Analytical Model For Resilient Modulus and Permanent Deformation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unbound Granular Material

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
Submitted June 18, 2011; accepted December 17, 2012;

posted ahead of print December 19, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000879
Analytical Model for Resilient Modulus and Permanent Deformation of
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unbound Granular Material
Xiaoming Yang1 and Jie Han2, M. ASCE
Abstract: In order to consider the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement in a mechanistic-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Michigan on 02/22/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
t
ip
empirical pavement design method, the resilient modulus and the permanent deformation
d cr
behaviors of a geosynthetic-reinforced unbound granular material (UGM) must be considered.
Many researchers conducted repeated load triaxial (RLT) tests to investigate the resilient and
te s
di nu
permanent deformation behavior of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM. However, these tests are
difficult to perform and the results are often interpreted empirically, which limit the
ye a
implementation of the research results. In this study, an analytical model was developed to
op M
predict the resilient modulus and permanent deformation of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM in
RLT tests. The analytical model is compatible with the resilient modulus and permanent
C ted
deformation models in the current mechanistic empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG).
Both planar and three-dimensional geosynthetics can be analyzed using this model. RLT test
ot p
results from two published studies were selected to validate the proposed analytical model. In
N ce
general, the analytical results confirmed and explained the typical test observations from
Ac
previous studies that geosynthetic reinforcement is more effective in reducing the permanent
deformation than increasing the resilient modulus of the UGM sample. A parametric analysis
was conducted to investigate the effect of input parameters (material properties, sample
dimension, and stress level) on the analytical model. The limitation, assumption, and
implementation of the model are also discussed.
1
Assistant Professor, Oklahoma State University, 207 Engineering South, Stillwater, OK 74078, Email:
xmyang@okstate.edu
2
(Corresponding author) Professor, the University of Kansas, 1530 w 15th street, Lawrence, KS 66045, Email:
jiehan@ku.edu
Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering. Submitted June 18, 2011; accepted December 17, 2012;
CE Database subject headings: pavement, geosynthetics, base course, reinforcement, resilient
modulus
Introduction
t
Geosynthetics can be used to reinforce unbound granular materials (UGM) in both paved and
ip
unpaved roads (e.g., Webster 1992; Giroud and Han 2004a and 2004b; Perkins 2004; Kwon et al.
d cr
2009). Two types of geosynthetics are most commonly used for this purpose: planar
te s
reinforcement (i.e., geogrid and woven geotextile) and three-dimensional reinforcement (i.e.,
di nu
geocell). In flexible pavements, the primary mechanism of the unbound base reinforcement
using geosynthetics has been attributed to the lateral constraint effect (Perkins and Ismeik 1997).
ye a
op M
Geosynthetics are able to control the lateral movement of the UGM through friction/interlocking
(with planar geosynthetic reinforcement) or direct confinement (by geocell reinforcement). In

C ted
this process, the geosynthetic applies an additional confining stress to the UGM, which may
increase the resilient modulus and reduce the permanent deformation of the reinforced material
ot p
under repeated loads. Interlocking is a primary mechanism between geogrid and particles. How
N ce
to quantify the effect of interlocking is challenging. Discrete Element Method (DEM) has been
successfully used to analyze the effect of interlocking by several researchers, for example, Kwon
Ac
et al. (2008), Bhandari and Han, 2010, and Han and Bhandari, 2010. However, DEM is time-
consuming and difficult to be implemented for practical applications, such as the inclusion in the
mechanistic-empirical design method. Kown et al. (2008) attributed the construction-induced
residual stresses in the particles below and above the geogrid to the effect of the interlocking.
The experimental study by Brown et al. (2007) showed that the benefit of geogrid in the
improved performance of railway ballast depended on the relative dimensions of geogrid

apertures and ballast. The degree of aggregate-geogrid interlock depends on their relative
dimensions. Han and Bhandari (2010) confirmed the Brown et al. (2007) experimental results by
DEM. Ling and Liu (2003) modeled the interlocking between the asphalt concrete and the
geogrid using a fully bonded interface in their finite element analysis. However, no simple and
quantifiable relationship has been established between the residual stress and the degree of
t
ip
interlocking or between the behavior (resilient modulus and permanent deformation) of
d cr
geosynthetic-reinforced UBM and the degree of interlocking. Therefore, there is a great need for
te s
developing a simple analytical model to account for the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement
di nu
including interlocking on the resilient modulus and permanent deformation of the geosynthetic-
reinforced UBM.
ye a
op M
Many experimental studies have demonstrated the benefit of using geosynthetics in the roadway
base reinforcement (Webster 1979a; Webster 1979b; Webster 1992; Perkins 2002; Al-Qadi et al.
C ted
2008; Han et al. 2011). Empirical design methods (Webster 1993; Mengelt et al. 2000) were
also developed based on experimental data. However, these empirical design methods are often
ot p
limited to the materials, the pavement structures, and the load levels used in the original
N ce
experiments. Pavement design in the United States is currently under the transition from the
Ac
empirical design method to the new mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG). In
the MEPDG, the rutting of the flexible pavement is predicted based on the resilient strains at
different depths of the pavement and the empirical models that characterize the permanent
deformation behavior of different materials (ARA, Inc. 2004). To incorporate the geosynthetic
reinforcement design into the MEPDG, there is an urgent need for a rational method to consider

the benefit of geosynthetic-reinforcement in terms of the resilient modulus and permanent
deformation of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM.
In this paper, an analytical model is proposed to estimate the resilient modulus and permanent
deformation of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM under a repeated load triaxial (RLT) test
t
ip
condition. The proposed model can be applied to both planar and three-dimensional
d cr
geosynthetic reinforcements. The proposed model is validated using the experiment results from
te s
the literature. The assumption, limitation, and implementation of the analytical model are also
di nu
discussed in this paper.
ye a
Previous RLT Test Studies on the Geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
op M
The resilient modulus and permanent deformation of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM under a
C ted
repeated load are affected by material properties (of both UGM and geosynthetics) as well as the
stress level. Many researchers found it useful to perform RLT tests, where the stress level can be
controlled, to investigate the resilient modulus and permanent deformation of the geosynthetic-
ot p
N ce
reinforced UGM. Moghaddas-Nejad and Small (2003) conducted a series of RLT tests on
geogrid-reinforced UGMs under different levels of confining and deviatoric stresses. The test
Ac
results suggested that geosynthetics had a significant effect in reducing the permanent
deformation of the UGM under the repeated load but had no considerable influence on the
resilient modulus of the UGM. This phenomenon was also confirmed by Perkins (2004) and
Nazzal (2007) in their RLT test results. Mengelt et al. (2000) performed RLT tests to
investigate the resilient modulus and the permanent deformation behaviors of the geocell-
reinforced UGM. Two coarse-grained soils (gravel and sand) and one fine-grained soil (silty

