Finite Element Studies of Asphalt Concrete Pavement

Reinforced with Geogrid

Hoe I. Ling, M.ASCE,1 and Huabei Liu2

Abstract: Many geotechnical applications are becoming more sophisticated and solutions derived from simplistic procedure are no
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

longer reasonable or solutions do not exist. This paper describes two-dimensional finite element studies that analyzed the behavior of
reinforced asphalt pavement under plane strain conditions and subject to monotonic loading. The asphalt material and soils were expressed
using triangular elements of elastoplastic behavior that obeys Mohr–Coulomb criteria with associated and nonassociated flow rules. The
geogrid was modeled using a one-dimensional linear elastic bar element. The finite element procedure was validated by comparing the
results of analysis with the results obtained from a series of model tests. The load–settlement relationships, settlement profile, and strains
in the geogrid were compared. The failure load obtained by assuming subgrade foundation with nonassociated flow rule was smaller than
that of associated flow rule. There was only minor difference between the results obtained from the associated and nonassociated plastic
models. The finite element procedure was capable of determining most measured quantities satisfactorily except the tensile strain in the
geogrid, which was assumed linear elastic. The effects of the stiffness of geogrid reinforcement, thickness of asphalt layer, and strength
of subgrade foundation were also investigated. The finite element procedure is a versatile tool for enhanced design of reinforced pavement
systems.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9399共2003兲129:7共801兲
CE Database subject headings: Finite elements; Asphalt pavements; Geogrids; Bearing capacity; Settlement; Plasticity.

Introduction
Pavements are classified as rigid or flexible depending on the
surfacing layer, which can be asphalt or portland concrete. The
surface layer of asphalt or portland concrete helps to redistribute
the wheel load to the base and subgrade. After the Second World
War, many highways were designed based on the California bear-
ing ratio 共CBR兲, which is a semiempirical procedure. The settle-
ment could at best be estimated using Boussinesq’s solution,
which is valid for an elastic and homogeneous medium with an
infinite width and depth. The theory is oversimplified for a
multilayer system. In the 1940s, theoretical developments had
enabled elastic solution to be obtained for layered system such as
pavements 共Burmister 1943, 1945兲. The theory assumes continu-
ity of vertical and shear stresses as well as displacements at the
interfaces of two- and three-layer systems. The results were com-
piled as design chart so that the influence values are obtained for
the deflection and vertical stress. The solution indicated that an
increase in the stiffness of the top layer may be interpreted as
equivalent to a reduction in the required thickness of the layer in
design. Burmister 共1958, 1962兲 demonstrated successful compari-
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng. and Eng. Mechanics,
Columbia Univ., 500 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027. E-mail:
Ling@civil.columbia.edu
2
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering and
Engineering Mechanics, Columbia Univ., New York, NY 10027.
Note. Associate Editor: Victor N. Kaliakin. Discussion open until De-
cember 1, 2003. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
was submitted for review and possible publication on December 11,
2001; approved on December 4, 2002. This paper is part of the Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 129, No. 7, July 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN
0733-9399/2003/7-801– 811/$18.00.
sons between the theory and field test results, and the theory now
forms a standard methodology for the design and analysis of
pavement systems 共e.g., Huang 1993兲. An overview of the com-
puter codes that use elastic layer theory was given by Haas and
Rodway 共2001兲.
Burmister’s theory was formulated under idealized conditions,
especially with regard to the elastic material properties. It is well
known that soil and asphalt materials are inelastic such that the
approximation can be oversimplified. The theory under the semi-
infinite elastic half space is applicable to the simple boundary and
loading conditions that preclude complicated loading conditions
of multi-wheel loads of trucks and aircrafts. Thus, the numerical
procedures, such as finite element methods, were attempted for
the pavement systems. Duncan et al. 共1968兲 was among the first
to apply finite element method to the pavement analysis. The
material was modeled as nonlinear elastic that depended on the
stress levels. Nonlinear properties of the base, subbase, and sub-
grade were obtained from the triaxial compression tests. The re-
sults of analysis compared favorably well with the measured field
deflection. Note that the methodology proposed by Duncan et al.
共1968兲 is for prefailure analysis and was not suitable to detect
failure.
A failure analysis, such as bearing capacity for shallow foun-
dation, may be captured by using elastoplastic models 共e.g., Grif-
fiths 1982; de Borst and Vermeer 1984兲. In the analysis by Grif-
fiths 共1982兲, Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria was used with a
nonassociated flow rule. An initial strain solution technique using
viscoplastic algorithm was used with iteration until convergence.
The failure load was determined when the solution failed to con-
verge. The analysis used eight-node isoparametric elements with
reduced integration. Collapse load was well captured, but the con-
vergence was affected by the increase in the angle of internal
friction, with a limit of ␾⫽35%. de Borst and Vermeer 共1984兲

JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003 / 801

J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. 共a兲 Laboratory loading test setup 共after Ling and Liu 2001兲
and 共b兲 finite element mesh
used 15-node triangular elements, with full integration, and dem-
onstrated the solution for associated and nonassociated flow rules
up to ␾⫽40°.
