Analytical Model for Resilient Modulus and Permanent

Deformation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unbound

Granular Material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Xiaoming Yang, M.ASCE1; and Jie Han, M.ASCE2

Abstract: To consider the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement in a mechanistic-empirical pavement design method, the resilient modulus
and permanent deformation behavior of a geosynthetic-reinforced unbound granular material (UGM) must be considered. Many researchers
conducted repeated-load triaxial (RLT) tests to investigate the resilient and permanent deformation behavior of the geosynthetic-reinforced
UGM. However, these tests are difficult to perform, and the results are often interpreted empirically. Thus, implementation of the research
results is limited. In this study, an analytical model was developed to 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 deformation models
in the current mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide. Both planar and three-dimensional geosynthetics can be analyzed using this
model. RLT test results from two published studies were selected to validate the proposed analytical model. In general, the analytical results
confirmed and explained the typical test observations from 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 (i.e., material properties, sample dimensions, and stress level) on the analytical model. The limitations, assumption, and
implementation of the model are also discussed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000879. © 2013 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Pavements; Geosynthetics; Base course; Resilient modulus; Deformation; Granular media.
Author keywords: Pavement; Geosynthetics; Base course; Reinforcement; Resilient modulus; Deformation.

Introduction
Geosynthetics can be used to reinforce unbound granular materials
(UGMs) in both paved and unpaved roads (e.g., Webster 1992;
Giroud and Han 2004a, b; Perkins 2004; Kwon et al. 2009). Two
types of geosynthetics are most commonly used for this purpose:
planar reinforcement (i.e., geogrid and woven geotextile) and three-
dimensional (3D) reinforcement (i.e., geocell). In flexible pave-
ments, the primary mechanism of the unbound base reinforcement
using geosynthetics has been attributed to the lateral restraint effect
(Perkins and Ismeik 1997). 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 this process, the geosynthetic applies an addi-
tional confining stress to the UGM that may increase the resilient
modulus and reduce the permanent deformation of the reinforced
material under repeated loads. Interlocking is a primary mecha-
nism between geogrid and particles. How to quantify the effect of
interlocking is challenging. The discrete-element method (DEM)
has been used successfully to analyze the effect of interlocking by
1
Assistant Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078. E-mail: xmyang@okstate.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045 (corresponding author). E-mail:
jiehan@ku.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 18, 2011; approved on
December 17, 2012; published online on December 19, 2012. Discussion
period open until February 1, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 9, September 1,
2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2013/9-1443–1453/$25.00.
several researchers (e.g., Kwon et al. 2008; Bhandari and Han 2010;
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. Kwon et al.
(2008) attributed the construction-induced residual stresses in the
particles below and above the geogrid to the effect of the inter-
locking. 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
experimental results of Brown et al. (2007) by DEM. Ling and Liu
(2003) modeled the interlocking between the asphalt concrete and
the geogrid using a fully bonded interface in their FEM analysis.
However, no simple and quantifiable relationship has been estab-
lished between the residual stress and the degree of interlocking or
between the behavior (resilient modulus and permanent deforma-
tion) of geosynthetic-reinforced UGM and the degree of interlocking.
Therefore, there is a great need for developing a simple analytical
model to account for the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement in-
cluding interlocking on the resilient modulus and permanent defor-
mation of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM.
Many experimental studies have demonstrated the benefit of
using geosynthetics in the roadway base reinforcement (Webster
1979a, b, 1992; Perkins 2002; Al-Qadi et al. 2008; Han et al. 2011).
Empirical design methods (Webster 1992; Mengelt et al. 2000) were
also developed based on experimental data. However, these em-
pirical design methods are often limited to the materials, pavement
structures, and load levels used in the original experiments. Pave-
ment design in the United States is currently under transition from
the empirical design method to the new mechanistic-empirical pave-
ment design guide (MEPDG) (ARA, Inc. 2004). In the MEPDG, the

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1443

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.