clay) were used in their tests as infill materials. They constructed a special triaxial test cell to fit
the size (250 mm in diameter) of a single-unit of geocell-reinforced soil. The test results
indicated that geocell noticeably improved the resilient modulus of the silty clay (by 16.5% to
17.9%) but only slightly improved the resilient modulus of the gravel and the sand (by 1.4% to
3.2%).
t
ip
d cr
The Proposed Analytical Model
te s
One of the disadvantages in performing the RLT test is the limitation of the sample size. For
di nu
example, a piece of geogrid cut into a diameter of 150 mm may only contain several intact
“grids”, which may not represent the behavior of the geogrid-reinforced UGM in a large scale.
ye a
For geocell, special test equipment is required since the pocket size and the height of the geocell
op M
are often different from the dimension of a standard RLT test sample. In order to (1) better
C ted
understand the resilient modulus and the permanent deformation behaviors of the geosynthetic-
reinforced UGM and (2) predict the behavior without running RLT tests on reinforced samples,
an analytical model was derived as described below.

ot p
N ce
Unreinforced UGM Sample under an RLT Test

Ac
First, consider an unreinforced UGM cylindrical sample subjected to a constant confining stress
and a repeated deviatoric stress . Assuming the applied stress level does not exceed
the shakedown limit of the material and the sample will reach an elastic state (also called the
resilient state) after a large number of load repetitions. At this stage, all the elastic strain
generated in the loading period will recover in the following unloading period and the stress-
strain relationship of the sample can be described using the resilient modulus :

It is well known that the resilient modulus of the UGM is a stress-dependent material
property. In the current MEPDG, Eq. (2) is used to describe the stress-dependency of the
resilient modulus of the UGM:

t
ip
d cr
where , , and are the resilient modulus parameters of the material; is the atmosphere
te s
pressure; and are the bulk stress and the octahedral shear stress respectively. In the
di nu
triaxial test condition ( ), and can be calculated as
and .
ye a
op M
A series of RLT tests with different confining and cyclic stress levels have to be conducted in
C ted
order to determine the resilient modulus parameters ( , , and ) of a UGM. Such a series of
RLT tests is also called the resilient modulus test.

ot p
N ce
Another type of RLT test (also called the permanent deformation test) is used to evaluate the
permanent deformation behavior of the material. Permanent deformation tests are often run
Ac
under a single confining and deviatoric stress level with a large number of load repetitions
(usually more than 104 cycles). The permanent deformation behavior of the material is often
characterized by the relationship between the axial permanent strain (or the ratio of
) and the number of load repetitions . Many empirical models have been proposed to
describe such a relationship. The Tseng and Lytton’s (1989) model [Eq. (3)] is selected in this

study, because it is the basis of the permanent deformation model for UGMs adopted in the
current MEPDG.
In Eq. (3), , , and are the permanent deformation parameters of the UGM which can be
t
ip
determined by fitting the measured permanent deformation test curve. The form of Tseng and
d cr
Lytton’s (1989) model implies that the sample reaches the resilient state (the permanent
te s
deformation reaches constant) when . At the resilient state, the accumulated permanent
di nu
deformation approaches the value of . In practice, however, the value of obtained from
regression sometimes may be unreasonably large, especially when the shape of the measured
ye a
op M
permanent deformation curve has not approached a “constant”. It is therefore necessary to set a
limit to the load repetition in Eq. (3) to estimate the value of when the sample reaches the
C ted
resilient state. For most UGMs, 105 load repetitions should be adequate for the sample to reach
the resilient state.

ot p
N ce
Geosynthetic-reinforced UGM Sample under an RLT Test

Ac
Now consider a geosynthetic-reinforced UGM cylindrical sample subjected to a constant
confining stress and a repeated deviatoric stress . When the sample reaches the
resilient state, the soil has already developed some amount of permanent strains in both the axial
direction ( ) and the lateral direction ( ). The lateral expansive permanent strain of the
sample will induce an additional confining stress from the geosynthetics to the UGM. In a
geocell-reinforced sample, the additional confining stress can be assumed to be applied
uniformly through the hoop stress. In a geogrid- or geotextile-reinforced sample, the geogrid or

geotextile will apply a confining stress to the sample through either particle interlock with
geogrid apertures or interface friction between UGM particles and geotextile. The confining
stress will transfer to some vertical distance (or “influence zone”) on both sides of the
geogrid/geotextile through particle interlocking. Previous studies have shown that the “influence
zone” ranges from 10 to 15 cm (Perkins 2004; McDowell et al. 2006; Schuettpelz et al. 2009).
t
ip
In this study, a uniform additional confining stress is assumed to be applied on the entire
d cr
thickness of the sample to approximate the lateral constraint effect of geogrid/getextile (as shown
te s
in Fig. 1). Thus in either the geocell- or the planar geosynthetic-reinforced sample, the total
di nu
lateral confining stress at the resilient state becomes . With the above approximation,
the stress-strain behavior at any location of the sample becomes identical.

ye a
op M
Before establishing the stress-strain relationship of the reinforced sample, it should be noted that
C ted
the resilient modulus in Eq. (2) is the secant modulus when the stress state of the soil is
changed from the hydrostatic state ( ) to another stress state with an increased (
). Actually, it does not matter if the axial stress increases or decreases because the major and
ot p
N ce
the minor principle stresses in Equation 2 are exchangeable. Therefore, the stress-strain behavior
for a reinforced UGM sample in a loading cycle (the axial stress increases from to ) has to
Ac
be analyzed in two consequent stages. In Stage 1, the axial stress increases from to
so that the UGM sample reaches a hydrostatic state (i.e., confining stress = axial stress =
). In Stage 2, the axial stress continues to increase from to . The stress-
strain relationships in the above two stages are derived as follows:

Stage 1: The axial stress increases from to . The resilient modulus in this stage
can be determined by Eq. (2) with and .
Stage 2: The axial stress continues to increase from to . The resilient modulus in
t
this stage can be determined by Eq. (2) with and
ip
d cr
te s
di nu
Thus, the full resilient stress-strain relationship of the geosynthetic-reinforced sample can be
derived by combining the above two stages:

ye a
op M
It should be noted that the cyclic load of Stage 1 results in an axial extension, while the cyclic
C ted
load of Stage 2 results in an axial compression. Based on Eq. (3), these two components together
result in the overall axial permanent deformation when the sample reaches the resilient state:
ot p
N ce
Ac
The next step is to establish the relationship between the additional confining stress and the
permanent strain of the sample. Here it is necessary to consider planar (geogrid and geotextile)
and three-dimensional (geocell) geosynthetics separately.
(i) Planar Geosynthetic Reinforcement

In a geogrid or geotextile-reinforced UGM sample, the radial interaction stress applied by the
UGM to the geosynthetic can be considered as equivalent to an axisymmetric tensile stress (in
force/length) applied at the outer boundary of the geosynthetic, which is able to stretch the
geosynthetic to the same extent (as shown in Fig. 1). Under an axisymmetric plane-stress
condition, when the circular geosynthetic is only subjected to a external boundary stress , the
t
ip
geosynthetic develops uniform normal strains in both radial and circumferential directions
d cr
( ):
te s
di nu
in which
ye a and are the tensile stiffness and the Poisson’s ratio of the geosynthetic. Inversely,
the load applied from the planar geosynthetic to the UGM sample can be considered as an
op M
equivalent compressive stress of the same magnitude applied at the location of the
geosynthetic inclusion (Fig. 1). If the equivalent compressive stress is distributed to the entire
C ted
thickness of the UGM sample, the additional confining stress applied to the sample can be
calculated as:
ot p
N ce
Ac
It should be noted that, due to the interaction between the geosynthetic and the UGM, neither the
stress nor the strain is uniform within a geosynthetic-reinforced UGM sample. Nonetheless,
Equation 7 can easily be modified to approximate the interaction between the reinforcement and
the soil, as follows.
10

A bonding coefficient was introduced to account for the radial strain difference between the
geosynthetic and the UGM, i.e., . When , the geosynthetic is fully bonded with
the UGM. When , the geosynthetic has no interaction with the UGM. The resulted
relationship between and the permanent strain of the UGM sample is:
t
ip
d cr
A rigorous stress-strain analysis considering the relative slippage between the geosynthetic and
the UGM is presented in the Appendix. It is shown that the bonding coefficient is an implicit
te s
di nu
function of geosynthetic tensile stiffness , the interaction spring stiffness , the diameter of the
sample , and the Poisson’s ratio of the geosynthetic

ye a . Figure 2 presents the value of solved
based on a range of the above parameters. Apparently, the bonding coefficient increases with
op M
the diameter of the sample and the ratio of and decreases with the Poisson’s ratio of
the geosynthetic.
C ted
(ii) Three-dimensional Geosynthetic Reinforcement

ot p
For a geocell-reinforced UGM sample, assuming the tensile stress in the geocell is uniform along
N ce
the height of the sample (i.e., the geocell deforms as a right cylinder), the hoop stress of the
Ac
geocell can be calculated as:
where is the diameter of the sample, and is the tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic (in
force/length).
11

In addition, the relationship between the lateral permanent strain in Eqs. (8) and (9) and the
axial resilient strain in Eq. (5) are needed. UGM samples in RLT tests are often compacted
to 95% of the maximum dry density. Dense granular materials often exhibit an expansive
volumetric strain during shear. The behavior is also known as “dilation”. The dilation behavior
t
of the UGM can be characterized by a material property called dilation angle (Bolton 1986).
ip
Under a triaxial test, the dilation angle of a granular material can be calculated using Eq. (10)
d cr
(Tatsuoka 1987).
te s
di nu
For simplicity, the dilation angle
ye a was assumed as a constant in this study. Thus the differential
operator in Eq. (10) can be removed. Furthermore, if and in Eq. (10) are replaced with the
op M
symbols used in this paper for permanent deformations and in a RLT test, Eq. (10) can
be re-written as
C ted
ot p
Note that when the dilation angle is zero, Eq. (10) becomes , which means that
N ce
the plastic volumetric strain is zero.

Ac
Substitute Eq. (5) into Eq. (11) and then substitute Eq. (11) into Eqs. (8) and (9),
12

Equation (12a) applies to a planar geosynthetic-reinforced sample while Equation (12b) applies
to a geocell-reinforced UGM sample. Note that when the material properties of the UGM and
the geosynthetic are given, at a given external load condition (knowing and ), the additional
confining stress is the only unknown in Eq. (12). Equation (12) can be solved by iterations.
With obtained, Eq. (4) can be used to calculate the resilient modulus and the
t
ip
resilient strain of the reinforced UGM sample. Then Eq. (5) can be used to calculate the
d cr
axial permanent deformation at any load repetition .
te s
di nu
In summary, with the material properties of an unreinforced UGM (i.e., , , , , , ,
and ) and and k (only for geogrid/geotextile) of a geosynthetic, the resilient modulus and the
ye a
permanent deformation of the reinforced UGM sample of any dimension at any confining and
op M
cyclic deviatoric stresses can be predicted by the analytical model described above. Since it is
C ted
derived from a mechanistic analysis, the analytical model can be applied to a variety of material
and stress levels.

ot p
N ce
Validation of the Model
RLT test data from two published studies were used to validate the proposed analytical model.
Ac
These two studies were selected because adequate details were provided in the original
publications about the material properties, testing condition, and test results.
Geogrid-reinforced Crushed Stone
Nazzal (2007) performed resilient modulus and permanent deformation RLT tests on
unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced crushed stone samples. Three biaxial geogrids (referred to
as BX1, BX2, and BX3 hereafter) with different tensile stiffness were used. All the three
13

