Modeling Effect of Geocomposite Drainage Layers

on Moisture Distribution and Plastic Deformation

of Road Sections
M. Bahador1; T. M. Evans, A.M.ASCE2; and M. A. Gabr, F.ASCE3

Abstract: The effect of geosynthetic layers on moisture distribution and plastic deformation of paved and unpaved road sections is studied
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

using numerical simulations. The geosynthetic layers consisted of, from top to bottom, a transport layer, a geonet, and a nonwoven geotextile
(referred to as a geocomposite capillary barrier drain by previous researchers). Two geotextile types were modeled as the transport layer: woven
fiberglass and nonwoven polypropylene. The numerical models were verified against published results obtained from a soil-geotextile column.
Inclusion of the geosynthetic layers at the interface of the aggregate base course (ABC) and subgrade increased suction in the subgrade and
decreased it in the ABC during a simulated rainfall event. The woven fiberglass geotextile led to higher suctions in the ABC compared with
the nonwoven polypropylene geotextile. The geosynthetic layers decreased the plastic deformation in both paved and unpaved road sections
through combined mechanistic and hydraulic actions. Increasing the thickness of the asphalt and ABC layers decreased the reinforcement effect
of the geotextile while increasing its beneficial hydraulic effect in term of the suction level. In sections with a thinner asphalt layer, the woven
fiberglass, functioning as a transport layer, decreased the plastic deformation of the profile by up to 20% compared with the profile with the-
nonwoven polypropylene geotextile. Increasing the thickness of the asphalt layer, however, reduced this difference to approximately 4%. In
unpaved sections, the inclusion of the woven fiberglass layer decreased the plastic deformation by approximately 24% more than the
profile with nonwoven polypropylene geotextrile, regardless of the aggregate base course thickness used in the analysis. DOI: 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000877. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Deformation; Moisture; Pavements; Reinforcement; Subgrades; Suction; Drainage.
Author keywords: Deformation; Geocomposite; Moisture; Pavement; Reinforcement; Subgrade; Suction.

Introduction pavement layers (Heckel 1997). To design an appropriate drain-

Moisture is a main cause of deterioration in pavement sections
(Cedergren 1994). Excess moisture in pavement sections can de-
crease the pavement life by more than half (Christopher and
McGuffey 1997). Damage caused by moisture includes breaking the
cementation bond in the stabilized aggregate base course (ABC),
separating asphalt from aggregates (stripping), water bleeding and
pumping, shrinking, swelling, and frost heave of the subgrade layer.
Moisture can enter the pavement section through rainfall or by upward
water flow caused by capillary forces. Conventional drainage sys-
tems consist of a permeable aggregate base course under the asphalt
layer and an edge drainage to divert the water toward drainage pipes.
This drainage system, however, assumes saturated flow and is not
always effective in maintaining the moisture content of the unbound
1
Ph.D. Alumnus, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail:
mahdi.bahador@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering,
Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331. E-mail: matt.evans@oregonstate
.edu
3
Alumni Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and
Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC
27695 (corresponding author). E-mail: gabr@eos.ncsu.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 11, 2012; approved on
December 6, 2012; published online on December 10, 2012. Discussion
period open until February 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 9, September 1,
2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2013/9-1407–1418/$25.00.
age system, water flow under unsaturated conditions and the un-
saturated properties of the geomaterials should be considered. An
interlayer drainage system has been proposed to mitigate moisture
changes of soils within pavement sections considering flow under
unsaturated conditions (Henry 1988; Stormont and Zhou 2001;
Stormont et al. 2009).
Currently, drainage configuration in pavement sections is based
on using geosynthetic layers at the interface of the ABC and sub-
grade and considering unsaturated conditions [Christopher et al.
2000; Henry et al. 2002; Henry and Stormont 2002; Stormont et al.
2009; K. S. Henry and J. C. Stormont, “Geocomposite capillary
barriers drain,” U.S. Patent No. 6,162,653 (2000)]. In this case, the
moisture characteristic curve (MCC) and in-plane transmissivity of
both geomaterials and geosynthetic layers are considered in the
drainage design. The MCC represents the relationship between the
water content of a porous medium and the potential energy of
the pore water. The MCC can be measured experimentally for soils
(ASTM D6836-02; ASTM 2008a) and geotextiles (Stormont et al.
1997; Lafleur et al. 2000; Knight and Kotha 2001; Stormont et al.
2001b; Kuhn et al. 2005; Garcia 2007; Nahlawi et al. 2007). The
MCCs of geotextiles are steeper than most geomaterials, and they
have lower air entry values (AEVs) and water entry values (WEVs)
compared with fine-grained soils (Stormont et al. 1997; Stormont
et al. 2001b; Iryo and Rowe 2003). These properties allow geo-
textiles to function as drainage/moisture barrier layers when in
contact with partially saturated soils in pavement sections (Henry
1988; Henry and Holtz 1997; Stockton 2001; Krisdani et al. 2006;
Stormont et al. 2009). Henry and Stormont proposed a system
termed the geocomposite capillary barrier drain (GCBD) that

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1407

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.