The use of finite element method for pavement analysis has
gained increasing attention only in recent years. In the Science
Program of the European Community–DG XII, Jouve and Gu-
ezouli 共1993a兲 compared several finite element programs for the
analysis of pavements. The programs that were compared are
FENLAP of the University of Nottingham, DIANA of the Delft
University of Technology, NOEL of the University of Nantes, and
CESAR of the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees
共LCPC兲. Jouve and Guezouli 共1993b兲 also compared the effects of
using different soil models, including linear to complicated non-
linear elastic models, and elastoplastic model. Jouve 共1993兲 com-
pared the test results of LCPC with the finite element analysis
conducted using four computer programs. In the analysis, the soil
foundation was assumed linear elastic, whereas the granular ma-
terial was assumed to be nonlinear, predominantly nonlinear elas-
tic. The asphalt layer was assumed to be linear elastic. Chen et al.
共1995兲 assessed several computer programs for analysis of flex-
ible pavement system. Additional finite element simulations of
pavement systems were reported, for example, by Almedia
共1993兲, Balay and Kabre 共1993兲, Cho et al. 共1996兲, Guezouli
et al. 共1993兲, Schelt et al. 共1993兲, and Uddin 共1998兲. The analyses
were incapable of capturing the failure and it was found that
assumption of a linear elastic property for the asphalt materials
was oversimplified. Weissman and Sousa 共1993兲 and Wright and
802 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Fig. 2. Normalized load–settlement relationships of 共a兲 sand
foundation and 共b兲 pavement over sand foundation
Zheng 共1993兲 employed elastoplastic models for the asphalt ma-
terial and soils. The model developed by Weissman and Sousa
共1993兲 required a number of tests in obtaining the parameters for
asphalt materials. Wright and Zheng 共1993兲 indicated that the
plastic properties of asphalt materials are significant in determin-
ing the permanent deformation of the flexible pavements.
In the U.S., the Federal Aviation Administration 共FAA兲 has
concentrated on the three-dimensional 共3D兲 finite element analy-
sis of airport pavement using NIKE3D 共Maker 1995兲. Full-scale
testings were also conducted so that the results of analysis and
measurements can be compared. The study was conducted by
assuming the materials to be linear elastic 共Brill 1998兲. It is ex-
pected that future design of airport pavement will be conducted
using linear 3D finite element procedures. However, little empha-
sis has been directed toward the nonlinearity of material proper-
ties. It may be argued that the load levels in the pavement are very
low, typically, in the elastic range, but failure of pavement due to
overstressing are not uncommon. While three-dimensional finite
element analysis is costly, its success has been demonstrated by
several studies, such as Hjelmstad et al. 共1997兲, Kuo et al. 共1995兲,
Uddin 共1998兲, and Zaghloul and White 共1993兲.
Geosynthetic material 共Koerner 1998兲 has been used to tensile
reinforce earth structures and unpaved roads 共e.g., Giroud and
Noiray 1981; Holtz and Sivakugan 1987; Love et al. 1987兲. Geo-
synthetic has been used to inhibit reflective cracking by acting as
an interlayer between the old pavement and the overlay 共e.g.,
Rigo et al. 1993; Roschen 1997兲. Many highway engineers have
not realized possible tensile contributions of geosynthetic in in-
creasing the bearing capacity. The study has been initiated by
Brown et al. 共1985兲 and Haas 共1985兲 to look at the possibility of
reinforcing asphalt concrete layer by comparing the behavior of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Settlement profile of asphalt concrete surface: 共a兲 Associated
flow rule and 共b兲 nonassociated flow rule
unreinforced and reinforced pavements. Perkins et al. 共1998兲 and
Ling and Liu 共2001兲 also looked at the reinforcement effects of
the geosynthetic material under dynamic loading conditions.
There has been no design procedure provided for such new appli-
cation.
In this paper, elastoplastic analyses were attempted for
geogrid-reinforced pavement system using a general-purpose
two-dimensional finite element program called PLAXIS
共Brinkgreve and Vermeer 1998兲, which has demonstrated its suc-
cess in the limit analysis of geotechnical problems. The effects of
using associated and nonassociated plastic flow rules for the soils
and asphalt material were investigated. The strains in the geosyn-
thetic layer were also compared with the experimental results.
Parametric studies were conducted to investigate other design pa-
rameters, such as the stiffness of geosynthetic, thickness of as-
phalt layer, and strength of subgrade foundation on the behavior
of geogrid-reinforced pavement system under monotonic loading.
Brief Description of Laboratory Model Test
The results obtained from a series of well-controlled laboratory
model tests were used to validate the finite element procedure.
The testing program and experimental results were described in
detail by Ling and Liu 共2001兲. Only the salient features of the test
setup are herewith summarized. Fig. 1共a兲 shows the experimental
setup where loading tests were conducted inside a sand box 60 cm
long, 20 cm wide, and 50 cm high. The tests were conducted
under plane strain conditions with the load applied through a
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003 / 803
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Fig. 4. Normalized load–settlement relationships of geogrid-
reinforced pavement: 共a兲 Associated flow rule and 共b兲 nonassociated
flow rule
rectangular steel plate 5.6 cm wide. The tests were controlled by
displacement at a rate of 1.2 mm/min. Plane strain condition,
which differed from wheel loading, was selected to ease the in-
terpretation of test results. The analyses presented in this paper
were focused on the monotonic loading tests.