geogrids were made from polypropylene and have similar aperture dimensions. The samples for
RLT tests were 15 cm in diameter and 30 cm in height. To achieve a uniform density, RLT test
samples were compacted in six 5 cm-thick layers. For the geogrid-reinforced samples, after the
lower 15 cm UGM was compacted, the top surface of the UGM was scratched slightly. A piece
of geogrid was placed on the scratched surface, and then compaction of the upper 15cm UGM
t
ip
was continued. The purpose of scratching the compacted surface was to improve the
d cr
interlocking between the geogrid and the UGM. The resilient modulus test followed the test
te s
protocol AASHTO T 307-99. In the resilient modulus test, 1,000 cycles of the conditioning load
di nu
(confining stress = 103 kPa and maximum cyclic stress = 103 kPa) were first applied to the
sample. Then 15 different combinations of confining and repeated deviatoric stresses were
ye a
applied in sequence to determine the stress-dependent resilient modulus parameters of the
op M
sample. Permanent deformation tests were performed under a confining stress of 21 kPa and a
maximum cyclic stress of 230 kPa. A total of 10,000 cycles of repeated load were applied in
C ted
each permanent deformation test. Input parameters (listed in Table 1) were extracted from the
RLT test results on the unreinforced crushed stone samples except for the interaction spring
ot p
stiffness . Interface direct shear test was not performed in the original study, so the interaction
N ce
spring stiffness in Table 1 was determined by fitting the RLT test results for the BX1 geogrid-
Ac
reinforced sample. Then the same value was used for the other two (BX2 and BX3) geogrid-
reinforced samples since all the three geogrids used in the original study have similar material
and aperture dimensions. Without any information available, the shear dilation angle of the
crushed stone was taken as zero.
With the proposed analytical model, the resilient modulus of the reinforced samples and the
additional confining stress at each load sequence of the resilient modulus test can be
14

calculated. The analytical results of the resilient moduli of the unreinforced and reinforced
samples are compared with the test results in Fig. 3. The analytical results confirmed the test
observation that geogrid-reinforced samples had insignificant improvement in resilient modulus.
The average increases in the resilient modulus were 1.4%, 1.6%, and 1.6% for the crushed stone
samples reinforced by BX1, BX2, and BX3 geogrid respectively. The permanent deformation
t
ip
test results are compared with the analytical results in Fig. 4. Both the test and analytical results
d cr
showed a significant reduction of permanent strain in the reinforced UGM. More reduction in
te s
permanent strain is seen on the sample reinforced by a stiffer geogrid.
di nu
Geocell-reinforced Gravel, Sand, and Silty Clay
ye a
Mengelt et al. (2000) performed resilient modulus RLT tests on unreinforced and geocell-
op M
reinforced UGMs. Three UGMs were tested, i.e., a gravel, a sand and a silty clay. To fit the size
of a single unit of geocell, unreinforced and reinforced samples were prepared with a diameter of
C ted
25 cm and a height of 20 cm. Except for the special sample size, the resilient modulus tests
followed the test protocol AASHTO T 294-94. Totally 1,000 cycles of conditioning load were
ot p
first applied to the sample. Then 15 combinations of different confining stress and repeated
N ce
deviatoric stress were applied in sequence to determine the stress-dependent resilient modulus of
Ac
the sample. Note that the stresses applied to the coarse-grained (gravel and sand) and the fine-
grained (clay) samples were different. Input parameters (listed in Table 4) were extracted from
the RLT test results on the unreinforced UGM samples. No permanent deformation test was
performed in the original study. The permanent deformation parameters for the unreinforced
samples in Table 2 were derived from the permanent deformation recorded in the conditioning
15

stage of the unreinforced sample. Without any information available, the shear dilation angle
was taken as zero for all the UGMs.
The resilient moduli calculated by the analytical model are compared with the test results in Fig.
5. Both the test and the analytical results showed that increase in resilient modulus was more
t
ip
significant in the silty clay sample than in the gravel and sand samples. The analytical model
showed that average increase of resilient modulus at different stress levels were 2.8%, 3.1%, and
d cr
13.5% for reinforced gravel, sand, and silty clay, which compared well with the test results of
te s
3.2%, 1.4%, and 16.5% respectively.
di nu
ye a
No permanent deformation test of the geocell-reinforced sample was performed in the original
op M
study. Only the permanent deformation in the conditioning stage was monitored on the geocell-
reinforced samples. The test results showed that, for the gravel and the sand, the permanent
C ted
deformations of the unreinforced and geocell-reinforced samples measured in the conditioning
stage showed almost no difference. For the silty clay, the geocell-reinforced sample developed
ot p
significantly more permanent deformation than the unreinforced sample. Apparently, these
N ce
results are not reasonable. The actual reasons for these unreasonable test results are unknown;
however, they may result from the variations of sample preparation. Therefore, only the
Ac
analytical results were presented for the permanent deformation of the unreinforced and
reinforced samples under 10,000 repetitions of deviatoric stress of 103 kPa at a confining stress
of 103 kPa, which is the same as the load level applied to the gravel and the sand samples in the
conditioning stage of the resilient modulus test. These results are presented in Fig. 6. The
predicted reductions of permanent strain were 65.7%, 52.8%, and 76.1% for geocell-reinforced
gravel, sand, and silty clay respectively.
16

Parametric Analysis
In this study, a parametric analysis was performed on the proposed analytical model. The input
parameters (listed in Table 3) for the baseline case reflect typical material properties of coarse-
grained UGM and polypropylene geosynthetics. The same sample size was assumed for geogrid
t
ip
or geotextile- and geocell-reinforced samples. A confining stress of 35 kPa and a repeated
deviatoric stress of 103 kPa were used in the baseline case to represent the typical stress
d cr
experienced in the base/subbase, as suggested by NCHRP project 1-28A. The value of
te s
was set as 105 in this part of analysis.
di nu
ye a
In the following subsections, the effects of material modulus ( and ), stress level ( and
op M
), sample diameter ( ), and dilation angle ( ) on the benefit of geosynthetic
reinforcement are presented. In this study, the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement was
C ted
evaluated using the percentages of resilient modulus increase and permanent deformation
reduction:
ot p
N ce
Ac
where and are the resilient moduli of the unreinforced and the geosynthetic-
reinforced UGM samples respectively; and and are the permanent strains after
105 cycles of repeated deviatoric stress of the unreinforced and the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
samples respectively.
Geosynthetic Tensile Stiffness
17