 consisted of a geonet as a capillary barrier sandwiched between two
geotextiles [K. S. Henry and J. C. Stormont, “Geocomposite cap-
illary barriers drain,” U.S. Patent No. 6,162,653 (2000)]. The top
geotextile functioned as a transport layer. A fiberglass geotextile that
has a higher AEV and becomes transmissive at higher suctions,
relative to other types of polymeric geotextiles, was recommended
for use as the transport layer in the GCBD (Stormont and Ramos
2004). The fiberglass layer diverts water from the ABC toward
the edge drain, and the geonet functions as a capillary barrier for
downward water flow into the subgrade under unsaturated conditions.
Stormont and Zhou (2001) modeled a pavement section with a GCBD
at the interface of the ABC and subgrade layers using VS2DHI (Hsieh
et al. 2000) and showed that the GCBD prevented downward water
flow into the subgrade during the assumed rainfall event.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In general, an increasing moisture content level decreases the
shear strength of geomaterials (e.g., Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993; Lu
and Likos 2004), and such a reduction in strength should be con-
sidered in pavement design. The Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide (MEPDG) (Applied Research Associates–Trans-
portation 2009) uses the resilient modulus of the subgrade as one of
the fundamental parameters for pavement design. It has been
reported that increasing water content results in a considerable re-
duction in the resilient modulus of the ABC and subgrade soils
(Sweere 1990; Dawson et al. 1996; Drumm et al. 1997; Gehling et al.
1998; Witczak et al. 2000; Kolisoja et al. 2002). Rada and Witczak
(1981) concluded that the resilient modulus of granular materials
under saturated conditions can be decreased to one-third of the value
measured at moisture levels below saturation. Tian et al. (1998)
measured the resilient modulus of a coarse granular material under
dry of optimum and wet of optimum water contents and showed that
the specimens compacted wet of optimum had a 20% lower resilient
modulus compared with that at the optimum water content. Thus, to
maintain the strength of geomaterials in a pavement section, the
drainage system should function to not only prevent the de-
velopment of positive pore pressure but also to mitigate moisture
increases in unsaturated ABC and subgrade layers. Conversely, the
hydromechanical effect of geosynthetic drainage layers on plastic
deformation in ABC and subgrade layers has not been extensively
studied in the past.
The current design method for reinforced unpaved roads was
proposed by Giroud and Han (2004). In their method, the required
base course thickness of a reinforced unpaved road is calculated
based on wheel load, number of load cycles, subgrade and base
course CBR, and the reinforcing layer properties. The influence of
reinforcing layer is accounted for through considering a higher
value of the bearing capacity factor (Nc 5 5:14 for geotextile and
Nc 5 5:71 for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads) and the effect of
the aperture stability modulus (ASM) on the stress distribution
through the reinforced section. Simac et al. (2006) compared the
required aggregate base course thickness for an unpaved reinforced
road using the methods of Giroud and Han (2004), Giroud and
Noiray (1981), and Bender and Barenberg (1978). For the last two
methods, the average tensile strength at 5% strain was used instead of
ASM as the performance property of the reinforcement layer. It was
noted that the geotextile reduced the required aggregate base course
thickness by 34, 24, and 46% after 1,000 cycles of 80-kN axle load
using the aforementioned methods, respectively (Simac et al. 2006).
In this paper, paved and unpaved road sections with various as-
phalt and ABC thicknesses are simulated using SIGMA/W (Krahn
2004) and FLAC (Itasca Consulting Group 2008) to study the effect
of a three-layer drainage system on the hydraulic and mechanical
response of the section layers. The drainage system consists of
a geonet sandwiched between a nonwoven geotextile at the bottom
and a transport geotextile at the top. Two geotextile types are
1408 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.
considered for the transport layer: nonwoven polypropylene (NWP)
and woven fiberglass (WF). The moisture distribution in the
pavement section, with various ABC thicknesses, is studied during
a simulated rainfall event using SIGMA/W. The computed moisture
distributions are then used in FLAC to investigate the effectiveness
of the drainage system, as a function of the asphalt and ABC layer
thicknesses, on reducing the total plastic deformation of the section.
The reinforcement versus hydraulic effect of the NWP and WF
geotextiles is separated, and their impact with varying the asphalt
and ABC thicknesses is studied. Given the complexity of the
modeled sections, the results are intended to provide insight into the
partitioning of mechanical and hydraulic effects in geosynthetics-
reinforced pavement profiles and to identify trends in system re-
sponse based on varying material and section parameters (rather
than to provide an exact prediction for seepage and deformation
magnitudes for a given configuration).
Effect of Suction on Soil Strength
In the MEPDG, the resilient modulus of a geomaterial is a function of
stress state and degree of saturation [National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) 2000]. The subgrade layer herein was
modeled using the Cam-Clay constitutive model because it can
capture the effect of soil moisture content and stress state on soil
strength. In the Cam-Clay model, the bulk modulus is expressed as a
function of the mean effective stress through the following equation:
n × p9
K¼ (1)
k
where K 5 bulk modulus; n 5 specific volume defined as the ratio
of total volume to volume of solids; p9 5 mean effective stress
(s19 1 s29 1 s39=3); and k 5 slope of the overconsolidation line in
v 2 Inðp9Þ space.
The effective stress is calculated as follows:
s9 ¼ ðs 2 ua Þ þ S × ðua 2 uw Þ (2)
where s9 5 effective stress; S 5 degree of saturation; ua 5 pore air
pressure; and uw 5 pore water pressure. The degree of saturation
may be calculated at any suction using the van Genuchten equation
(van Genuchten 1980)
1 2 Sr
SðhÞ ¼ Sr þ  121=n (3)
1 þ ðahÞn
where S 5 degree of saturation; h 5 matric suction; Sr 5 residual
water saturation; and a and n 5 fitting parameters.
Accordingly, in the Cam-Clay model, the effects of stress state
and suction on soil strength are considered using Eqs. (1)–(3).
Cam-Clay model parameters are scarcely reported in the litera-
ture for coarse-grained geomaterials because of the high required
isotropic pressures in the tests (Atkinson and Bransby 1978). In this
paper, the ABC was modeled as a Mohr-Coulomb material with
suction and stress state effects on strength. Mohr-Coulomb can be
used as a failure criterion in a linearly elastic perfectly plastic model
in which the elastic strain is computed using Hooks law and plastic
strain is computed using the failure envelope and associated flow
rule. In such a model configuration, decreasing the elastic modulus
results in reducing the slope of the linear elastic portion of the curve
and increasing the elastic deformations before reaching the yield
surface. Accordingly, with a higher modulus value, strain energy
decreases in the plastic region resulting in a smaller plastic
 deformation and therefore a misrepresentation of the effect of
moisture content on soil stiffness and strength. Fig. 1 shows the
unloading-reloading stress-deformation curves for a numerically
modeled displacement-controlled triaxial test on a 20-cm-tall
specimen with 5-cm radius and three different elastic moduli of
10.0, 9.0, and 8.0 MPa. The specimen was first isotropically confined
under a cell pressure of 0.1 MPa, and then a vertical displacement of
5 mm was specified at the top of the specimen. As is evident in Fig. 1,
decreasing the elastic modulus of the specimen decreases the slope
of the linear elastic portion of the curve, and consequently, increases
the elastic deformation and decreases the plastic deformation. To
address this issue, the elastic modulus of the ABC material is not
changed during the stress-deformation analysis herein. Instead,
suction is included in the effective principal stress calculations per
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The elastic deformation in each element below the centerline of
the load was calculated by multiplying the thickness of each element
by its total elastic strain. The total elastic deformation in the ABC
was computed by summing the calculated elastic deformations in
each of these elements. The plastic deformation in the ABC was then
calculated by subtracting the elastic deformation from the total de-
formation of the ABC as computed from FLAC.
In the Cam-Clay model, bulk modulus is a function of the mean
effective stress and changes at each step. The total and plastic vol-
ume change is computed in FLAC at each step. To compute the
plastic deformations in the subgrade, the elastic volumetric strain in
each element was calculated by subtracting the plastic volumetric
strain from the total volumetric strain, and the vertical elastic strain
increment was calculated as follows in each step (based on the

Eq. (2), which leads to displacing the Mohr’s circles relative to the
origin and the failure envelope and, consequently, accounts for the
effects of suction and stress state on soil strength.
Modeling Plastic Deformations
To calculate the plastic deformation in MEPDG, elastic strains are
first calculated using a linear elastic analysis and then plastic strains
are calculated as a function of the calculated elastic strain, water
content, and number of load cycles. In the numerical model, the
vertical elastic strain increments at each step in all the elements
below the centerline of the loaded area were calculated as follows:
   