The asphalt concrete layer with the geogrid reinforcement was
prepared separately on a piece of plywood, densified with a hand
compactor as in the field to a unit weight ␥⫽21 kN/m3, and cured
for 6 months before being transferred to the sand box for testing.
The asphalt concrete layer was placed on the subgrade of Ottawa
sand (D 50⫽0.25 mm, C u ⫽1.65, ␥⫽17.9 kN/m3兲. The width of
the asphalt concrete layer was slightly less than the width of the
sand box so that it did induce side friction by touching the sides
of the box. The sides of the wall were transparent and lubricated
with grid markers so that the deformation could be observed. In
one of the tests, a biaxial polypropylene geogrid was used. The
geogrid had a mass of 550 g/m2 and a tensile strength of 46 kN/m.
The behavior of this geogrid has been studied by Ling et al.
共1998兲. The strains along the geogrid were measured using five
strain gages at different locations, including one below the center
of loading area, and the others were about 6 cm apart from each
other, away from the center of loading. The settlement of the
asphalt concrete layer was measured at three locations using dis-
placement transducers 共LVDT兲: one at the loading plate and the
others at distances of 10 and 20 cm, respectively, from the center.
The material properties of asphalt concrete, sand, and geogrid
related to the analysis are elaborated subsequently.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. Settlement profile of reinforced asphalt concrete layer with
geogrid stiffness J⫽1160 kN/m: 共a兲 associated flow rule and 共b兲 non-
associated flow rule
Finite Element Analysis
PLAXIS 共Brinkgreve and Vermeer 1998兲 was used in this study
because of its success in analyzing some geotechnical problems
up to the limit state, that is failure 共e.g., de Borst and Vermeer
1984兲. The arc-length control algorithm allows a precise predic-
tion of collapse load, whereas conventional load-control algo-
rithm with iterative procedure usually fails to converge as failure
is approached. A brief summary of the main features pertaining to
the analysis of geogrid-reinforced asphalt pavement is given
below.
PLAXIS allows automatic mesh generation with options for
global and local mesh refinement. The six- and 15-node triangular
elements are available for the analysis, but six-node elements
were used for the sand and asphalt layers. Full integration was
used in the analysis. The analyses were performed under two-
dimensional plane strain conditions. Several advanced soil mod-
els are available, but the simple elastoplastic model employing
Mohr–Coulomb criteria was used in the analysis so that selection
of parameters is straightforward. Geosynthetic was simulated
using three-node noncompression bar elements having linear elas-
tic properties.
Finite Element Modeling
Three types of analysis were conducted simulating loading tests
of sand foundation alone, pavement over sand foundation 共unre-
inforced pavement兲, and geosynthetic-reinforced pavement over
sand foundation 共reinforced pavement兲. The sand foundation was
804 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Fig. 6. Settlement profile of reinforced asphalt concrete layer with
geogrid stiffness J⫽400 kN/m: 共a兲 associated flow rule and 共b兲 non-
associated flow rule
analyzed to ensure robustness of the algorithms before using it for
more sophisticated pavement systems. In all analyses, the associ-
ated and nonassociated plastic flow rules were used for the sub-
grade foundation.
Fig. 1共b兲 shows the two-dimensional finite element mesh used
for the analysis of unreinforced pavement and geogrid-reinforced
pavement system, where the difference lies in the presence of
geogrid elements. Because of symmetrical geometry, only half of
the pavement system was considered. The two sides of the mesh
were fixed horizontally but allowed to displace vertically, whereas
the bottom was assumed rough by restraining horizontally and
vertical displacements. Vertical displacement was prescribed at
the nodes for the width of loading plate. Failure load was ob-
tained for the analysis when the solution failed to converge. The
mesh of sand foundation alone consisted of 1578 elements and
3253 nodes. The mesh was constructed so that fine elements were
used under the footing to enable a more reasonable prediction of
failure load.
The asphalt pavement was 4 cm thick. The mesh for unrein-
forced pavement consisted of 1365 elements for the soil and 619
elements for the asphalt layer. The mesh had a total of 4089
nodes. The asphalt layer was not fixed at the side boundary so that
it resembled the test conditions.
As shown in Fig. 1共b兲, a geogrid layer was included for the
reinforced pavement at the asphalt concrete–sand interface. The
thickness of asphalt layer was 4.7 cm, which resembled the test.
The total number of elements in the sand was the same as unre-
inforced pavement, but the total number of elements in the asphalt
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Strain distribution of geogrid in asphalt concrete layer with
geogrid stiffness J⫽1,160 kN/m: 共a兲 associated flow rule and 共b兲
nonassociated flow rule
layer was increased to 755 because of a different thickness com-
pared to the case of unreinforced pavement. The geogrid con-
sisted of 43 three-node bar elements. A full bonding was assumed
between the asphalt and geogrid, since the biaxial geogrid was
interlocked in the asphalt concrete. The end of the geogrid layer
was not fixed to the side wall.