Figure 7 shows the effects of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on the benefit of the geosynthetic
reinforcement. A number of observations can be made from Fig. 7. Firstly, an increase of the
tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic increases the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement. The
trend of this benefit increase is non-linear. Secondly, an increase of the UGM resilient modulus
(by increasing ) reduces the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement. This trend is also non-
t
ip
linear. In reality, in the case of geogrid reinforcement, finer UGMs (e.g. sand and clay) may not
d cr
interlock as well with the geogrid as coarser UGMs (e.g., crushed stone). Thus the benefit of
te s
geogrid reinforcement on finer UGMs should be limited because the interaction spring stiffness
di nu
is lower. Thirdly, the benefit of geosynthetics in reducing the permanent deformation is more
significant than in increasing the resilient modulus. This phenomenon was also observed in the
ye a
experimental studies by other researchers. Last, with the same sample size and the tensile
op M
stiffness, geocell reinforcement provided more benefit than the geogrid or geotextile
reinforcement. This finding is reasonable because geocell provides direct confinement to the
C ted
UGM rather than relying on frictional stresses. This confinement is particularly helpful for
reinforcing finer UGMs as demonstrated previously in this paper. In addition, for the same
ot p
sample size, the area of geocell material is much larger than that of geogrid material.
N ce
Ac
Stress Level
Figure 8 shows the effects of stress level on the benefits of the geosynthetic reinforcement.
Similar trends were observed from planar and 3-D geosynthetic-reinforced UGMs. In general,
the increase of resilient modulus was influenced by both the confining and the repeated
deviatoric stresses. At a given confining stress, the increase of resilient modulus first increased
18

with the deviatoric stress and then decreased after reaching a peak value. This phenomenon is
more evident in planar geosynthetic-reinforced UGM at a lower confining stress.
The reduction of permanent deformation is more significant at a lower confining stress. This
trend is reasonable because the sample has more potential to expand laterally and to mobilize the
t
ip
lateral constraint mechanism of geosynthetics at the lower confining stress. The decrease of
d cr
permanent deformation is less sensitive to the change of deviatoric stress than the change of
te s
confining stress. It should be noted that Fig. 8 presents the percentage of permanent deformation
di nu
reduction. The actual amount of permanent deformation reduction ( ) still
increased with the deviatoric stress.

ye a
op M
Sample Diameter and Dilation Angle
C ted
The scale effect is an important issue when using laboratory RLT tests to evaluate the benefit of
geosynthetic reinforcement in the field. For geogrid- or geotextile-reinforced UGM samples, the
bonding coefficient in Eq. (8) increases with the diameter of the sample (shown in Fig. 2).
ot p
N ce
Consequently, the benefit of geosynthetic became more significant as shown in Figs. 9a and 9b.
The sensitivity analysis results suggested that laboratory test results from smaller samples (e.g.,
Ac
0.15 m in diameter) may underestimate the benefits of geogrid or geotextile reinforcement in the
field.
For geocell-reinforced samples, varying the sample diameter is equivalent to changing the pocket
size of the geocell. From Eq. (9), the additional confining stress decreases with the diameter of
the sample. This result implies that the geocell with a smaller pocket diameter can provide better
19

confinement than the geocell with a larger pocket diameter. This trend is reasonable since the
geocell with a smaller pocket diameter provides more material to reinforce the same amount of
base course. The effect of sample diameter on the benefits of the geocell-reinforced UGM is
shown in Figs. 9(c) and 9(d). The scale effect of the RLT tests is more complicated for geocell
reinforcement due to the interaction with the adjacent cells in the field, which is largely affected
t
ip
by the geometry and the configuration of the geocell.
d cr
te s
The effect of the dilation angle of the UGM on the benefits of the geosynthetic reinforcement
di nu
is shown in Fig. 10. As expected, the benefit of the geosynthetic reinforcement increases with
the dilation angle of the UGM.

ye a
op M
Discussions
C ted
The proposed analytical model consists of three general components: (1) a stress-dependent
resilient modulus model for the UGM, (2) a permanent deformation model for the UGM, and (3)
a linear-elastic model for the geosynthetic. The model can be easily modified by replacing any
ot p
N ce
of the three components with other models. The current form of the analytical model is selected
to be compatible with the MEPDG.

Ac
The proposed analytical model was derived based on mechanistic analysis. The major
approximation accepted in the derivation is that the additional confining stress from the
geosynthetics is distributed uniformly to the whole thickness of the sample. Thus the stress and
strain at any location of the sample are the same. During the derivation of the additional
confining stress from planar geosynthetics, the interlock mechanism between the geosynthetic
20

and the soil was approximated by an interface shear stress at the location of the geosynthetic.
This approximation allowed analyzing the geosynthetic-soil interaction using a continuum
approach. The interlock mechanism may be more appropriately modeled by a discrete element
method (DEM), for example, Bhandari and Han (2010). However, the DEM requires significant
computation time and is difficult to be adopted for practical applications. Another assumption of
t
ip
the model is that the repeated load applied to the sample will not exceed the shakedown limit of
d cr
the sample, which means the sample will eventually reach the resilient state rather than develop
te s
excessive permanent strain or fail. The stress-strain behavior of the UGM under a higher-level
di nu
repeated load is a complex topic and is beyond the scope of this study. In addition, the
interlocking mechanism between geosynthetic and soil is approximated by concentric shear

ye a
stress
op M
In general, the analytical results showed that the geosynthetic reinforcement is more effective in
C ted
reducing the permanent deformation than increasing the resilient modulus of the UGM sample.
This phenomenon was also observed by other researchers in RLT tests. However, in contrast to
ot p
RLT test observations, some field test data (Kwon and Tutumluer 2009) revealed that
N ce
geosynthetic-reinforced bases exhibited higher resilient modulus than the unreinforced base even
Ac
right after the construction. Perkins (2004) attributed the increase of resilient modulus in the
geosynthetic-reinforced bases after the construction to the horizontal residual stress induced by
the compaction. Yang (2010) and Yang et al. (2012) developed an analytical method to quantify
the compaction-induced residual stress in the geocell-reinforced base. However, the RLT test is
unable to simulate the development of residual stress in the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM since
the confining stress in such tests is controlled externally.
21

Concluding Remarks
In this paper, an analytical model was proposed to predict the resilient modulus and the
permanent deformation of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM under a RLT test based on material
t
properties of the UGM and the geosynthetics. The resilient and permanent deformation models
ip
used in the derivation of the analytical model are consistent with the current MEPDG. Both
d cr
planar and three-dimensional geosynthetic-reinforced UGM samples can be analyzed. The
te s
proposed analytical model was validated using the test results from two published studies.
di nu
Overall, the analytical results from the proposed model matched the experimental data well.
A parametric analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of input parameters to the
ye a
analytical model. In general, the calculated resilient modulus and permanent deformation
op M
showed reasonable variations with the changes of the material properties (tensile stiffness of the
C ted
geosynthetics, resilient modulus and dilation angle of the UGM), sample diameter, and the stress
level.
ot p
N ce
The analytical model proposed in this study provides a rational tool to analyze and understand
the RLT test data on geosynthetic-reinforced UGM samples. It can be used to assist the
Ac
development of simplified design parameters (calibration factors or equivalent material
properties) for a geosynthetic-reinforced base in a mechanistic-empirical pavement design.
However, it should be noted that the field performance of geosynthetic-reinforced UGM in a
flexible pavement is also affected by other factors such as the construction. The stress path and
stress history of the UGM base material are much more complex than the stress applied in an
RLT test. Future studies are needed on the stress conditions in the granular base layer generated
22

by construction and traffic loads. The analytical model can be improved in the future based on
the advances in these areas.