De1 ¼ Ds1 × 1 þ 1 þ ðDs2 þ Ds3 Þ × 1 2 1 (4)
3G 9K 9K 6G
where De1 5 vertical elastic strain increment; Ds1 , Ds2 , and Ds3
5 stress increments; G 5 shear modulus; and K 5 bulk modulus.
elasticity theory and axisymmetric loading condition):
  
2
Ds1 2 Dɛ ev × Ki 2 G
3
Dɛ 1 ¼ (5)
2G
where Dɛ 1 5 vertical elastic strain increment; Ds1 5 vertical stress
increment; Dɛ ev 5 elastic volumetric strain increment; Ki 5 bulk
modulus at each step; and G 5 shear modulus.
The same approach of subtracting the total elastic deformation
from the total deformation and used for plastic deformation calcu-
lations in the ABC layer was used to estimate the plastic deformation
in the subgrade layer.
To verify the formulation described previously, results from
a simulated displacement-controlled triaxial test were used. The
triaxial test specimen was modeled first as crushed stone using an
elastic-perfectly plastic model with a Mohr-Coulomb failure crite-
rion and then as silty sand using Cam-Clay model, and the plastic
deformation in each case was calculated using the unloading-
reloading curves. Then, the same triaxial test was simulated, and
the aforementioned approach was used to calculate the plastic de-
formations. The difference between the plastic deformations ob-
tained from each of the two methods was less than 0.05% for both
the Cam-Clay and Mohr-Coulomb models.

Material Properties

Fig. 1. Unloading–reloading stress-deformation curves of the simu-
lated displacement-controlled triaxial test
Hydraulic Properties
The paved road section was modeled as a four-layer profile: asphalt,
ABC, geocomposite, and subgrade. The hydraulic properties of
these materials are shown in Table 1 Cooley et al. (2002) conducted
a series of experimental and field permeability tests on 23 Superpave
pavement construction projects with different nominal maximum
aggregate size (NMAS) and lift thicknesses. The permeability of
the Superpave asphalt with a NMAS of 25 mm and lift thickness
to NMAS ratio of 4.0, as measured by Cooley et al. (2002), is used
herein in the seepage simulations.

Table 1. van Genuchten Parameters and Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity for Materials Used in the Modeling
Saturated water Residual water Saturated hydraulic
Material content, us content, ur að1=kPaÞ n conductivity (m=s) References
25
Silty sand (subgrade) 0.270 0.0 0.012 1.331 1:02 3 10 EICM
Crushed stone (ABC) 0.239 7:8 3 1022 0.320 2.750 1:30 3 1024 Henry et al. (2001)
WF geotextile 0.754 0.0 2.577 1.680 3:44 3 1023 Stormont and Ramos (2004)
NWP geotextile 0.60 0.0 3.891 6.900 6:60 3 1023 Stormont and Morris (2000)
Geonet 0.850 5:0 3 1023 50.251 2.190 1:00 3 1021 Ramos (2001)
Asphalt 0.13 — — — 1:22 3 1025 Cooley et al. (2002)

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1409

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Properties of study materials: (a) moisture characteristic curves; (b) unsaturated hydraulic conductivity curves

The geocomposite drainage layer was modeled as a three-layer Table 2. Elastic Properties of Materials Used in the Model for Various
system: a geonet sandwiched between a nonwoven geotextile at Layers (Data from Brunton et al. 1992; Ramos 2001; Bergado et al.
the bottom and a transport geotextile at the top. The hydraulic 2001; EICM; Pease 2010)
properties of the WF geotextile and geonet were measured by Ramos Elastic modulus Poisson’s Unit weight
(2001), and the hydraulic properties of the NWP geotextile were Materials (MPa) ratio (kN=m3 )
measured by Stormont and Morris (2000). Fiberglass is a hydro-
Asphalt 3:5 3 103 0.35 22.93
philic (low contact angle) material that becomes transmissive at
Crushed stone (ABC) 4:5 3 102 0.3 20.34
higher suctions relative to other types of polymeric geotextiles
WF geotextile 1:18 3 103 0.1 7.40
(Stormont and Ramos 2004). Hydraulic properties of crushed stone
NWP geotextile 1:8 3 102 0.1 1.59
and silty sand were used for ABC and subgrade, respectively [Henry
Silty sand (subgrade) 2:0 3 101 0.4 19.00
et al. 2001; Enhanced Integrated Climate Model (EICM)]. The
MCCs and hydraulic conductivity curves for all materials used in
this study are shown in Fig. 2. In developing these curves, wetting
and drying hysteresis and the effect of soil intrusion into the geo- NWP and WF geotextiles were modeled as linear elastic mate-
textile on hydraulic properties were not considered. rials. The typical elastic modulus for nonwoven needle-punched
geotextiles was reported by Bergado et al. (2001). The elastic
modulus of the WF geotextile was measured as a part of this study
Mechanical Properties
because representative values were not available in the literature. A
The elastic properties of the materials used in this study are pre- special clamping adapter for a standard load frame was necessary for
sented in Table 2. The asphalt was modeled as a linear elastic the WF geotextile because of its high strength and gripping problems
material with properties presented by Brunton et al. (1992) and Pease (ASTM D4595-11; ASTM 2008b). The two ends of specimens 2 cm
(2010). Subgrade and ABC were modeled using the Cam-Clay and wide and 13 cm long were prepared and glued to a metal wedge
Mohr-Coulomb constitutive models, respectively, and their model clamp using a special resin to prevent stress concentration and
properties are presented in Table 3 (Desai and Siriwardane 1984). slipping in the clamp. Strains were measured using an extensometer
The elastic modulus and Poisson ratio of the ABC (crushed stone) with 0.0254-mm (0.001-in.) accuracy. It was noted that the WF
and silty sand along with friction and dilation angle of crushed geotextile failed in the middle of the specimen with no slippage in the
stone were obtained using model calibration with MEPDG. The clamps. The stress-strain curves from two tests are shown in Fig. 3.
model calibration is presented next. The slopes of the initial linear portion of the curves for the two

1410 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.