Constitutive Models and Soil Parameters
The analyses presented herewith for the soil and asphalt materials
were based on elastic perfectly plastic models. The soil model
followed Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria with an associated or
nonassociated flow rule. Three yield functions f 1 , f 2 , and f 3 are
used to define fully Mohr–Coulomb yield conditions in terms of
principal stresses. They together represent a hexagonal cone in the
principal stress space. In addition, three plastic potential functions
g 1 , g 2 , and g 3 are defined. The yield and potential functions are
given in Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲, respectively:
f 1 ⫽ 21 兩 ␴ 2 ⫺␴ 3 兩 ⫹ 21 共 ␴ 2 ⫹␴ 3 兲 sin ␾⫺c cos ␾⭐0
f 2 ⫽ 12 兩 ␴ 3 ⫺␴ 1 兩 ⫹ 21 共 ␴ 3 ⫹␴ 1 兲 sin ␾⫺c cos ␾⭐0
f 3 ⫽ 12 兩 ␴ 1 ⫺␴ 2 兩 ⫹ 21 共 ␴ 1 ⫹␴ 2 兲 sin ␾⫺c cos ␾⭐0
g 1 ⫽ 21 兩 ␴ 2 ⫺␴ 3 兩 ⫹ 21 共 ␴ 2 ⫹␴ 3 兲 sin ␺
g 2 ⫽ 21 兩 ␴ 3 ⫺␴ 1 兩 ⫹ 21 共 ␴ 3 ⫹␴ 1 兲 sin ␺
g 3 ⫽ 21 兩 ␴ 1 ⫺␴ 2 兩 ⫹ 21 共 ␴ 1 ⫹␴ 2 兲 sin ␺
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Fig. 8. Strain distribution of geogrid in asphalt concrete layer with
geogrid stiffness J⫽400 kN/m: 共a兲 associated flow rule and 共b兲 non-
associated flow rule
where ␴ 1 , ␴ 2 , and ␴ 3 ⫽three principal stresses; c, ␾, and
␺⫽cohesion, angle of internal friction, and angle of dilation, re-
spectively. ␺ is required in modeling positive plastic volumetric
strain increments. In addition, the Young’s modulus E and Pois-
son ratio ␯ are required to define the elastic components of the
model.
Note that associated flow rule is based on normality 共Hill
1950兲 and it satisfies Drucker’s postulates 共Drucker 1950a,b兲,
whereas nonassociated flow rule does not. Recently, considerable
efforts have been directed to develop advanced elasto-plastic
models of nonassociated flow conditions 共e.g., Vermeer 1998兲, but
associated flow still dominates the analysis. The numerical details
of the models are available in Brinkgreve and Vermeer 共1998兲.
Ottawa Sand
For Ottawa sand, the angle of internal friction was obtained from
the triaxial compression tests as ␾⫽41° 共Ling and Liu 2001兲.
Under plane strain compression, the angle of friction is a few
(1a) degrees higher than that obtained from triaxial compression test
(1b) 共for example, Tatsuoka et al. 1986兲. Therefore, the plane strain
angle of internal friction was selected as 45° in the analysis. The
(1c) elastic properties for the sand were E⫽5,000 kPa and ␯⫽0.35.
Note, however, that because of low confining pressure in the
(2a) model test, a small cohesion c⫽0.01 kPa was used to improve the
(2b) stability of solution.
For nonassociated flow, the angle of dilation was estimated
(2c) following Bolton’s relationships 共1986兲:
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003 / 805
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Relationships between geogrid strain and applied stress at
different locations with geogrid stiffness J⫽1,160 kN/m: 共a兲 associ-
ated flow rule and 共b兲 nonassociated flow rule
␾⫽␾ cri⫹0.8␺ (3)
where ␾ and ␾ cri⫽peak and critical values, respectively, for the
angle of internal friction, and ␺ is the angle of dilation. ␾ and
␾ cri⫽45° and 33°, respectively, thus ␺ was determined as 15°.
For associated flow, ␾⫽␺⫽45°.
Asphalt Concrete
The effect of confining pressure acting in the asphalt layer is,
typically, negligible because of the small thickness. Thus, the
strength of asphalt material may be assigned through the cohe-
sion, c, while assumed independent of the angle of friction. The
ultimate strength was obtained from the unconfined compression
tests as 540 kPa 共Ling and Liu 2001兲 or c⫽270 kPa. The angle of
internal friction and angle of dilation were both taken as zero such
that the model resembled von Mises yield criteria. The Young’s
modulus was obtained from three-point bending tests as E
⫽8,000 kPa 共Ling and Liu 2001兲. The Poisson ratio was ␯⫽0.35.
Note that time and temperature dependent behavior of asphalt
concrete, though not simulated in this study, would be an issue
considering long-term performance.
Geogrid
In PLAXIS, the only model relevant for geogrid was a bar ele-
ment having linear elastic properties. It is strongly felt that a
nonlinear elastic model such as that proposed by Ling et al.
共1995, 2000兲 should be incorporated into PLAXIS. However, the
developer did not accommodate the change 共private communica-
tion 1999兲 and the existing version of program does not have the
806 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Fig. 10. Relationships between geogrid strain and applied stress at
different locations with geogrid stiffness J⫽400 kN/m: 共a兲 associated
flow rule and 共b兲 nonassociated flow rule
feature to allow for users’ models. Therefore, for the polypropyl-
ene geogrid, the initial stiffness, stiffness corresponding to 5%
axial strain and stiffness at peak strength were used for the analy-
sis (J⫽1,160, 600, and 400 kN/m兲. Note that in design, most
geosynthetics are reported for the strength at 5% axial strain level.
