Trends in Transport Engineering and Applications

ISSN: 2394-7284(online)
Volume 3, Issue 1
www.stmjournals.com

Finite Element Modeling of Asphalt Concrete Pavement

Reinforced with Geogrid by Using 3-D PLAXIS Software
Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kufa, Najaf City, Iraq

Abstract
This paper presents an axisymmetric finite element (FE) model to analyze the behavior of
unreinforced and geogrid reinforced asphalt concrete pavement subjected to various tire
pressures. The model was loaded with an incremental loading from 100 to 600 kPa with
50 kPa increment and the critical pavement responses such as total stress and vertical surface
deflection were determined for unreinforced and geogrid reinforced flexible pavement. The
results indicated that during static loading, a moderate effect on the pavement behavior was
observed due to the reinforcing geogrid layer. The effect of geogrid position at bottom of
asphalt concrete surface layer on pavement response was clear. The results also showed that
moderate improvement in pavement system behavior was obtained by adding a layer of
geogrid reinforcement at inference of asphalt concrete base layer and subbase layer.

Keyword: Asphalt concrete, base course, 3-D PLAXIS, geogrid

*Author for Correspondence E-mail: drmoh_kufauniv@yahoo.com

INTRODUCTION and dynamic loading conditions [6]. The study

The utilization of geosynthetic reinforcement
within the pavement structure layers has been
increasing during the last few decades because
the high modulus polymeric georgid improves
the structural behavior of flexible pavement.
Besides the geogrid reducing the rutting
sytain, it will also reduce critical horizontal
fatigue tensile strain at bottom of bituminous
concrete layer [1]. The geogrid-reinforcement
layer is usually placed between the sub-base
and sub grade interface or between the base
course and sub-base. Due to the wide
application of this technique, many
experimental and analytical studies have been
conducted to assess and potentially quantify
the improvements associated with geogrid
base reinforcement of roadways. The use of
geogrid reinforcement in roadway applications
started in the 1970s. Since then, the technique
of geogrid reinforcement has been increasingly
used and many studies have been performed to
investigate its behavior in roadway
applications [2–5].
Perkins et al. studied the two dimensional
axisymmetric finite element simulation model
to investigate the impact of using high
modulus geogrid reinforcement for pavement
layers on pavement performance under static
results indicated that placing geogrid at the
interface of base and subgrade layers
decreased vertical strain in comparison with
unreinforced pavement. Barksdale et al.
investigated the structural performance of
unreinforced and geogrid reinforced pavement
subjected to laboratory cycling loading testing
[7]. The vertical permanent deformation was
measured of both unreinforced and geogrid
reinforced pavement. The results indicated that
the stiff geogrid placed at the bottom of
granular base did not give any significant
improvement for a strong pavement whereas
placing the geogrid at bottom of the base
layers resulted in better performance (low
permanent deformation) than the use of a
geotextile. They carried out FE simulation
analysis techniques and showed that the
benefits of geosynthetic reinforcements are
more pronounced for weaker subgrades.
Moayedi et al. used the FE PLAXIS program
to study the effect of geogrid reinforcement in
flexible pavement by developing the
axisymmetric pavement response model under
static loading condition [8]. Bituminous
concrete layer and geogrid were modeled as a
linear elastic isotropic material while the
Moho-Coulomb material model was adopted

TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 1
FE Modeling of Asphalt Concrete Pavement with Geogrid Al-Jumaili Mohammed Abbas H