 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. 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.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
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 condi-
tion. The proposed model can be applied to both planar and 3D
geosynthetic reinforcements. The proposed model is validated using
experiment results from the literature. The assumptions, limitations,
and implementation of the analytical model are also discussed in this
paper.
Previous Repeated-Load Triaxial Test Studies on
Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unbound Granular Material
The resilient modulus and permanent deformation of geosynthetic-
reinforced UGM under a repeated load are affected by material
properties (of both the UGM and the geosynthetic) 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-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 results suggested that
geosynthetics had a significant effect in reducing the permanent
deformation of the UGM under the repeated load but had very little
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 in-
vestigate the resilient modulus and permanent deformation be-
havior of 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 re-
silient modulus of the silty clay (by 16.5–17.9%) but only slightly
improved the resilient modulus of the gravel and sand (by 1.4–3.2%).
Proposed Analytical Model
One of the disadvantages in performing the RLT test is the limitation
of the sample size. For example, a piece of geogrid cut into a di-
ameter of 150 mm may only contain several intact grids, which may
not represent the behavior of the geogrid-reinforced UGM on a
larger scale. For geocell, special test equipment is required because
the pocket size and the height of the geocell are often different
from the dimensions of a standard RLT test sample. To better un-
derstand the resilient modulus and permanent deformation be-
havior of geosynthetic-reinforced UGM and to predict the behavior
without running RLT tests on reinforced samples, an analytical
model was derived, as described in the next subsection.
Unreinforced Unbound Granular Material Sample under
Repeated-Load Triaxial Test
First, consider an unreinforced UGM cylindrical sample subjected
to a constant confining stress s3 and a repeated deviatoric stress
s1 2 s3 , assuming that the applied stress level does not exceed the
1444 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.
shakedown limit of the material and that 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 Mr :
s1 2 s3
ɛ 1,r ¼ (1)
Mr
where ɛ 1,r 5 the axial resilient strain. It is well known that the
resilient modulus Mr 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

k2
k3
u t oct
Mr ¼ k1 pa þ1 (2)
pa pa
where k1 , k2 , and k3 5 resilient modulus parameters of the material;
pa 5 atmosphere pressure; and u and t oct 5 bulk stress and octahedral
shear stress, respectively. In the triaxial test condition (s2 5 s3 ),
u and t oct can be calculated as
u ¼ s1 þ s2 þ s3 ¼ s1 þ 2s3 (3)
and
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
toct ¼ 1 ðs1 2 s2 Þ2 þ ðs1 2 s3 Þ2 þ ðs2 2 s3 Þ2
3
pffiffiffi
2
¼ ðs1 2 s3 Þ (4)
3
A series of RLT tests with different confining and cyclic stress levels
has to be conducted to determine the resilient modulus parameters
(k1 , k2 , and k3 ) of a UGM. Such a series of RLT tests is also called the
resilient modulus test.
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 under a single
confining and deviatoric stress level with a large number of load
repetitions (usually more than 104 cycles). The permanent defor-
mation behavior of the material is often characterized by the re-
lationship between the axial permanent strain ɛ 1, p (or the ratio of ɛ 1, p
to ɛ 1, r ) and the number of load repetitions N. Many empirical models
have been proposed to describe such a relationship. Tseng and
Lytton’s (1989) model [Eq. (5)] is selected in this study because it is
the basis of the permanent deformation model for UGMs adopted in
the current MEPDG.


ɛ 1,p ɛ 0 2ðr=NÞb
¼ e (5)
ɛ 1,r ɛr
where (ɛ 0 =ɛ r ), r, and b 5 permanent deformation parameters of the
UGM, which can be determined by fitting the measured permanent
deformation test curve. The form of Tseng and Lytton’s (1989)
model implies that the sample reaches the resilient state (the per-
manent deformation becomes constant) when N → ‘. At the resilient
state, the accumulated permanent deformation approaches the value
of (ɛ 0 =ɛ r ). In practice, however, the value of (ɛ 0 =ɛ r ) obtained from
regression sometimes may be unreasonably large, especially when
the shape of the measured permanent deformation curve has not
approached a constant. It is therefore necessary to set a limit to the
load repetition N in Eq. (5) to estimate the value of ɛ 1,p =ɛ 1,r when
 the sample reaches the resilient state. For most UGMs, 105 load Stage 1
repetitions should be adequate for the sample to reach the resilient The axial stress increases from s3 to s3 1 Ds3 . The resilient mo-
state. dulus in this stage Mr,1 can be determined by Eq. (2) with

u ¼ s3 þ 2ðs3 þ Ds3 Þ ¼ 3s3 þ 2Ds3 (6a)

Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unbound Granular Material
Sample under Repeated-Load Triaxial Test
and
Now consider a geosynthetic-reinforced UGM cylindrical sample pffiffiffi
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

subjected to a constant confining stress s3 and a repeated deviatoric 2

toct ¼ Ds3 (6b)
stress s1 2 s3 . When the sample reaches the resilient state, the soil 3
has already developed some amount of permanent strain in both the
axial direction (ɛ 1,p ) and the lateral direction (ɛ 3,p ). The lateral ex- Stage 2
pansive permanent strain of the sample will induce an additional The axial stress continues to increase from s3 1 Ds3 to s1 . The
confining stress Ds3 from the geosynthetics to the UGM. In a resilient modulus in this stage Mr,2 can be determined by Eq. (2) with
geocell-reinforced sample, the additional confining stress can be
assumed to be applied uniformly through the hoop stress. In a u ¼ s1 þ 2ðs3 þ Ds3 Þ (7a)
geogrid- or geotextile-reinforced sample, the geogrid or geotextile
will apply a confining stress to the sample through either particle and
interlock with geogrid apertures or interface friction between UGM
particles and geotextile. The confining stress will transfer to some pffiffiffi
2
vertical distance (or influence zone) on both sides of the geogrid/ t oct ¼ ½s1 2 ðs3 þ Ds3 Þ (7b)
3
geotextile through particle interlocking. Previous studies have
shown that the influence zone ranges from 10 to 15 cm (Perkins Thus, the full resilient stress-strain relationship of the geosynthetic-
2004; McDowell et al. 2006; Schuettpelz et al. 2009). In this study, reinforced sample can be derived by combining the preceding two
a uniform additional confining stress Ds3 is assumed to be applied stages
on the entire thickness of the sample to approximate the lateral
restraint effect of geogrid/geotextile (as shown in Fig. 1). Thus, in Ds3 s1 2 ðs3 þ Ds3 Þ s1 2 s3
ɛ 1,r ¼ þ ¼ (8)
either the geocell- or the planar geosynthetic-reinforced sample, the Mr,1 Mr,2 Mr,reinf
total lateral confining stress at the resilient state becomes s3 1 Ds3 .
With the preceding approximation, the stress-strain behavior at any It should be noted that the cyclic load of Stage 1 results in an axial
location of the sample becomes identical. extension, whereas the cyclic load of Stage 2 results in an axial
Before establishing the stress-strain relationship of the reinforced compression. Based on Eq. (5), these two components together
sample, it should be noted that the resilient modulus Mr in Eq. (2) is result in the overall axial permanent deformation ɛ 1,p when the
the secant modulus when the stress state of the soil is changed from sample reaches the resilient state
the hydrostatic state (s1 5 s3 ) to another stress state with an in-  

creased s1 ðs1 . s3 Þ. Actually, it does not matter if the axial stress Ds s 2 ðs3 þ Ds3 Þ ɛ 0 2ðr=Nlimit Þb
ɛ 1,p ¼ 2 3 þ 1 e (9)
increases or decreases because the major and minor principal stresses Mr,1 Mr,2 ɛr
in Eq. (2) are exchangeable. Therefore, the stress-strain behavior
for a reinforced UGM sample in a loading cycle (the axial stress The next step is to establish the relationship between the addi-
increases from s3 to s1 ) has to be analyzed in two consequent stages. tional confining stress Ds3 and the permanent strain of the sample.
In Stage 1, the axial stress increases from s3 to s3 1 Ds3 so that Here it is necessary to consider planar (geogrid and geotextile) and
the UGM sample reaches a hydrostatic state (i.e., confining stress 5 3D (geocell) geosynthetics separately.
axial stress 5 s3 1 Ds3 ). In Stage 2, the axial stress continues to
increase from s3 1 Ds3 to s1 . The stress-strain relationships in
these two stages are derived as follows: Planar Geosynthetic Reinforcement
In a geogrid- or geotextile-reinforced UGM sample, the radial in-
teraction stress S applied by the UGM to the geosynthetic can be
considered as equivalent to an axisymmetric tensile stress T (in
force/length) applied at the outer boundary of the geosynthetic that is
able to stretch the geosynthetic to the same extent d (as shown in
Fig. 1). Under an axisymmetric plane-stress condition, when the
circular geosynthetic is only subjected to an external boundary stress
T, the geosynthetic develops uniform normal strains in both radial
g
and circumferential directions (ɛ rrg 5 ɛ uu )
 g 
T ¼  M  × ɛ rrg þ nɛ uu ¼  M  × ɛ rrg (10)
1 2 ng
2 1 2 ng