Comparison of Results
The results obtained from the analyses were compared with the
experimental results. The load–settlement curve of the loading
plate, the settlement profile of the asphalt layer, and the strain
distributions in the geogrid reinforcement are compared. The
comparison gives insight into the behavior and failure mechanism
under excessive loading, although the information may not be
used for routine design of pavement system.
Sand Foundation
Fig. 2共a兲 shows the load–displacement relationships of the sand
foundation. The stress q was normalized by the unit weight of soil
␥ and width of footing B, while the footing settlement ␦ was
normalized by its width. The results are shown as normalized
form so that it is not related to any unit and also consistent with
the bearing capacity equation. The analysis slightly overpredicted
the bearing capacity in the case of associated flow rule. The bear-
ing capacity determined by Terzaghi’s equation or that obtained
experimentally was 169 kPa, whereas that of the analysis was 176
kPa. The nonassociated flow rule gave 101 kPa, which was an
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 11. Effect of geogrid thickness on normalized load–settlement
relationships: 共a兲 associated flow rule and 共b兲 nonassociated flow rule
underprediction. In fact, the analysis could not converge for larger
displacement in the case of nonassociated flow rule. Note that the
confining pressure acting on this kind of small model test is ex-
tremely low such that it could have affected the convergence.
Also, the traditional formulation of finite element is incapable of
conducting postpeak analysis into the strain-softening region
共e.g., Tanaka and Kawamoto 1989兲, so the study is focused on the
peak strength.
Unreinforced Pavement
The results of analysis for the unreinforced pavement are shown
in Fig. 2共b兲. The relationships between normalized stress and dis-
placement indicated that both associated and nonassociated flow
rules compared favorably with the test results, though a better
agreement was obtained for the nonassociated flow rule. The
model with associated flow rule slightly overpredicted the bearing
capacity. The convergence could have been improved by the con-
fining stress acting in the sand because of the dead weight of
asphalt layer.
The settlement profile for the asphalt surface is shown in Fig.
3. It is seen that the agreement was very good up to a normalized
stress level q/␥B⫽300. The results obtained for the analysis with
associated flow rule deviated from the experiment at q/␥B
⫽600. For the nonassociated flow rule, the overall agreement was
better, especially the agreement at q/␥B⫽600 was better than
that of associated flow rule. The uplifting of the asphalt end was
detected in the analyses.
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003 / 807
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Fig. 12. Effect of asphalt concrete stiffness on normalized load–
settlement relationships: 共a兲 associated flow rule and 共b兲 nonassoci-
ated flow rule
Reinforced Pavement
Figs. 4共a and b兲 show the relationships between normalized stress
and settlement for the associated and nonassociated flow condi-
tions. In both cases, the effects of selected stiffness of reinforce-
ment were negligibly small. It seems that the associated flow rule
was capable of simulating the load-settlement relationships better
than the non-associated flow rule 关Fig. 4共a兲兴.
The settlement profiles of asphalt layer that were obtained
from the analysis are compared with the experimental results at
several different stress levels for the associated and non-
associated flow conditions 共Figs. 5 and 6兲. Figs. 5共a and b兲 show
the results with the initial stiffness (J⫽1160 kN/m) of reinforce-
ment, whereas Figs. 6共a and b兲 show that of the stiffness at peak
strength (J⫽400 kN/m). Using the initial stiffness, very little dif-
ference in results is seen between the settlement profiles obtained
from the associated and non-associated flow rules. Using the stiff-
ness at failure, the results of comparison at large stress level were
less satisfactory than that of the initial stiffness.
The strain distributions in the reinforcement layer are com-
pared in Figs. 7共a and b兲 for the associated and nonassociated
flow rules, respectively, using the initial stiffness of the geogrid.
The results obtained for the associated and nonassociated flow
rules using the stiffness at failure are shown in Figs. 8共a and b兲,
respectively. It is seen that the assumption of linear elastic geo-
grid was incapable of simulating the experimental results satisfac-
torily as the stress level increased. The use of initial stiffness gave
a too stiff response in the geogrid, whereas the stiffness at failure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Effect of strength of subgrade foundation on normalized
load–settlement relationships with associated flow rule: 共a兲 re-
inforced pavement and 共b兲 unreinforced pavement
gave a better prediction of strain distribution. The same trend of
results is seen for the strain versus displacement relationships
throughout the loading test for the associated and nonassociated
flow rules 共Figs. 9 and 10兲.
The results of simulation for the reinforced pavement seem
satisfactory for both associated and nonassociated flow rules, but
the nonassociated case seems produced slightly better agreement.
The strains predicted in the geogrid were less satisfactory when
the stress level increased. The results were due to the limitation of
a linear elastic model in expressing the nonlinear behavior of
geogrid.
Parametric Studies
The analytical procedures had been validated with well-controlled
tests of sand foundation, unreinforced and reinforced pavements.
Therefore, the effects of several design parameters, such as the
thickness of asphalt layer, stiffness of geogrid, and strength of
foundation were investigated. The input parameters and geom-
etries used for reinforced pavement, as presented earlier, were
used.