to represent granular base materials. They
obtained that the geogrid reinforcement placed
at the bottom of bituminous concrete layer
reduced vertical pavement deflection.
Leng and Gabr conducted a numerical analysis
using ABAQUS to investigate the
performance of reinforced unpaved pavement
sections [9]. They reported that the
performance of the reinforced section was
enhanced as the modulus ratio of the aggregate
layer to the subgrade decreased. The critical
pavement responses at soil and aggregate
interface were significantly better for higher
modulus geogrid.
Development of the Numerical Model
The flexible pavement system used in 3-D
PLAXIS software version 2013 consisted of
asphalt concrete (AC) surface layer, asphalt
concrete (AC) base layer, granular subbase
layer and subgrade layer as well as reinforced
with geogrid layer subjected to static loading.
The unreinforced and geogrid reinforced
pavement response was evaluated under a
uniform applied contact pressure (100, 150,
200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550 and
600) kPa acting on a circular area of 0.15 m
radius. The two asphalt concrete layers and
geogrid were modeled as a linear elastic
isotropic material while the Mohr-Coulomb
model was used to model granular subbase and
subgrade materials. An axisymmetric model
was utilized in the analysis using 45900-noded
structural solid elements with medium
refinement. Axisymmetric modeling was
chosen in this study because it could simulate
circular loading and did not require excessive
computational time [2, 10].
Figures 1–2 show the model considered, where
total thickness of the pavement is 0.45 m. The
sand subgrade soil of thickness 1.05 m is
overlaid by a 0.40 m layer of gravel sand soil
as sub-base layer, asphalt concrete surface
layer (0.05 cm) and asphalt concrete base layer
(0.10 m) are on top.

5 cm
Asphalt Concrete mix (surface layer)
Geogrid
10 cm
Asphalt concrete mix (baselayer)
30 cm Geogrid

Gravel , sand and soil (subbas course)

40 cm
Sandy soil

Fig. 1: Cross Section of the Selected Pavement Structure.

Fig. 2: FE Axisymmetric Model Considered for Reinforced Pavement at Bottom of Asphalt Concrete
Surface Layer.

TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 2
Trends in Transport Engineering and Applications
Volume 3, Issue 1
ISSN: 2394-7284(online)

Fig. 3: FE Axisymmetric Model Considered for Reinforced Pavement at Top of Subbase Layer.

Since the resilient modulus test equipment is
currently not present in many laboratories,
researchers have developed correlations to
converting CBR values to approximate MR
values. The correlation considered reasonable
for fine grained soils with a soaked CBR of 10
or less is [11]:
MR(MPa)=10.3*(CBR) (1)
The minimum limit of CBR value of subgrade
is 4%. Therefore, MR will be 40 MPa.
Claessen et al. established the relation between
subbase resilient modulus and subgrade
resilient modulus according to the following
relationship [12]:
MR=0.2*h0.45*MR (subgrade) (2)
Where;
h= The thickness of subbase layer in mm.
In this study, the thickness of subbase layer is
300 mm and MR for the subgrade is 40 MPa
and as a result the MR value of subbase layer is
100 MPa. Material parameters and constitutive
models used are shown in Table 1, whereas
Table 2 shows mechanical properties of
geogrid reinforcement.

Table 1: Pavement Materials Properties.

AC Surface AC Base Grave and Sand Subbase Sand Subgrade
Model Linear Elastic Linear Elastic Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Thickness (m) 0.05 0.10 0.3 1.05
Young’s modulus (MPa) 4000 3000 100 40
Poisson’s Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.45 0.45
3
Dry density (kN/m ) 23 23 20 17
Saturated density (kN/m3) --- --- 22 20
2
Cohesion (kN/m ) --- --- 20 0
Friction angle (degree) --- --- 40 35
Dilatation angle (degree) --- --- 15 5

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS unreinforced and geogrid reinforced

Now, static loading condition is presented for
both unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced base.
Applied pressure ranged from 100 to 600 kPa
and geogrid was placed at the interface of
asphalt concrete base layer and subbase
course. Critical pavement responses i.e. total
stress and total vertical displacement of
pavements are determined under for each static
loading value. Figures 4–6 illustrate the
vertical displacement profile for applied load
of 600 kPa for case of unreinforced pavement
and reinforced pavement with one layer of
geogrid placed either under AC layer or above
subbase layer.

TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 3
FE Modeling of Asphalt Concrete Pavement with Geogrid Al-Jumaili Mohammed Abbas H

Table 2: Physical and Mechanical Properties of Netlon CE121 Product.

Physical Properties
Property Result
Mesh type Diamond
Standard color Black
Polymer type HDPE
Packaging Rolls
Dimensional Properties
Property Unit Result
Aperture size mm 6*8
2
Mass per unit area g/m 740
Rib thickness mm 1.6/1.45
Junction thickness mm 2.75
Rib width mm 2/2.75
Mechanical Properties
Peak tensile resistance kN/m 6.4
Elastic modules GPa 0.39
Tensile strength MPa 9
Percentage elongation at maximum load % 6

Fig. 4: Vertical Displacement Profile for Unreinforced Pavement (Applied Tire Pressure =600 kPa).

TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 4
Trends in Transport Engineering and Applications
Volume 3, Issue 1
ISSN: 2394-7284(online)

Fig. 5: Vertical Displacement Profile for Reinforced Pavement with Geogrid at Bottom of AC Surface
Layer (Applied Tire Pressure =600 kPa)

Fig. 6: Vertical Displacement Profile for Reinforced Pavement with Geogrid at Top of Subbase Layer
(Applied Tire Pressure =600 kPa).

TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 5
FE Modeling of Asphalt Concrete Pavement with Geogrid
It may be observed from above figures that a
significant decrease in vertical settlement
obtained for reinforced pavement at both of
bottom of AC surface layer or top of subbase
layer. Maximum vertical displacement is
4.213x10-3 m for case of unreinforced
pavement, while it is –3.518x10-3 and –
3.675*10-3 for reinforced AC surface and
Fig. 7: Effective Stresses Profile for Unreinforced Pavement (Applied Tire Pressure =600 kPa).
Figures 8 and 9 depict that for unreinforced
pavement, maximum total stress (335.9 kPa) is
significantly higher compared with that for
case of reinforced pavement with geogrid at
bottom of surface layer (118.8 kPa) and
reinforced pavement with geogrid at top of
subbase layer (224.5 kPa).
Figures 10 and 11 show comparison between
pavement system behavior for three cases:
unreinforced pavement, geogrid reinforced
TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved
Al-Jumaili Mohammed Abbas H
subbase pavement layers respectively. Figures
7–9 illustrate the total stresse profiles for
applied tire pressure of 600 kPa for case of
unreinforced pavement and reinforced
pavement with geogrid placed under AC
surface layer and at top of subbase layer
respectively.
pavement at bottom surface layer, and geogrid
reinforced pavement at top of subbase layer.
The three cases are compared in regards of
total stress and vertical settlement responses.
Regardless of tire pressure values, the
pavement with geogrid reinforcement at
bottom of AC surface layer has a slightly
lower maximum vertical displacement and
total stress than that of other cases as shown in
Figures 10 and 11.
Page 6
Trends in Transport Engineering and Applications
Volume 3, Issue 1
ISSN: 2394-7284(online)

Fig. 8: Effective Stresses Profile for Reinforced Pavement with Geogrid at Bottom of AC Surface
Layer (Applied Tire Pressure =600 kPa).

Fig. 9: Effective Stresses Profile for Reinforced Pavement with Geogrid at Bottom of Surface Layer
(Applied Tire Pressure =600 kPa).

TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 7
FE Modeling of Asphalt Concrete Pavement with Geogrid Al-Jumaili Mohammed Abbas H

4.50
Unreinforced
Vertical displacement *10 -3(mm)

4.00 Geogrid at bottom of surface layer

Geogrid at top of subbase layer
3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

Tire pressure (kPa)

Fig. 10: Maximum Vertical Displacement Values of Unreinforced and Geogrid Reinforced
Pavements.

400
Unreinforced
Maximum total stress (kPa)

350
Geogrid at bottom of surface layer
Geogrid at top of subbase layer
300

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

Tire pressure (kPa)

Fig. 11: Maximum Vertical Displacement Values of Unreinforced and Geogrid Reinforced Pavement.