 Table 3. Mohr-Coulomb and Cam-Clay Material Properties for ABC and Subgrade (Data from Desai and Siriwardane 1984)
Friction Dilation angle Slope of
Materials angle (f) (degrees) NCL (l)
Silty sand (subgrade) 31.0a — 0.014
Crushed stone (ABC) 40.0 20.0 — —
a
Calculated from M.
specimens were averaged and used as the elastic modulus for
the material (Table 2).
Modeling Approach
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The seepage analysis was performed using SIGMA/W. The pore
water pressure distribution at steady state was then used in FLAC as
the initial hydraulic condition to perform the stress-deformation
analysis. SIGMA/W was not used for stress-deformation analysis
because it computes the effective stress as the subtraction of pore
water pressure from total stress, which significantly overestimates
the effective stress at high negative pore water pressures. Indeed, the
suction stress decreases as water becomes discontinuous, and this
reduction in suction stress must be considered when calculating
effective stress in unsaturated soils (Vanapalli et al. 1996; Lu and
Likos 2004). FLAC, however, uses Eq. (2) to capture suction stress
in a more robust manner.
FLAC was not used for a seepage (or coupled hydromechanical)
analysis because of unreasonably long simulation times. The time
step in transient seepage analysis is constant in FLAC and is esti-
mated as follows:
 
1 , 1
Dt ¼ L2z min (6)
kw Kw kg Kg
where Dt 5 time step; Lz 5 smallest zone size in the simulation;
Kw 5 bulk modulus of water; Kg 5 bulk modulus of air; kw 5 water
saturated conductivity; and ka 5 air saturated conductivity.
A relatively high saturated hydraulic conductivity (3:44 3
1023 m=s) coupled with the thinness of the geotextile layer (3.2 mm)
resulted in a small time step ( ∼10210 s) and long simulation times (on
the order of weeks). However, in SIGMA/W, the backward dif-
ference scheme is used for time integration. As a result, the solution
is stable for any time step size (Smith 1971). To avoid numerical
oscillation, the minimum time step is estimated as follows:
l2 gw ð1 þ yÞð1 2 2yÞ
tmin $ (7)
12 k Eð1 2 nÞ
where tmin 5 minimum time step; l 5 element size; E 5 modulus of
elasticity; n 5 Poisson’s ratio; k 5 hydraulic conductivity; and gw
5 unit weight of water. The time step is then automatically varied
from 0.001 to 1 s based on the results of the previous step using an
adaptive time-stepping routine, thus significantly reducing overall
simulation time.
Model Verification
The pore pressure data measured by Krisdani et al. (2008) in a soil-
geotextile column were used for model verification. Krisdani et al.
(2008) performed soil-geotextile column tests on a 1-m fine sand
column in which a Polyfelt Megadrain 2040 geosynthetic was
embedded 0.51 m from the top of the column. The measured pore
water pressures along the column are shown as symbols in Fig. 4
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1411
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.
Slope of Reference pressure, Specific volume
OCL (k) M p09 (kPa) at p09ðn0 Þ
0.0024 1.24 68.95 1.36
— — —
Fig. 3. Measured stress strain curves for the woven fiberglass geotextile
(Krisdani et al. 2008). The hydraulic properties of the fine sand and
geotextile layer used in the simulation were provided in Krisdani
et al. (2008) and are shown in Table 4. The geonet was modeled as a
layer with low air entry value (0.2 kPa). The results of the numerical
simulations are shown in Fig. 4 along with the measured experi-
mental data. Comparative results shown in Fig. 4 indicate a good
agreement between numerical computations and experimental mea-
surements and serve to validate the applicability of the seepage
model.
To calibrate the deformation model, the MEPDG software was
used to provide results for baseline comparison (Applied Research
Associates–Transportation 2009). A profile 100 cm wide and con-
sisting of 12.7 cm asphalt, 25.4 cm ABC, and 100 cm subgrade was
modeled in FLAC under axisymmetric loading conditions. Hy-
draulic and mechanical properties presented in Tables 1–3 for as-
phalt, crushed stone, and silty sand, respectively, were used, and the
water table was placed at the top of the profile. The elastic modulus
and Poisson’s ratio of the crushed stone and silty sand and the
friction and dilation angles of the crushed stone were obtained
through the calibration process. A 690-kPa stress was applied over
13.6 cm of the top left corner of the profile, simulating a tire load
of 40 kN under axisymmetric conditions. The same calculation was
performed with the MEPDG software using one pass of Vehicle
Class 5 (one single axle with a single tire) to represent the load-
ing condition used in FLAC. After performing each calculation in
MEPDG, the calculated elastic modulus for asphalt, ABC, and
subgrade was used in the FLAC simulations. Multiple simulations
were performed using both approaches with varying elastic moduli,
Poisson’s ratios, friction angles, and dilation angles for the crushed
stone to calibrate the plastic deformations calculated in FLAC.
The appropriate material parameters are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
These parameters are consistent with the published values for
silty sand and crushed stone (Brunton et al. 1992; Evdorides and
Snaith 1996; Budhu 1999). Using the parameters in Tables 2 and 3,
the difference between plastic deformations computed in MEPDG
and FLAC was less than 3%.
 Seepage Analysis
Paved Roads
A very fine mesh was necessary to represent the geotextile layer
because of its relative thinness, leading to computational difficulties
caused by the very large conductivity matrices. Such difficulties in
modeling thin layers of geotextile in a two-dimensional (2D) domain
have been reported in previous studies (Park and Fleming 2006;
Stormont et al. 2009) as well. To reduce the required number of
elements and to model the profile with the three thin layers of the
geocomposite in 2D, a profile with 100 cm width was considered.
Some of the elements in the geotextile layer were as small as 1.5 mm,
such that three nodes were located vertically within the geotextile
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
layer. Transition elements were used to increase the size of the mesh
for the remaining model area. The geocomposite was placed at the
interface of the ABC and 100-cm-thick subgrade. The surface of the
profile and the geocomposite layer was sloped 3%. Two types of
transport geotextile were considered (WF and NWP). The thick-
nesses of the geonet, WF, and NWP geotextile were selected as 5.9,
3.2, and 5.9 mm, respectively (Stormont and Morris 2000; Ramos
2001; Stormont et al. 2001a). Various thicknesses were considered
for the ABC and asphalt, representing low, medium, and high
volume road sections, as presented in Table 5. Repetitions of 107 ,
106 , and 105 E18KSAL loads were considered for high, medium,
and low traffic volume, respectively (NCHRP 2004). The minimum
asphalt required for the ABC thicknesses was then determined using
the traffic volume and the Asphalt Institute (AI) design method (AI
1982) for a mean annual air temperature of 15.5°C, which covers a
major part of the United States. These values are presented in Table 5.
The hydraulic properties of the materials used in the simulations
are presented in Table 1. The boundary conditions were a no-flow
Fig. 4. Comparison of the measured experimental pore pressures
(data points) by Krisdani et al. (2008) and the computed pore pressures
in this paper (lines) along the column during drainage
Table 4. Hydraulic Properties of Fine Sand and Geotextile Used in Verification Simulations (Data from Krisdani et al. 2008)
Saturated water Residual water
Materials content, us content, ur
Fine sand 0.41 0.02
Filter geotextile 0.834 0.0
Geonet 0.834 0.0