Fig. 11 shows the effects of the thickness of asphalt layer on
the load–displacement relationship where the stiffness of geogrid
was selected as 400 kN/m. The analysis indicated that as the
thickness of asphalt layer increases, the bearing capacity of as-
phalt pavement is also increased. However, there exists an upper
limit related to the thickness of asphalt layer, upon which no
improvement in bearing capacity was observed. The ideal thick-
808 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Fig. 14. Effect of strength of subgrade foundation on normalized
load–settlement relationships with nonassociated flow rule: 共a兲 re-
inforced pavement and 共b兲 unreinforced pavement
ness is 4 cm. Note that for thickness greater than 4 cm, the bear-
ing capacity of the pavement system was determined by the as-
phalt layer. Yielding occurred in the asphalt concrete before the
sand foundation.
Fig. 12 shows the effects of geogrid stiffness on the response
of the pavement. It is seen that the bearing capacity of the pave-
ment improved as the stiffness of geogrid is increased. There is
also an upper limit of stiffness that may render improvement in
the bearing capacity. The stiffness affected displacement up to
about 20% the footing width. For presented parametric studies,
J⫽1,000 kN/m gave practically the same results as that of J
⫽400 kN/m.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the normalized load and settlement re-
lationships of reinforced and unreinforced asphalt pavement as-
suming associated and nonassociated flow rules for the subgrade
foundation, respectively. The angle of internal friction of sub-
grade foundation was investigated for the range of values ␾⫽25–
45° for associated flow rule and ␾⫽33– 45° for nonassociated
flow rule. Note that Griffiths 共1982兲 and de Borst and Vermeer
共1984兲 had indicated that the Young’s modulus does not affect the
failure load. In using nonassociated flow rule, the angle of dila-
tion was decided following Eq. 共2兲. The analyses resembled the
cases where the foundation was prepared with the same sand at
different densities, and thus different friction angles are obtained.
The results of analysis show that the unreinforced pavement gave
lower failure load than the reinforced case. The failure load ob-
tained from nonassociated flow rule was smaller than correspond-
ing results of associated flow rule. The results from nonassociated
flow rule were less stable than those of associated flow rule.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 15. Reinforcement effect due to strength of subgrade foundation
with associated flow rule: 共a兲 at different settlement and 共b兲 at failure
While the failure load was attained in 20% the displacement ratio
or less in unreinforced pavement, the reinforced pavement
reached much larger displacement up to 60% before failure load
was reached. Figs. 15 and 16 show the ratio of strength mobilized
for the reinforced and unreinforced pavements at a displacement
ratio of 5%, 10%, and 20% of footing width. It is natural to
anticipate that as the strength of subgrade foundation increases,
the reinforcement effect reduces. The reinforcement effect in-
creases with increasing displacement, that is, when the strain in
the reinforcement was mobilized. The ratio of ultimate load was
in the range of 1.9–2.5 for the values of soil strength investigated.
It is of interest to note that in the associated flow, when the angle
of internal friction exceeded 40°, the reinforcement ratio started
to reduce. The result was due to the failure of the asphalt concrete
layer instead of the subgrade foundation. The strength ratio was
greater for nonassociated flow and the ratio also increased with
the increase in the strength of subgrade foundation.
Summary and Conclusions
This paper outlined a two-dimensional finite element procedure
for analyzing geogrid-reinforced pavement system. The proce-
dures were validated with several well-controlled laboratory load-
ing tests and then extended for a series of parametric studies. The
procedure proved very useful for designing unconventional geo-
technical system where solutions do not exist. The following con-
clusions were drawn from this study:
• The finite element procedures employed were able to predict
with reasonable accuracy the load–displacement relationships
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003 / 809
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Fig. 16. Reinforcement effect due to strength of subgrade foundation
with nonassociated flow rule: 共a兲 at different settlement and 共b兲 at
failure load ratio
of sand foundation, unreinforced and reinforced pavement sys-
tems. The procedures were able to simulate the improved per-
formance of geogrid-reinforced asphalt pavement over unrein-
forced pavement system.
• The difference in results of using nonassociated and associated
flow rules were small for the pavement systems. The settle-
ment profiles were well predicted. The failure load obtained
from nonassociated flow rules was slightly smaller than that of
associated flow rule. The results showed that nonassociated
flow rule is more relevant for the simple elastoplastic analysis
of asphalt pavements that are reinforced with geogrid.
• An increased thickness of asphaltic concrete layer improved
the performance of asphalt pavement system. However, when
an upper limit of thickness is attained, the failure occurred in
the asphalt layer that determined the failure load of the pave-
ment system.
• The stiffness of geogrid affected the load–settlement relation-
ships. There is an upper limit of stiffness that led to the im-
provement. However, different values of stiffness gave rise to
different strain distributions in the geogrid. A linear elastic
model of geogrid predicted poorly the strain distributions in
the geogrid layer. Thus, PLAXIS should be incorporated with
a nonlinear geogrid model for future analysis of reinforced
pavement system.
• The reinforcement effect was more pronounced for weaker
subgrade foundation. The reinforcement effect increased as the
strain level was increased. These effects were related to the
tensile strain mobilized in the geogrid reinforcement.
 The analyses as presented were limited to time- and
temperature-independent behavior. The effects of dynamic load-
ing and three-dimensional configurations were not considered.
These effects should be investigated through the development of
more versatile soil models. Additional comparisons against full-
scale test results are suggested.