t
ip
d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac
23

Appendix – Estimation of the Equivalent Additional Confining Stress from
Planar Geosynthetic-reinforced UGM Cylinder
A layer of planar geosynthetic (geogrid or geotextile) with a tensile stiffness of and Poisson’s
t
ratio is placed in the middle of a cylinder sample with a diameter . When the sample is
ip
subjected to a repeated deviatoric stress, the sample will gradually develop a permanent
d cr
horizontal strain . Consequently, due to the interlocking between the UGM and the
te s
geosynthetic, the geosynthetic will be stretched horizontally. The radial interaction stress
di nu
between geosynthetic and soil can be modeled using a series of interaction springs as shown in
ye a
Fig. 11. The magnitude of the radial interaction stress can be calculated as:
op M
where is the interaction spring stiffness (in force/length3), and and are the radial
C ted
displacements of the UGM and the geosynthetic respectively. The interaction spring stiffness
is a parameter commonly used in the numerical modeling of geosynthetic-soil interaction (Yang

ot p
et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2011). It can be determined from an interface direct shear test. Note
N ce
that and are both functions of radius .

Ac
Since the thickness of the planar geosynthetic is generally small (about 1to 2 mm), the
geosynthetic can be analyzed under a plane-stress condition. The equilibrium equation of a
geosynthetic element is
24

where and are the radial and tangent normal stress components (in force/length) in the
geosynthetic. and can be calculated as:

t
ip
where is the tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic (in force/length), and is the Poisson’s ratio
d cr
of the geosynthetic. Note that in reality geogrid and geotextile are mostly anisotropic structures.
te s
However, in order to simplify the problem to an axisymmetric condition, the geosynthetic
di nu
materials are characterized here as an equivalent isotropic material with two elastic constants (
ye a
and ) in this study. Substituting Eqs. (14), (17), and (18) into Eq. (15) yields
op M
C ted
In reality, the radial displacement of the UGM should vary at different vertical location due to
the localized constraint stress at the middle of the sample. However, in this study, it is assumed
ot p
that the constraint stress is uniformly distributed to the entire thickness of the sample through
N ce
particle interlocking. Therefore, the stress and strain are independent of the vertical location.
Ac
For simplicity, it is further assumed that the radial displacements of geosynthetic and the soil are
proportional to each other at any radius .
The parameter is a measure of the bonding between the UGM and the geosynthetic. When the
UGM and the geosynthetic are fully bonded to each other, . When there is no bonding
stress between soil and geosynthetic, .
25

Substituting Eq. (20) into Eq. (19) yields
The solution to the above differential equation is

t
ip
d cr
te s
where and are Bessel functions of the first and the second kinds, and ,
di nu
, as well as can be solved based on the three boundary conditions:
ye a
op M
C ted
Substituting Eqs. (24) and (26) into Eq. (22) yields

ot p
N ce
Ac
Substituting Eq. (25) into Eq. (22) yields
Equation (29) is an implicit equation of . The solution to this equation with a typical range of
, , and has been obtained as shown in Fig. 2.
26

References
Al-Qadi, I., Dessouky, S., Kwon, J., and Tutumluer, E. (2008). “Geogrid in Flexible Pavements:
Validated Mechanism.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2045, 102-109.

t
ARA, Inc. (2004). Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement
ip
Structures. Final Report, NCHRP Project 1-37A. Transportation Research board of the
d cr
National Academies, Washington, D.C.
te s
Bhandari, A. and Han, J. (2010). “Investigation of geotextile-soil interaction under a cyclic
di nu
wheel load using the discrete element method.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(1),
33-43.
ye a
Brown, S.F., Kwan, J., and Thom, N.H. (2007). “Identifying the key parameters that influence
op M
geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25, 326-335.
C ted
Bolton, M. D. (1986). “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Geotechnique, 36(1), 65-78.
Giroud, J. P. and Han, J. (2004a). “Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads, Part I
ot p
theoretical development.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental

N ce
Engineering, 130(8), 776-786.
Giroud, J. P. and Han, J. (2004b). “Design method for geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads, Part II
Ac
calibration and verification.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 130(8), 787-797.
Han, J. and Bhandari, A. (2010). “The influence of geogrid aperture size on the behavior of
reinforced granular bases.” Proceedings, International Symposium on Geomechanics and
Geotechnics: From Micro to Macro, Oct. 10-12, Shanghai, China, Jiang, M., Liu, F., and
Bolton, M. (eds.), 683-687.
27

Han, J., Pokharel, S. K., Yang, X., Manandhar, C., Leshchinsky, D., Halahmi, I., and Parsons, R.
L. (2011). “Performance of geocell-reinforced RAP bases over weak subgrade under full-
scale moving wheel loads.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 23(11), 1525-
1534.
Huang, J., Parsons, R. L., Han, J., Pierson, M. (2011). “Numerical analysis of a laterally loaded
t
ip
shaft constructed within an MSE wall.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29(3), 233-241.
d cr
Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E., and Konietzky, H. (2008). “Aggregate base residual stresses affecting
te s
geogrid reinforced flexible pavement response.” International Journal of Pavement
di nu
Engineering, 9(4), 275-285.
Kwon, J., and Tutumluer, E. (2009). “Geogrid Base Reinforcement with Aggregate Interlock and
ye a
Modeling of Associated Stiffness Enhancement in Mechanistic Pavement Analysis.”
op M
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2116,
85-95.
C ted
Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E., and Al-Qadi, I.L. (2009). “Validated mechanistic model for geogrid
base reinforced flexible pavements.” Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE,

ot p
135(12), 915-926.
N ce
Ling, H. I. and Liu, H. (2003). “Finite element studies of asphalt concrete pavement reinforced
Ac
with geogrid.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 129(7), 801-811.
McDowell, G. R., Harireche, O., Konietzky, H., Brown, S. F., Thom, N. H. (2006). “Discrete
element modelling of geogrid-reinforced aggregates”. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers: Geotechnical Engineering, 159 (GEI), 35–48.
28