1412 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.
boundary on the left side, zero pressure head at the base, and a
potential seepage boundary condition on the right side. The potential
seepage boundary condition allows drainage of moisture from the
boundary under saturated conditions. This simulates drainage of
moisture from the geocomposite into the edge pipe (which at this
point is assumed to be saturated for simplicity). A constant flux of
5:29 3 1026 m=s (19 mm=h) was applied on the top of the profile
simulating rainfall condition. This flux corresponds to a 6-h rain-
fall with a 50-year return period for Greensboro, North Carolina
(McDowell and Borchers 2007). The initial condition was a hy-
drostatic pore water pressure distribution throughout the profile.
A volumetric water content equal to the air-void content of the
Superpave asphalt and a constant permeability corresponding to
the field measurements were used for the asphalt layer, and thus, the
thickness of the asphalt layer did not affect the pore pressure dis-
tributions in ABC and subgrade.
Figs. 5(a–c) show the pore pressure contours after 6 h of sim-
ulated rainfall for a paved road profile without a geocomposite layer
and profiles with NWP and WF geotextile as the transport layer,
respectively. The thickness of the ABC layer in Fig. 5 is 25.4 cm. In
all cases, steady state was reached during the 6-h rainfall, and the
amount of water flux entering the system was equal to the water
leaving the system ( ∼0:019 m3=h). As can be seen from Figs. 5(b and c),
the inclusion of the geocomposite at the interface of the subgrade
and ABC increased the suction in subgrade by up to 8.0 kPa. The
hydraulic conductivity of the geotextile transport layer is very low
under suction levels higher than its water entry value (WEV). When
the wetting front reaches the geotextile transport layer, water
accumulates above the geotextile and decreases the suction in the
ABC as shown in Figs. 5(b and c). When suction decreases to the
WEV of the geotextile, water enters the geotextile and is diverted
toward the edge drain. The WF geotextile has a higher WEV and
thus becomes transmissive at higher suctions relative to other types
of polymeric geotextiles (Stormont and Ramos 2004). Conse-
quently, the WF geotextile drains more water from the ABC,
resulting in a higher suction in the ABC compared with the NWP
geotextile. This is consistent with findings from previous studies
(Stormont and Zhou 2001; Stormont et al. 2009).
Unpaved Roads
The unpaved road section was similarly modeled, but the asphalt
layer was excluded. Three different ABC thicknesses of 508, 63.5,
and 68.6 cm were selected, corresponding to E18KSAL repetitions
of 104 , 5 3 103 , and 103 cycles, respectively. These were computed
using the standard equation for unpaved roads (Giroud and Noiray
1981)
0:19 × logðNÞ
h0 ¼ (8)
CBR0:63
where h0 5 ABC thickness; and N 5 number of E18KSAL
repetitions.
To facilitate a better comparison, the pore pressure distributions
along the left side of the profile for the three cases (without geo-
composite, with WF transport layer, and with NWP geotextile
Saturated hydraulic
a ð1=kPaÞ n conductivity (m=s)
0.437 3.5 2:7 3 1024
1.777 3.578 0.1
5.0 3.578 0.1
 transport layer) and the three ABC thicknesses are plotted in Figs. 6
and 7 for paved and unpaved road sections, respectively. In all cases,
the geocomposite layer increases the suction in the subgrade and
decreases the suction in the ABC layer compared with the profile
without a geocomposite layer. Also, the geocomposite with the
WF geotextile results in a higher suction (by ∼1 kPa) in the ABC
layer compared with the NWP geotextile.
Stress-Deformation Analyses
The geocomposite layer affects the pore pressure distributions in
the ABC and subgrade (Figs. 6 and 7) and consequently changes
the effective stress and shear strength [Eqs. (1) and (2)]. The geo-
composite layer also functions as a reinforcement layer and affects
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the stress distribution and deformations of the ABC and subgrade. In
this paper, the former effect is termed the hydraulic effect and the
latter is referred to as the mechanical effect. To study the effect of
asphalt and ABC thicknesses on the contribution of each of these two
components to reducing the plastic deformation, stress-deformation
analyses of the composite sections were performed.
Paved Roads
The profile used in the stress-deformation analysis is the same as
that used for the seepage analysis. The left and right boundaries of
the profile were fixed in the lateral direction, and the bottom
boundary was fixed in both directions. The profile was allowed to
Table 5. ABC and Asphalt Thickness Used in Paved Road Profile
Simulations
E18KSAL repetitions
5
ABC thickness (cm) 10 106 107
Asphalt thickness (cm)
15.2 19.1 26.9 38.1
25.4 17.1 25.1 36.3
45.7 11.9 20.1 34.3
Fig. 5. Pore pressure contours in the profile: (a) without geocomposite; (b) with WF geotextile transport layer; (c) with NWP transport layer
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1413
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.
equilibrate under gravity to simulate initial in situ stresses, and then
a stress of 690 kPa was applied over 13.6 cm of the top left corner of
the profile, simulating an axisymmetric tire load of 40 kN.
The computed deformations were relatively small ( ∼0:01 mm)
because only one load cycle was modeled. To investigate whether
the displacement at the first load cycle can be used as an indication of
the deformation trend for higher number of load cycles, a saturated
profile and a dry profile were modeled using MEPDG formulations.
The thicknesses of the ABC and asphalt layers were 254 and
127 mm, respectively. The total plastic deformations under one load
cycle in the saturated and dry profiles were 0.084 and 0.083 mm,
respectively. The simulations were then performed for 106 load
cycles, and the results indicated that the initial deformation dif-
ference of 0.001 mm resulted in a 7.4-mm difference in the total
plastic deformation after 106 load cycles. In this paper, deformations
were computed for one load cycle, and the percent change in de-
formation was used, rather than the absolute values, to compare the
different cases and study the effect of asphalt and ABC thicknesses
on the efficacy of the geocomposite in reducing the plastic
deformation.
A profile without geocomposite, but with the pore pressure dis-
tribution as if the geocomposite layers were present, was modeled
for each case as well, to separate the hydraulic and mechanical
effects and to find the hydraulic effect of the geocomposite on plastic
deformation. The mechanical effect was then calculated as the total
effect minus the hydraulic effect. Fig. 8 shows the percent decrease
in the total (ABC and subgrade) plastic deformation caused by
mechanical and hydraulic effects of the geocomposite layer com-
pared with the profile without a geocomposite for the three different
ABC and asphalt thicknesses. Increasing the thickness of the asphalt
layer decreases the stress level in the geocomposite layer and thus
reduces its reinforcement effect. As shown in Fig. 6, the geo-
composite layer decreases the suction in the ABC and increases the
suction in the subgrade. A thicker asphalt layer, however, decreases
the stress level in the ABC, and thus the negative through decreasing
suction hydraulic effect of the geocomposite on the ABC is miti-
gated. Fig. 8 also shows that the mechanical effect of the WF is more
significant than that of the NWP geotextile for smaller asphalt
thicknesses because of the higher elastic modulus of the WF
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Pore pressure distribution in ABC and subgrade of the paved road section with ABC thickness of (a) 15.2 cm; (b) 25.4 cm; and (c) 45.7 cm