Acknowledgments
The first writer was supported by the National Science Founda-
tion Career Award under Grant No. CMS-0092739 with Dr. Clif-
ford J. Astill as the Program Director.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
B ⫽ footing width;
c ⫽ cohesion;
C u ⫽ uniformity coefficient;
D 50 ⫽ mean grain diameter;
E ⫽ Young’s modulus,
f 1 , f 2 , f 3 ⫽ yield functions;
g 1 ,g 2 ,g 3 ⫽ potential functions;
J ⫽ stiffness of geogrid reinforcement;
q, q r ,q u ⫽ stress, reinforced and unreinforced values;
X ⫽ horizontal distance measured from footing
center;
␦ ⫽ footing vertical displacement;
␴ 1 ,␴ 2 ,␴ 3 ⫽ principal stresses;
␧ ⫽ tensile strain in geogrid reinforcement;
␾,␾ cri ⫽ peak value and critical value of angle of inter-
nal friction;
␥ ⫽ unit weight;
␯ ⫽ Poisson’s ratio; and
␺ ⫽ angle of dilation.
References
Almedia, J. R. 共1993兲. ‘‘Development and validation of a finite element
code for pavement analysis.’’ Flexible pavements, Balkema, Rotter-
dam, The Netherlands, 175–184.
Balay, J., and Kabre, H. 共1993兲. ‘‘Modelization of flexible pavements
with the Cesar-LCPC FEM Program.’’ Flexible pavements, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 185–1192.
Bolton, M. D. 共1986兲. ‘‘The strength and dilatancy of sands.’’ Geotech-
nique, 36共1兲, 65–78.
Brill, D. R. 共1998兲. ‘‘Development of advanced computational models for
airport pavement design.’’ Rep. No. DOT/FAA/AR-97/47, Office of
Aviation Research, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., and Vermeer, P. A. 共1998兲. PLAXIS, Version 7,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Brown, S. F., Brunton, J. M., Hughes, D. A. B., and Brodrick, B. V.
共1985兲. ‘‘Polymer grid reinforcement of asphalt.’’ Proc., Assoc. of
Asphalt Paving Technologists, 54, 18 – 41.
Burmister, D. M. 共1943兲. ‘‘The theory of stresses and displacements in
layered systems and applications to the design of airport runways.’’
Highw. Res. Board, Proc. Annu. Meet., 23, 126 –144.
Burmister, D. M. 共1945兲. ‘‘The general theory of stresses and displace-
ments in layered soil systems.’’ J. Appl. Phys., 6共2兲, 89–96; 6共3兲,
126 –127; 6共5兲, 296 –302.
Burmister, D. M. 共1958兲. ‘‘Evaluation of the pavement systems of the
WASHO road test by layered system methods.’’ Highway Res. Board
Bull., 177.
810 / JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
Burmister, D. M. 共1962兲. ‘‘Applications of layered concepts and prin-
ciples to interpretations and evaluations of asphalt pavement perfor-
mances and to design and construction.’’ Proc., Int. Conf. on Struc-
tural Design of Asphalt Pavements, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Mich., 218 –233.
Chen, D.-H., Zaman, M., Laguros, J., and Soltani, A. 共1995兲. ‘‘Assess-
ment of computer programs for analysis of flexible pavement struc-
ture.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. No. 1482, National Research Council, Wash-
ington, D.C., 123–133.
Cho, Y.-H., McCullough, B. F., and Weissmann, J. 共1996兲. ‘‘Consider-
ations on finite element method application in pavement structural
analysis.’’ Transp. Res. Rec. No. 1539, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 96 –101.
de Borst, R., and Vermeer, P. A. 共1984兲. ‘‘Possibilities and limitations of
finite elements for limit analysis.’’ Geotechnique, 34共2兲, 199–210.
Drucker, D. C. 共1950a兲. ‘‘Some implication of work hardening and ideal
plasticity.’’ Q. Appl. Math., 7, 411– 418.
Drucker, D. C. 共1950b兲. ‘‘A more fundamental approach to stress–strain
relations.’’ Proc., 1st U.S. Congr. of Appl. Mech., 487– 491.
Duncan, J. M., Monismith, C. L., and Wilson, E. L. 共1968兲. ‘‘Finite ele-
ment analyses of pavements.’’ Highway Res. Rec. No. 228, 18 –32.
Giroud, J. P., and Noiray, L. 共1981兲. ‘‘Geotextile reinforced unpaved road
design.’’ J. Geotech. Eng. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 107共9兲, 1233–
1254.
Griffiths, D. V. 共1982兲. ‘‘Computation of bearing capacity factors using
finite elements.’’ Geotechnique, 32共3兲, 195–202.
Guezouli, S., Elhannani, M., and Jouve, P. 共1993兲. ‘‘NOEL: A nonlinear
finite element code for road pavement analysis.’’ Flexible pavements,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 193–200.
Haas, R. 共1985兲. ‘‘Structural behavior of Tensar reinforced pavements
and some field applications.’’ Polymer grid reinforcement, Telford,
London, 166 –170.
Haas, R., and Rodway, B. L. 共2001兲. ‘‘Pavement design.’’ Geotechnical
and geoenvironmental engineering handbook, R. K. Rowe, ed., 361–
393.
Hill, R. 共1950兲. The Mathematical theory of plasticity, Clarendon,
Oxford, U.K.