CONCLUSIONS 2. No significant improvement in pavement

A series of FE simulations have been carried system behavior was gained by adding
out to evaluate the benefits of integrating a geogride at top of subbase layer.
geogrid in to the pavement layers. For the 3. The best location of adding geogrid within
materials and loading conditions used, the the pavement structure is near to applied
following conclusions can be drawn: tire pressure within the asphalt concrete
1. The maximum vertical displacement and layers.
total stress responses for geogrid 4. The use of geogrid significantly enhances
reinforced at the bottom of asphalt the resistance of asphalt concrete to the
concrete were lower than that of deformation and development of cracking
unreinforced and another reinforced failure.
pavement system.

TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved Page 8
Trends in Transport Engineering and Applications
Volume 3, Issue 1
ISSN: 2394-7284(online)
REFERENCES
1. Pandey S, Rao KR, Tiwari D. Effect of
Geogrid Reinforcement on Critical
Responses of Bituminous Pavements. 25th
ARRB Conference; Shaping the Future:
Linking Policy, Research and Outcomes,
Perth, Australia. 2012.
2. Howard IL, Warren KA. Finite-Element
Modeling of Instrumented Flexible
Pavements Under Stationary Transient
Loading. J. Transportation Eng. ASCE.
2009; 135(2): 53–61p.
3. Perkins SW. Mechanistic-Empirical
Modeling and Design Model Development
of Geosynthetic Reinforced Flexible
Pavements. Montana Department of
Transportation, Helena, Montana; Report
No. FHWA/MT-01-002/99160-1A. 2001.
4. Perkins SW. Evaluation of Geosynthetic
Reinforced Flexible Pavement Systems
using Two Pavement Test Facilities.
Report No. FHWA/MT-02-008/20040, US
Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration. 2002.
5. Berg RR, Christopher BR, Perkins SW.
Geosynthetic Reinforcement of the
Aggregate Base Course of Flexible
Pavement Structures. GMA White Paper
II, Geosynthetic Material Association,
Roseville, MN, USA. 2000; 130p.
6. Perkins SW, Ismeik M, Fogelsong ML.
Influence of Geosynthetic Placement
Position on the Performance of Reinforced
Flexible Pavement Systems. Proceedings
of the Conference Geosynthetics’99,
Boston, MA, USA, 1999; 1: 253–264p.
7. Barksdale RD, Brown SF, Chan F.
Aggregate Base Reinforcement of
Surfaced Pavement. Geotext.
Geomembrane. 1989; 8: 165–189p.
TTEA (2016) 1-9 © STM Journals 2016. All Rights Reserved
8. Moayedi H, Kazemian S, Prasad B, et al.
Effect of Geogrid Location in Paved Road
Improvement. Journal of EJGE. 2009; 14:
3313–3329p.
9. Leng J, Gabr MA. Numerical Analysis of
Stress-Deformation Response in
Reinforced Unpaved Road Sections.
Geosynth Int. 2005; 12(2): 111–119p.
10. Kazemian S, Barghchi M, Prasad A, et al.
Reinforced Pavement above Trench under
Urban Traffic Load: Case Study and Finite
Element (FE) Analysis. J Sci Res Essays.
Nov 4, 2010; 5(21): 3313–3328p.
11. AASHTO. AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structure 1993. Washington
DC: The American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials;
1993.
12. Claessen AP, Sommer Edwards P, Uge P.
Asphalt Pavement Design: The SHELL
Method. Proceedings Fourth International
Conference on the Structural Design of
Asphalt Pavements, the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
1977.
Cite this Article
Mohammed Abbas Hasan Al-Jumaili.
Finite Element Modeling of Asphalt
Concrete Pavement Reinforced with
Geogrid by Using 3-D PLAXIS
Software. Trends in Transport
Engineering and Applications. 2016;
3(1):
Page 9