Fig. 7. Pore pressure distribution in ABC and subgrade of the unpaved road section with ABC thickness of (a) 50.8 cm; (b) 63.5 cm; and (c) 68.6 cm

1414 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Percent decrease in total plastic deformation of profile with geocomposite compared with the profile without geocomposite for ABC thicknesses
of (a) 15.2 cm; (b) 25.4 cm; and (c) 45.7 cm

geotextile. With increasing asphalt thickness, the mechanical effect

of the WF decreases and becomes similar to the NWP geotextile. The
relative decrease in the total plastic deformation considering both the
mechanical and hydraulic contributions of the geocomposite is also
shown in Fig. 8. Increasing the asphalt thickness decreases the total
effect of the geocomposite on plastic deformations in the profile with
the WF geotextile and increases the total effect in the profile with
NWP geotextile. In the profile with NWP geotextile, as the asphalt
thickness increases, the contribution of the hydraulic effect com-
pensates for the decrease in mechanical effect (because of the use of
NWP versus WF), and thus, the total effect of the NWP geotextile on
plastic deformations increases. As a result, the effect of the geo-
composite layers on the total plastic deformation for the NWP and
WF geotextiles become similar with increasing asphalt thickness
(Fig. 8).
It is also apparent from Fig. 8 that the geocomposite can decrease
the total plastic deformation up to 55%. To investigate how much the
ABC thickness can be reduced by inclusion of the geocomposite
layer, plastic deformation in a profile without a geocomposite and
with 45.7 cm ABC was compared with the profiles with the geo-
composite and 15.2, 25.4, and 45.7 cm ABC. Three asphalt
thicknesses of 19.1, 26.9, and 38.1 cm were used. The plastic
deformations of the profiles with geocomposite (dpg ) were divided
by the one for the profile without geocomposite and with 45.7 cm
ABC (dp45:7 ), and the results are shown in Fig. 9. For each of the Fig. 9. Ratio of the plastic deformation of the profile with geo-
asphalt thicknesses, the plastic deformation of the profiles with the composite (dpg ) to the plastic deformation for the 45.7-cm ABC (dp45:7 )
geocomposite was lower than without the geocomposite (with a ratio profile without geocomposite
of between 0.5 and 0.7). In the profile with the thinnest asphalt

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1415

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.

 layer, WF had a larger effect on reducing the plastic deformations,
and increasing the asphalt layer reduced this effect. However, NWP
geotextile has a larger effect on the plastic deformations in the profile
with thicker asphalt.
Unpaved Roads
To simulate an unpaved road, a surface stress of 482.7 kPa (70 psi)
was applied, and a small cohesion of 3.5 kPa was required for the
ABC to overcome convergence issues. The rest of the modeling
details were the same as the paved road section. Fig. 10 shows
the hydraulic and mechanical effect of the geocomposite on total
plastic deformations for all the three ABC thicknesses. Increasing
the ABC thickness increases the hydraulic effect and decreases the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
To determine how much of the ABC thickness can be reduced
with the inclusion of the geocomposite, the ratio of the plastic de-
formation of the profile with geocomposite and different ABC
thicknesses (dpg ) was divided by that for the profile without geo-
composite and with the greatest ABC thickness (dp68:6 ). The results
for both the initial and reduced elastic modulus of the WF and NWP
geotextiles are shown in Fig. 12. When the initial elastic modulus is
used, the plastic deformation with WF and NWP geotextiles is lower
than the one without geocomposite. However, when the elastic
modulus is reduced, the plastic deformation of the profile with NWP
geotextile and 50.8 cm ABC becomes more than the one without
geocomposite and with 68.6 cm ABC. Simulation results for
a NWP geotextile with reduced elastic modulus and 58.4 cm (23 in.)
ABC are also shown in Fig. 12. In this case, the WF and NWP

mechanical effect of the geocomposite. Fig. 10 also show that the geotextiles with reduced elastic modulus can decrease the required
geocomposite has a higher mechanical effect and lower hydraulic ABC thickness from 68.9 to 50.8 and 58.4 cm, respectively.
effect on the plastic deformation compared with paved sections
(Fig. 8). The reason is that the asphalt layer in paved roads decreases
the stress level in the underlying layers and thus decreases the re- Summary and Conclusions
inforcement effect and the negative hydraulic effect of the geo-
composite. Data in Fig. 10 show that with elimination of the Work in this manuscript presents a numerical study on the effect
mechanical effect, WF and NWP geotextiles still decrease the total of inclusion of a geocomposite drainage layer on the moisture
plastic deformations by an average of 31 and 28%, respectively.
The elastic modulus of geosynthetics usually decreases with
increasing the tensile strain. Bergado et al. (2001) showed that the
elastic modulus of the nonwoven geotextiles decreases to 13.3% of
its initial value (from 1:8 3 102 to 2:4 3 101 MPa) for tensile strains
higher than 2.5%. In unpaved road sections, the induced tensile
strain at the top of the subgrade may reduce the elastic modulus and
therefore the mechanical effect of the geocomposite layer. To study
the effect of this decrease, the elastic modulus of the WF and NWP
geotextiles was reduced to 13.3% of their initial values to 1:6 3 102
and 2:4 3 101 MPa, respectively. Fig. 11 shows the total effect of the
geocomposite on the plastic deformation with the initial and reduced
elastic modulus of the geotextiles. Decreasing the elastic modulus
of the WF and NWP geotextiles decreases their effect on the total
plastic deformations by a maximum of approximately 20% (from
∼60 to 40%) for WF and 7.0% (from ∼36 to 29%) for NWP,
respectively, with a slight dependency on the thickness of the ABC
layer (Fig. 11). The WF geotextile decreases the total plastic de-
formations by approximately 24% more than the profile with NWP
geotextile regardless of the ABC thickness. Fig. 11. Percent decrease in total plastic deformation caused by the
total effect of the geocomposite in the unpaved road section

Fig. 10. Percent decrease in total plastic deformation of profile with Fig. 12. Ratio of the plastic deformation of the profile with geo-
geocomposite compared with the profile without geocomposite in un- composite (dpg ) to the one for the profile without geocomposite and
paved road section with 68.6-cm ABC (dp68:6 )

1416 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.