where M 5 tensile stiffness and ng 5 Poisson’s ratio of the geo-

Fig. 1. Equivalence of geosynthetic stress to the hoop confining stress
synthetic, respectively. Inversely, the load applied from the planar
geosynthetic to the UGM sample can be considered as an equivalent
compressive stress of the same magnitude T applied at the location
of the geosynthetic inclusion (Fig. 1). If the equivalent compressive
stress is distributed to the entire thickness of the UGM sample, the

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1445

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.

 additional confining stress Ds3 applied to the sample can be cal- In addition, the relationship between the lateral permanent strain
culated as ɛ 3, p in Eqs. (12) and (13) and the axial resilient strain ɛ 1, r in Eq. (8) is
needed. UGM samples in RLT tests are often compacted to 95% of
T M  g
Ds3 ¼ ¼  × ɛ rr (11) the maximum dry density. Dense granular materials often exhibit
H H 1 2 ng an expansive volumetric strain during shear. The behavior is also
known as dilation. The dilation behavior of the UGM can be char-
It should be noted that because of the interaction between the geo- acterized by a material property called dilation angle c (Bolton
synthetic and the UGM, neither the stress nor the strain is uni- 1986). Under a triaxial test, the dilation angle of a granular material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

form within a geosynthetic-reinforced UGM sample. Nonetheless, can be calculated using Eq. (14) (Tatsuoka 1987)
Eq. (11) can be easily modified to approximate the interaction be-
tween the reinforcement and the soil as follows: dɛ 1 þ 2dɛ 3
sin c ¼ 2 (14)
A bonding coefficient a was introduced to account for the ra- dɛ 1 2 2dɛ 3
dial strain difference between the geosynthetic and the UGM, i.e.,
a 5 ɛ rrg =ɛ rrs . When a 5 1, the geosynthetic is fully bonded with the For simplicity, the dilation angle c was assumed to be a constant in
UGM. When a 5 0, the geosynthetic has no interaction with the this study. Thus, the differential operator in Eq. (14) can be removed.
UGM. The resulting relationship between Ds3 and the permanent Furthermore, if ɛ 3 and ɛ 1 in Eq. (14) are replaced with the symbols
strain of the UGM sample is used in this paper for permanent deformations ɛ 3, p and ɛ 1, p in an RLT
test, Eq. (14) can be rewritten as
Ds3 ¼  M  × ɛ grr ¼  M  × aɛ rrs

H 1 2 ng H 1 2 ng 1 1 þ sin c
2ɛ 3, p ¼ ɛ 1, p (15)
aM   2 1 2 sin c
¼   × 2ɛ 3,p (12)
H 1 2 ng
Note that when the dilation angle c is zero, Eq. (15) becomes
A rigorous stress-strain analysis considering the relative slippage 2ɛ 3, p 5 1 2 ɛ 1, p , which means that the plastic volumetric strain
=

between the geosynthetic and the UGM is presented in the Appen- ɛ n 5 ɛ 1, p 1 2ɛ 3, p is zero.
dix. It is shown that the bonding coefficient a is an implicit function Substitute Eq. (9) into Eq. (15), and then substitute Eq. (15) into
of geosynthetic tensile stiffness M, the interaction spring stiffness k, Eqs. (12) and (13), giving
the diameter of the sample D, and Poisson’s ratio of the geosynthetic  
s 2 ðs3 þ Ds3 Þ
ng . Fig. 2 presents the value of a solved based on a range of the Ds3 ¼ aM  2Ds3 þ 1
preceding parameters. Apparently, the bonding coefficient a in- 2H 1 2 ng Mr,1 Mr,2
creases with the diameter of the sample D and the ratio k=M and


