of the type of geosynthetic. Determination of Water Content-Dry Density Relation using Light Compaction,
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi (Reaffirmed 2011). Indian Stand; 2011.
4. The optimum benefit of reinforcement is evident if it is placed at [13] Kamel MA, Chandra S, Kumar P. Behaviour of subgrade soil reinforced with geo-
middle height of the CBR mould and for better improvement in grid. Int J Pavement Eng 2004;5:201–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/
strength the reinforcement layer should be placed between the 1029843042000327122.
[14] Koerner RM. Desigining with geosynthetics. 6th ed. New York: Xlibris
upper one-third layer and middle layer.
PublishingCo.; 2012.
5. Of the three geosynthetics used in the study, Tenax 3D grid per- [15] Kuity A, Roy TK. Utilization of geogrid mesh for improving the soft subgrade layer
formed better than other two geosynthetics for soil reinforced with a with waste material mix compositions. Procedia – Soc Behav Sci 2013;104:255–63.
single layer of reinforcement at ξ = H/3 = H/4 and Tenax multimat https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.118.
[16] Naeini SA, Ziaie-Moayed R. Effect of plasticity index and reinforcement on the CBR
performed better than other two geosynthetics for soil reinforced value of soft clay. Int J Civ Eng 2009;7:124–30.
with double layers of reinforcement and single layer of reinforce- [17] Palmeira EM, Antunes LGS. Large scale tests on geosynthetic reinforced unpaved
ment at ξ = H/2. roads subjected to surface maintenance. Geotext Geomembr 2010;28:547–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.03.002.
6. Optimum location of reinforcement was found as 0.3H to 0.36H for [18] Paper T, Of A, As OAD, Of U. Technical Paper by Som N, Sahu RB. Bearing capacity
Tenax 3D grid reinforcement layer and 0.41H to 0.62H for both of a geotextile-reinforced unpaved road as a function of deformation: a model study
Glasgrid reinforcement layer and Tenax multimat reinforcement n.d.;6:1–17.
[19] Perkins SW, Ismeik M. A Synthesis and Evaluation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Base
layer. Layers in Flexible Pavements: Part I. Geosynth Int 1997;4(6):549–604.
[20] Rajesh U, Sajja S, Chakravarthi VK. Studies on engineering performance of geogrid
Appendix A. Supplementary material reinforced soft subgrade. Transp Res Procedia 2016;17:164–73. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.trpro.2016.11.072.
[21] Raymond G, Ismail I. The effects of geogrid reinforcement on unbound aggregates.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// Geotext Geomembr 2003;21:355–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(03)
doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2019.01.007. 00044-X.
[22] Shukla SK. An introduction to geosynthetic engineering. London: CRC Press; 2016.
[23] Shukla SK. Geosynthetics and their applications. London: Thomas Telford
References Publishing; 2002.
[24] Subaida EA, Chandrakaran S, Sankar N. Laboratory performance of unpaved roads
[1] Abu-Farsakh MY, Akond I, Chen Q. Evaluating the performance of geosynthetic- reinforced with woven coir geotextiles. Geotext Geomembr 2009;27:204–10.
reinforced unpaved roads using plate load tests. Int J Pavement Eng https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.009.
2016;17:901–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2015.1031131. [25] Vinod P, Minu M. Use of coir geotextiles in unpaved road construction. Geosynth Int
[2] Abu-Farsakh M, Hanandeh S, Mohammad L, Chen Q. Performance of geosynthetic 2010;17:220–7. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2010.17.4.220.

60