 distribution and plastic deformations of simulated unpaved and
paved road sections. Simulations were performed for different ABC
and asphalt thicknesses and investigated the hydraulic versus the
mechanistic contribution of the drainage layer. The following con-
clusions are drawn from the results:
1. The effect of the suction on soil strength and plastic deforma-
tions using the Mohr-Coulomb model is more appropriately
incorporated by modifying the failure envelope rather than the
elastic modulus.
2. The seepage analysis showed that during the simulated rainfall
infiltration, the geocomposite increases the suction in subgrade
by up to 8 kPa and decreases the suction in ABC by up to 3.6
kPa. The WF geotextile causes about 2 kPa less reduction in
suction in ABC compared with NWP geotextile because of its
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
higher WEV.
3. The stress-deformation analysis showed that increasing the
pavement thickness increases the hydraulic effect and de-
creases the mechanical effect of the geocomposite with regard
to the total plastic deformations in both the paved and unpaved
road sections.
4. WF and NWP geotextiles can decrease the total plastic de-
formation by up to 55 and 35% in paved road sections and by
up to 60 and 30% in unpaved road sections, respectively,
depending on the ABC and asphalt thicknesses. Increasing the
thickness of the asphalt layer decreased the difference between
the effect of the WF and NWP geotextile on plastic defor-
mation to less than 5%, as the reinforcement contribution is
reduced. In unpaved road sections, WF geotextile decreases
the total plastic deformation by an average of 24% more than
the NWP geotextile, regardless of the ABC thickness, mainly
because of the hydraulic effect.
5. In unpaved road sections, reducing the elastic modulus of the
WF and NWP geotextile by nearly one order of magnitude
decreases their effect on reducing the total plastic deformations
by a maximum of approximately 20% (from ∼60 to 40%) for
WF and 7.0% (from ∼36 to 29%) for NWP, respectively, with
a slight dependency on the thickness of the ABC layer. Even
then, geocomposite with reduced elastic modulus of WF and
NWP geotextile can decreases the required thickness of the
ABC by 26 and 15%, respectively.
6. In general, results from this study showed that both the mech-
anical and hydraulic effects of geocomposite inclusion are
significant, particularly when moisture movement under un-
saturated conditions is considered. Thus, design approaches
that do not consider both effects may be overly conservative.
A robust set of measured data for comparison with results
from numerical modeling was not found in the literature. This is a
testament to the difficulties associated with making these types of
measurements either in the field or in the laboratory. The results
from the numerical study presented herein serve to provide un-
derstanding of the multiphysics aspects of the multilayer drainage
barrier system with markedly different hydraulic characteristics in
terms of moisture distribution and associated impact on plastic
deformation. The assumptions and simplifications made in the
numerical modeling should, however, be considered in interpret-
ing the results. The applied boundary conditions simulate a water
table of 100 cm below the drainage system and a drainage pipe
under saturated flow. Changing the water level will alter the initial
and subsequent suction distribution throughout the profile. Having
an unsaturated drainage pipe affects the water flow from the
drainage system into the pipe. The change in hydraulic properties
of the drainage system caused by the wetting and drying hysteresis
or soil intrusion into the geotextile was not considered in the
analysis. The results presented in this paper reflect the selected
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1417
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.
boundary conditions and material properties used in the numerical
modeling.
References
Applied Research Associates–Transportation. (2009). Mechanistic-
empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG), version 1.100, Cham-
paign, IL.
Asphalt Institute (AI). (1982). Research and development of the asphalt
institute’s thickness design manual (MS-1), 9th Ed., Lexington, KY.
ASTM. (2008a). “Standard test methods for determination of the soil water
characteristic curve for desorption using a hanging column, pressure
extractor, chilled mirror hygrometer, and/or centrifuge.” D6836-02,
West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2008b). “Standard test methods for tensile properties of geotextiles
by the wide-width strip method.” D4595-11, West Conshohocken, PA.
Atkinson, J. H., and Bransby, P. L. (1978). The mechanics of soils:
An introduction to critical state soil mechanics, McGraw Hill, New York.
Bender, D. A., and Barenberg, E. J. (1978). “Design and behavior of soil-
fabric-aggregate systems.” Transportation Research Record 671,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 64–75.
Bergado, D. T., Youwai, S., Hai, C. N., and Voottiipruex, P. (2001). “In-
teraction of nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles under axisymmetric
loading conditions.” Geotextile Geomembrane, 19(5), 299–328.
Brunton, J. M., Armitage, R. J., and Brown, S. F. (1992). “Seven years’
experience of pavement evaluation.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Asphalt
Pavements, International Society for Asphalt Pavements, Lino Lakes,
MN, 17–30.
Budhu, M. (1999). Soil mechanics and foundations, Wiley, New York.
Cedergren, H. R. (1994). “America’s pavements: World’s longest bathtubs.”
Civil Eng. 64(9), 56–58.
Christopher, B. R., Hayden, S. A., and Zhao, A. (2000). “Roadway base and
subgrade geocomposite drainage layers.” Proc., Testing and Perfor-
mance of Geosynthetics in Subsurface Drainage, ASTM, West Con-
shohocken, PA 35–51.
Christopher, B. R., and McGuffey, V. C. (1997). NCHRP synthesis of
highway practice 239: Pavement subsurface drainage systems, National
Research Council, Washington, DC.
Cooley, L. A., Jr., Prowell, B. D., and Brown, E. R. (2002). “Issues per-
taining to the permeability characteristics on coarse-graded Superpave
mixes.” J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technologists, 71, 1–29.
Dawson, A. R., Paute, J. L., and Thom, N. H. (1996). “Mechanical char-
acteristic of unbound granular materials as a function of condition.”
Flexible pavements: Proc., European Symposium Euroflex 1993, A.
Gomes Correia, ed., Rotterdam, Netherlands, 35–45.
Desai, C. S., and Siriwardane, H. J. (1984). Constitutive laws for engineering
materials with emphasis on geologic materials, Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ.
Drumm, E. C., Reeves, J. S., Madgett, M. R., and Trolinger, W. D. (1997).
“Subgrade resilient modulus correction for saturation effects.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 123(7), 663–670.
Enhanced Integrated Climate Model (EICM) 3.2 Beta [Computer soft-
ware]. College Station, TX, Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M Univ.
Evdorides, H. T., and Snaith, M. S. (1996). “A knowledge based analysis
process for road pavement condition assessment.” Proc. ICE-Transport,
117(3), 202–210.
Fredlund, D. G., and Rahardjo, H. (1993). Soil mechanics for unsaturated
soils, Wiley, New York.
Garcia, E. F. (2007). “Function of permeable geosynthetics in unsaturated
embankments subjected to rainfall infiltration.” Geosynthetics Int.,
14(2), 89–99.
Gehling, W. Y. Y., Ceratti, J. A., Nunez, W. P., and Rodrigues, M. R. (1998).
“A study on the influence of suction on the resilient behavior of soils from
southern Brazil.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, In-
ternational Academic Publishers, Beijing, 27–30.
Giroud, J. P., and Han, J. (2004). “Design method for geogrid-reinforced
unpaved roads. II. Calibration and applications.” J. Geotech. Geo-
environ. Eng., 130(8), 787–797.
 Giroud, J. P., and Noiray, L. (1981). “Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road
design.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 107(9), 1233–1254.
Heckel, L. (1997). “Performance problems of open-graded drainage layers