Mengelt, M. J., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2000). Reinforcement of Flexible Pavements
Using Geocells. Geo Engineering Report No. 00-04, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
Madison, WN.
Moghaddas-Nejad, F., and Small, J. C. (2003). “Resilient and permanent characteristics of

reinforced granular materials by repeated load triaxial tests.” Geotechnical Testing
t
ip
Journal, 26(2), 152-166.
d cr
Nazzal, M. (2007). Laboratory Characterization and Numerical Modeling of Geogrid
te s
Reinforced Bases in Flexible Pavements. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University,
di nu
Baton Rouge, LA.
Perkins, S. W., and Ismeik, M. (1997). “A synthesis and evaluation of geosynthetic-reinforced

ye a
base layers in flexible pavements: Part I.” Geosynthetics International, 4(6), 549-604.
op M
Perkins, S. W. (2002). Evaluation of Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible Pavment Systems Using
Two Pavement Test Facilities. FHWA/MT-02-008/20040, U.S. Department of

C ted
Transportation, FHWA, Washington, D.C.
Perkins, S. W. (2004). Development of Design Methods for Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible

ot p
Pavements. DTFH61-01-X-00068, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA,

N ce
Washington, D.C.
Ac
Schuettpelz, C., Fratta, D., and Edil, T. B. (2009). “Evaluation of the zone of influence and
stiffness improvement from geogrid reinforcement in granular materials.” Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2116, 76-84.
Tatsuoka, F (1987). Discussion of “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Geotechnique, 37(1),
219-226.
29

Tseng, K., and Lytton, R. (1989). “Prediction of permanent deformation in flexible pavement
materials.” Implication of Aggregates in the Design, Construction, and Performance of
Flexible Pavements, ASTM STP 1016, ASTM, 154-172.
Webster, S. L. (1979a). Investigation of Beach Sand Trafficability Enhancement Using Sand-

Grid Confinement and Membrane Reinforcement Concepts; Report 1, Sand Test Sections
t
ip
1 and 2. Technical Report GL-79-20, Geotechnical Laboratory, US Army Corps of
d cr
Engineers Waterways Experimentation Station, Vicksburg, MS.
te s
Webster, S. L. (1979b). Investigation of Beach Sand Trafficability Enhancement Using Sand-
di nu
Grid Confinement and Membrane Reinforcement Concepts; Report 2, Sand Test Sections
3 and 4. Technical Report GL-79-20, Geotechnical Laboratory, US Army Corps of

ye a
Engineers Waterways Experimentation Station, Vicksburg, MS.
op M
Webster, S. L. (1992). Geogrid Reinforced Base Courses for Flexible Pavements for Light
Aircraft, Test Section Construction, Behavior Under Traffic, Laboratory Tests, and
C ted
Design Criteria. Technical Report GL-93-6, Geotechnical Laboratory, US Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experimentation Station, Vicksburg, MS.

ot p
Yang, X. (2010). Numerical Analyses of Geocell-Reinforced Granular Soils under Static and
N ce
Repeated Loads. Ph.D. Dissertation, the University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.

Ac
Yang, X., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., and Parsons, R. L. (2012). "A three-dimensional
mechanistic-empirical model for geocell-reinforced unpaved roads." Acta Geotechnica,
DOI:10.1007/s11440-012-0183-6.
Yang, X., Han, J., Parsons, R. L., and Leshchinsky, D. (2010). “Three-dimensional numerical
modeling of single geocell-reinforced sand.” Frontiers of Architecture and Civil
Engineering in China, 4(2), 233-240.
30

)LJXUH&DSWLRQ/LVW
Figure Captions
Fig. 1. Equivalence of the geosynthetic stress to the hoop confining stress
Fig. 2. Value of coefficient at different of and D
Fig. 3. Predicted resilient modulus of the geogrid-reinforced samples

t
ip
Fig. 4. Predicted permanent strain of the geogrid-reinforced samples
Fig. 5. Predicted resilient modulus of the geocell-reinforced samples
d cr
Fig. 6. Predicted permanent strain of the geocell-reinforced samples
te s
Fig. 7. Effect of material modulus on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
di nu
Fig. 8. Effect of stress level on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
Fig. 9.
ye a Effect of sample diameter on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
Fig. 10. Effect of dilation angle on the performances of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
op M
Fig. 11. Equilibrium of a geosynthetic element
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac

)LJXUH
ܶ
į į
Geogrid/geotextile-reinforced
߂ߪଷ
Geocell-reinforced
Fig. 1. Equivalence of the geosynthetic reinforcement to the additional confining stress
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
34

)LJXUH
1
D = 0.5 m
0.8
D = 0.3 m
0.6
D = 0.15m
ɲ
0.4
ʆg = 0.2
0.2 ʆg = 0.3
ʆg = 0.4
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
k/M (m-2)
Fig. 2. Value of coefficient ࢻ at different of ࢑/ࡹ and D
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
35

)LJXUH
ϯϱϬ
ZĞƐŝůůŝĞŶƚŵŽĚƵůƵƐ;DWĂͿ
ZĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚƐĂŵƉůĞƐ
ϯϬϬ
hŶƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚƐĂŵƉůĞ
ϮϱϬ
dĞƐƚ͕ƵŶƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ
dĞƐƚ͕ƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ;yϭͿ
ϮϬϬ dĞƐƚ͕ƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ;yϮͿ
dĞƐƚ͕ƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ;yϯͿ
ŶĂůǇƚŝĐĂůŵŽĚĞů
ϭϱϬ
Ϭ ϮϬϬ ϰϬϬ ϲϬϬ ϴϬϬ
ƵůŬƐƚƌĞƐƐɽ ;ŬWĂͿ

)LJ3UHGLFWHGUHVLOLHQWPRGXOLRIWKHJHRJULGUHLQIRUFHGVDPSOHV

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited


)LJXUH

Ϭ͘Ϭϱ
hŶƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚƐĂŵƉůĞ
WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚĚĞĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ
Ϭ͘Ϭϰ
Ϭ͘Ϭϯ
ZĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚƐĂŵƉůĞƐ
Ϭ͘ϬϮ dĞƐƚ͕ƵŶƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ
dĞƐƚ͕ƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ;yϭͿ
dĞƐƚ͕ƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ;yϮͿ
Ϭ͘Ϭϭ dĞƐƚ͕ƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ;yϯͿ
ŶĂůǇƚŝĐĂůŵŽĚĞů
Ϭ
Ϭ ϯϬϬϬ ϲϬϬϬ ϵϬϬϬ ϭϮϬϬϬ
EƵŵďĞƌŽĨĐǇĐůĞƐ