Hjelmstad, K. M., Kim, J., and Zuo, Q. H. 共1997兲. ‘‘Finite element pro-
cedures for three-dimensional pavement analysis.’’ Proc., Airfield
Pavement Conf., F. V. Hermann, ed., ASCE, New York, 125–137.
Holtz, R. D., and Sivakugan, K. 共1987兲. ‘‘Design charts for roads with
geotextiles.’’ Geotext. Geomembr., 5共3兲, 191–200.
Huang, Y. H. 共1993兲. Pavement analysis and design, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Jouve, P. 共1993兲. ‘‘Validation of the improved analytical approach.’’ Flex-
ible pavements, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 172–174.
Jouve, P., and Guezouli, S. 共1993a兲. ‘‘Comparison and harmonized devel-
opment of some finite element programs.’’ Flexible pavements,
Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 147–164.
Jouve, P., and Guezouli, S. 共1993b兲. ‘‘Evolution and recommendations for
finite element programs.’’ Flexible pavements, Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 165–171.
Koerner, R. M. 共1998兲. Designing with geosynthetics, 4th Ed., Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Kuo, C.-M., Hall, K. T., and Darter, M. I. 共1995兲. ‘‘Three-dimensional
finite element model for analysis of concrete pavement support.’’
Transportation Res. Rec. No. 1505, National Research Council, Wash-
ington, D.C., 119–127.
Ling, H. I., Tatsuoka, F., and Tateyama, M. 共1995兲. ‘‘Simulating the per-
formance of GRS-RW by finite-element procedure.’’ J. Geotech. Eng.,
121共4兲, 330–340.
Ling, H. I., Mohri, Y., and Kawabata, T. 共1998兲. ‘‘Tensile properties of
geogrids under cyclic loadings.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
124共8兲, 782–787.
Ling, H. I., and Liu, Z. 共2001兲. ‘‘Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced
asphalt pavements.’’ J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共2兲, 177–184.
Ling, H. I., Cardany, C., Sun, L.-X., and Hashimoto, H. 共2000兲. ‘‘Finite
element analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining wall with
concrete-block facing.’’ Geosynthet. Int., 7共3兲, 163–188.
 Love, J. P., Burd, H. J., Milligna, G. W. E., and Houlsby, G. T. 共1987兲.
‘‘Analytical and model studies of reinforcement of a layer of granular
fill on a soft clay subgrade.’’ Can. Geotech. J., 24, 611– 622.
Maker, B. M. 共1995兲. ‘‘NIKE3D—A nonlinear, implicit, three-
dimensional finite element code for solid and structural mechanics—
User’s manual.’’ Rep. No. UCRL-MA-105268, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif.
Perkins, S. W., Ismeik, M., Fogelsong, M. L., Wang, Y., and Cuelho, E. V.
共1998兲. ‘‘Geosynthetic reinforced pavements: Overview and prelimi-
nary results.’’ Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, Industrial Fab-
rics Association International, 951–958.
Rigo, J. M., Degeimbre, R., and Francken, L., eds. 共1993兲. Reflective
cracking in pavements, E&FN Spon, London.
Roschen, T. J. 共1997兲. ‘‘A case study into the use of pavement reinforcing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY on 03/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
grid, mastic, and membrane interlayers on asphalt concrete overlays.’’
Proc., Geosynth. 97, Industrial Fabrics Association International,
725–747.
Schelt, W., Vos, E., Galjaard, P. J., and Hendriks, M. A. N. 共1993兲. ‘‘The
nonlinear elastic model of Boyce: An evaluation of the model in the
FEM program DIANA.’’ Flexible pavements, Balkema, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 165–171.
Tanaka, T., and Kawamoto, O. 共1989兲. ‘‘Plastic collapse analysis of strain
softening materials.’’ Numerical models in geomechanics, S. Pi-
JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS © ASCE / JULY 2003 / 811
J. Eng. Mech. 2003.129:801-811.
etruszczak and G. N. Pande, eds., Elsevier Applied Science, New
York, 667– 674.
Tatsuoka, F., Sakamoto, M., Kawamura, T., and Fukushima, S. 共1986兲.
‘‘Strength and deformation characteristics of sand in plane strain com-
pression at extremely low pressures.’’ Soils Found., 26共1兲, 65– 84.
Uddin, W. 共1998兲. ‘‘Application of 3D-finite element dynamic analysis
for pavement evaluation.’’ Proc., 1st National Symp. on 3D Finite
Element Modeling for Pavement Analysis and Design, Charleston,
W.V., 95–109.
Vermeer, P. A. 共1998兲. ‘‘Nonassociated plasticity for soils, concrete and
rock.’’ Physics of dry granular media, H. J. Herrmann et al., eds.,
Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 163–196.
Weissman, S. L., and Sousa, J. B. 共1993兲. ‘‘An elastoplastic constitutive
law for asphalt aggregate mixtures.’’ Flexible pavements, Balkema,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 207–214.
Wright, P. J., and Zheng, L. 共1993兲. ‘‘Calculation of the permanent de-
formation in a flexible pavement.’’ Flexible pavements, Balkema, Rot-
terdam, The Netherlands, 215–221.
Zaghloul, S., and White, T., 共1993兲. ‘‘Use of a three-dimensional, dy-
namic finite element program for analysis of flexible pavement.’’
Transp. Res. Rec. No. 1388, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 60– 69.