under continuously reinforced concrete pavement in Illinois.” Trans-
portation Research Record 1596, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 51–57.
Henry, K. S. (1988). “Use of geotextiles to mitigate frost heave in soils.”
Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Permafrost, TAPIR Publications, Pasadena, CA,
1096–1011.
Henry, K. S., and Holtz, R. D. (1997). “Capillary rise of water in geo-
textiles.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Ground Freezing and Frost Action in
Soils, Taylor & Francis, Oxford, U.K., 227–233.
Henry, K. S., and Stormont, J. C. (2002). “Geocomposite capillary barrier
drain for limiting moisture changes in pavement subgrades and base
courses.” NCHRP-IDEA 68 Final Rep., Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Leeds on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Henry, K. S., Stormont, J. C., Barna, L. A., and Ramos, R. D. (2002).
“Geocomposite capillary barrier drain for unsaturated drainage of
pavements.” Proc., 7th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, Balkema, Lisse,
Netherlands, 877–880.
Henry, K. S., Stormont, J. C., Ramos, R. D., and Barna, L. (2001). “Geo-
composite capillary barrier drain for limiting moisture changes in pavement
subgrades and bases.” Rep. Prepared for the IDEA Program, Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Hsieh, P. A., Wingle, W., and Healy, R. W. (2000). “A graphical software
package for simulating fluid flow and solute or energy transport in
variably saturated porous media.” USGS Water-Resources Inves-
tigations Rep. 99-4130, USGS National Center, Reston, VA.
Iryo, T., and Rowe, R. K. (2003). “On the hydraulic behavior of unsaturated
nonwoven geotextiles.” J. Geotextile Geomembr., 21(6), 381–404.
Itasca Consulting Group. (2008). FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of
Continua), Version 6.0, Itasca Consulting Group, Minneapolis.
Knight, M. A., and Kotha, S. M. (2001). “Measurement of geotextile-water
characteristic curves using a controlled outflow capillary pressure cell.”
Geosynthetics Int., 8(3), 271–282.
Kolisoja, P., Saarenketo, T., Peltoniemi, H., and Vuorimies, N. (2002).
“Laboratory testing of suction and deformation properties of base course
aggregates.” Transportation Research Record 1787, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 83–88.
Krahn, J. (2004). Stress and deformation modeling with SIGMA/W, an en-
gineering methodology, GEO-SLOPE International, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
Krisdani, H., Rahardjo, H., and Leong, E. C. (2006). “Experimental study of
1-D capillary barrier model using geosynthetic material as the coarse-
grained layer.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Unsaturated Soils, Taylor &
Francis, Oxford, U.K., 1683–1694.
Krisdani, H., Rahardjo, H., and Leong, E. C. (2008). “Measurement of
geotextile-water characteristic curve using capillary rise principle.”
Geosynthetics Int., 15(2), 86–94.
Kuhn, J. A., McCartney, J. S., and Zornberg, J. G. (2005). “Impinging flow
over drainage layers including a geocomposite.” Proc., Sessions of the
Geo-Frontiers 2005 Congress, ASCE, Geo-Institute, Reston, VA.
Lafleur, J., Lebeau, M., Faure, Y. H., Savard, Y., and Kehila, Y. (2000).
“Influence of matric suction on the drainage performance of polyester
geotextiles.” Proc., 53rd Annual Conf. of Canadian Geotechnical
Society, The Canadian Geotechnical Society, Richmond, BC, Canada,
1115–1122.
Lu, N., and Likos, W. J. (2004). Unsaturated soil mechanics, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
McDowell, H. K., and Borchers, M. (2007). Storm drainage design manual,
North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design,
Storm Water Management Division, Raleigh, NC.
Nahlawi, H., Bouazza, A., and Kodikara, J. (2007). “Characterisation of
geotextiles water retention using a modified capillary pressure cell.”
J. Geotextile Geomembr., 25(3), 186–193.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (2000).
Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated
pavement structures. Appendix DD-1: Resilient modulus as function of
1418 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1407-1418.
soil moisture: Summary of predictive models, ARA, ERES Division,
Champaign, IL.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (2004).
“Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated
pavement structures. Appendix GG-1: Calibration of permanent
deformation models for flexible pavements, ARA, ERES Division,
Champaign, IL.
Park, K. D., and Fleming, I. R. (2006). “Evaluation of geosynthetic capillary
barrier.” J. Geotextile Geomembr., 24(1), 64–71.
Pease, R. E. (2010). “Hydraulic properties of asphalt concrete.” Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Rada, G., and Witczak, M. W. (1981). “Comprehensive evaluation of
laboratory resilient moduli for granular material.” Transportation
Research Record 810, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, 23–33.
Ramos, R. D. (2001). “Performance of a fiberglass based geocomposite
capillary barrier drain.” M.Sc. thesis, Univ. of New Mexico, Albu-
querque, NM.
Simac, M. R., Elton, D. J., and Gale, S. M. (2006). “Discussion of “design
method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads. I: Development of
design method” by J. P. Giroud and J. Han.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 132(4), 547–549.
Smith, G. D. (1971). Numerical solution of partial differential equations,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.
Stockton, T. B. (2001). “Performance experimental testing of diversion
lengths for a geocomposite unsaturated drainage system.” M.Sc. thesis,
Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Stormont, J., and Zhou, S. (2001), “Improving pavement sub-surface
drainage systems by considering unsaturated water flow.” Final Rep.
DTFH61, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Stormont, J. C., Henry, K. S., and Evans, T. M. (1997). “Water retention
functions of four nonwoven polypropylene geotextiles.” Geosynthetics
Int., 4(6), 661–672.
Stormont, J. C., Henry, K. S., and Roberson, R. (2009). “Geocomposite
capillary barrier drain for limiting moisture changes in pavements:
Product application.” Final Rep., Contract No. NCHRP-113, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Stormont, J. C., and Morris, C. E. (2000). “Characterization of unsaturated
nonwoven geotextiles.” Proc., Advances in Unsaturated Geotechnics,
ASCE, Reston, VA, 529–542.
Stormont, J. C., and Ramos, R. D. (2004). “Characterization of a fiber-
glass geotextile for unsaturated in-plane water transport.” Geotech.
Test. J., 27(2), 214–220.
Stormont, J. C., Ramos, R. D., and Henry, K. S. (2001a). “Geocomposite
capillary barrier drain system with fiberglass transport layer.” Trans-
poration Research Record 1772, Transporation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 131–136.
Stormont, J. C., Ray, C., and Evans, T. M. (2001b). “Transmissivity of
a nonwoven polypropylene geotextile under suction.” ASTM Geotech.
Test. J., 24(2), 164–171.
Sweere, G. T. H. (1990). “Unbound granular bases for roads.” Ph.D. thesis,
Univ. of Delft, Delft, Netherlands.
Tian, P., Zaman, M. M., and Laguros, J. G. (1998). “Variation of resilient
modulus of aggregate base and its influence on pavement performance.”
J. Test. Eval., 26(4), 329–335.
Vanapalli, S. K., Fredlund, D. G., Pufahi, D. E., and Clifton, A. W. (1996).
“Model for the prediction of shear strength with respect to soil suction.”
Can. Geotech. J., 33(3), 379–392.
van Genuchten, M. Th. (1980). “A closed-form equation for predicting
the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
44(5), 892–898.
Witczak, M. W., Houston, W. N., and Andrei, D. (2000). “Resilient modulus
as function of soil moisture: A study of the expected changes in resilient
modulus of the unbound layers with changes in moisture for 10 LTPP
sites.” Development of the 2002 Guide for the Development of New and
Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, NCHRP 1-37 A, Interteam Tech-
nical Rep. (Seasonal 2), Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
DC.