)LJ3UHGLFWHGSHUPDQHQWVWUDLQVRIWKHJHRJULGUHLQIRUFHGVDPSOHV

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited


)LJXUH
160
(a) Gravel
Resilient modulus (MPa)

140
120
100
80 Test, unreinforced
60 Test, reinforced
Model, unreinforced
40
Model, reinforced
20
0 200 400 600 800
Number of cycles
Accepted Manuscript
140
(b) Sand
120
100
Not Copyedited
80
Test, unreinforced
60
Test, reinforced
40 Model, unreinforced
Model, reinforced
20
0 200 400 600 800
Number of cycles
60
(c) Silty clay
50
40
30
Test, unreinforced
20
Test, reinforced
10 Model, unreinforced
Model, reinforced
0
0 50 100 150 200
Number of cycles
Fig. 5. Predicted resilient moduli of the geocell-reinforced samples
38

)LJXUH
Ϭ͘ϭϱ
hŶƌĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ ^ŝůƚǇ ĐůĂǇ
ZĞŝŶĨŽƌĐĞĚ
WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƐƚƌĂŝŶ
Ϭ͘ϭϬ
'ƌĂǀĞů
Ϭ͘Ϭϱ ^ĂŶĚ
^ŝůƚǇ ĐůĂǇ
'ƌĂǀĞů
^ĂŶĚ
Ϭ͘ϬϬ
Ϭ ϱϬϬϬ ϭϬϬϬϬ
EƵŵďĞƌŽĨĐǇĐůĞƐ

)LJ3UHGLFWHGSHUPDQHQWVWUDLQVRIWKHJHRFHOOUHLQIRUFHGVDPSOHV

Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited


)LJXUH
5 50
k1=
Increase of resilient modulus
Reduction of permanent
(a) Geogrid/geotextile (b) Geogrid/geotextile k1=
4 1000 40 1000
deformation (%)
3 1500 30 1500
2000 2000
2 20
(%)
2500 2500
1 10
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic Tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic
(kN/m) (kN/m)
10 k1= 1000
100
(c) Geocell (d) Geocell k1=
8 1500 80 1000
deformation (%)
2000 1500
6 2500 60 2000
2500
4 40
(%)
2 20
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic Tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic
(kN/m) (kN/m)
Fig. 7. Effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on the performance of the geosynthetic-

reinforced UGM
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
40

)LJXUH
2.5 30
(a) Geogrid/geotextile (b) Geogrid/geotextile
2
deformation (%)
ʍ3 (kPa) 25 ʍ3 (kPa)
21 21
1.5
35 20 35
(%)
1 48
48
62 15
0.5 62
0 10
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Cyclic deviatoric stress (kPa) Cyclic deviatoric stress (kPa)
7 70
(c) Geocell (d) Geocell
6 65
deformation (%)
ʍ3 (kpa)
ʍ3 (kPa)
60 21
5
21 55
35
(%)
4
35 50 48
3 48 45 62
62
2 40
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Cyclic deviatoric stress (kPa) Cyclic deviatoric stress (kPa)
Fig. 8. Effect of stress level on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
41

)LJXUH
8 80
(a) Geogrid/geotextile M (kN/m) (b) Geogrid/geotextile
800 M (kN/m)
deformation (%)
6 600
60
800
600
400
4 40 400
(%)
200 200
2 20
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Sample diameter (m) Sample diameter (m)
10 100
(c) Geocell (d) Geocell
8 80
deformation (%)
M (kN/m)
6 60 M (kN/m)
400
400
300
(%)
4 40 300
200 200
2 100 20 100
0 0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Sample diameter (m) Sample diameter (m)
Fig. 9. Effect of sample diameter on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
42

)LJXUH
10 70
(a) (b)
60
8 Geocell
deformation (%)
Geocell
50
6 40
(%)
4 30
20 Geogrid/geotextile
2
Geogrid/geotextile 10
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Dilation angle (°) Dilation angle (°)
Fig. 10. Effect of dilation angle on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
43

)LJXUH
‫ݎ‬ ݇
‫ܪ‬
‫ݎ‬
ߠ
‫ܦ‬
Fig. 11. Interaction between the geosynthetic and the UGM
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
44

Analytical Model For Resilient Modulus and Permanent Deformation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unbound Granular Material

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytical Model For Resilient Modulus and Permanent Deformation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unbound Granular Material

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.

Submitted June 18, 2011; accepted December 17, 2012;

Analytical Model for Resilient Modulus and Permanent Deformation of

Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unbound Granular Material

Xiaoming Yang1 and Jie Han2, M. ASCE

Abstract: In order to consider the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement in a mechanistic-

implementation of the model are also discussed.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

CE Database subject headings: pavement, geosynthetics, base course, reinforcement, resilient

(with planar geosynthetic reinforcement) or direct confinement (by geocell reinforcement). In

mechanistic-empirical design method. Kown et al. (2008) attributed the construction-induced

improved performance of railway ballast depended on the relative dimensions of geogrid

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

the benefit of geosynthetic-reinforcement in terms of the resilient modulus and permanent

deformation of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

an analytical model was derived as described below.

Unreinforced UGM Sample under an RLT Test

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

resilient modulus of the UGM:

RLT tests is also called the resilient modulus test.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

the resilient state.

Geosynthetic-reinforced UGM Sample under an RLT Test

Now consider a geosynthetic-reinforced UGM cylindrical sample subjected to a constant

geocell-reinforced sample, the additional confining stress can be assumed to be applied

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

the stress-strain behavior at any location of the sample becomes identical.

). In Stage 2, the axial stress continues to increase from to . The stress-

strain relationships in the above two stages are derived as follows:

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

can be determined by Eq. (2) with and .

derived by combining the above two stages:

and three-dimensional (geocell) geosynthetics separately.

(i) Planar Geosynthetic Reinforcement

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

the soil, as follows.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

sample , and the Poisson’s ratio of the geosynthetic

(ii) Three-dimensional Geosynthetic Reinforcement

geocell can be calculated as:

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

the plastic volumetric strain is zero.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

and stress levels.

Validation of the Model

Geogrid-reinforced Crushed Stone

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

crushed stone was taken as zero.