ɛ b 1 þ sin c
decreases with Poisson’s ratio ng of the geosynthetic.  0 e2ðr=Nlimit Þ (16a)
ɛr 1 2 sin c
Three-Dimensional Geosynthetic Reinforcement  
Ds s 2 ðs3 þ Ds3 Þ
For a geocell-reinforced UGM sample, assuming that the tensile Ds3 ¼ M 2 3 þ 1
stress in the geocell is uniform along the height of the sample (i.e., D Mr,1 Mr,2



the geocell deforms as a right cylinder), the hoop stress of the ɛ b 1 þ sin c
geocell can be calculated as  0 e2ðr=Nlimit Þ (16b)
ɛr 1 2 sin c
 
Ds3 ¼ 2M × 2ɛ 3, p (13) Eq. (16a) applies to a planar geosynthetic-reinforced sample, whereas
D
Eq. (16b) applies to a geocell-reinforced UGM sample. Note that
where D 5 diameter of the sample and M 5 tensile stiffness of the when the material properties of the UGM and the geosynthetic are
geosynthetic (in force/length). given, at a given external load condition (knowing s1 and s3 ), the
additional confining stress Ds3 is the only unknown in Eq. (16).
Eq. (16) can be solved by iteration. With Ds3 obtained, Eq. (8) can
be used to calculate the resilient modulus Mr,reinf and the resilient
strain ɛ 1,r of the reinforced UGM sample. Then Eq. (9) can be
used to calculate the axial permanent deformation ɛ 1,p at any load
repetition N.
In summary, with the material properties of an unreinforced
UGM (i.e., k1 , k2 , k3 , ɛ 0 =ɛ r , r, b, and c) and M and k (only for
geogrid/geotextile) of a geosynthetic, the resilient modulus and the
permanent deformation of the reinforced UGM sample of any di-
mension at any confining and cyclic deviatoric stresses can be
predicted by the analytical model described earlier. Because it is
derived from a mechanistic analysis, the analytical model can be
applied to a variety of materials and stress levels.

Validation of the Model

Repeated-load triaxial test data from two published studies were

Fig. 2. Value of coefficient a at different values of k=M and D used to validate the proposed analytical model. These two studies
were selected because adequate details were provided in the original

1446 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.

 publications about the material properties, testing condition, and test
results.
Geogrid-Reinforced Crushed Stone
Nazzal (2007) performed resilient modulus and permanent defor-
mation RLT tests on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced crushed-
stone samples. Three biaxial geogrids (referred to as BX1, BX2, and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The analytical results confirmed the test observation that geogrid-
reinforced samples had insignificant improvement in resilient mo-
dulus. 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 test
results are compared with the analytical results in Fig. 4. Both the
test and analytical results showed a significant reduction of per-
manent strain in the reinforced UGM. More reduction in permanent

BX3 hereafter) with different tensile stiffnesses were used. All three strain is seen on the sample reinforced by a stiffer geogrid.
geogrids were made from polypropylene and had similar aperture
dimensions. The samples for RLT tests were 15 cm in diameter and Geocell-Reinforced Gravel, Sand, and Silty Clay
30 cm in height. To achieve a uniform density, RLT test samples
were compacted in six 5-cm-thick layers. For the geogrid-reinforced Mengelt et al. (2000) performed resilient modulus RLT tests on
samples, after the lower 15 cm of UGM was compacted, the top unreinforced and geocell-reinforced UGMs. Three UGMs were
surface of the UGM was scratched slightly. A piece of geogrid was tested, i.e., a gravel, a sand, and a silty clay. To fit the size of a single
placed on the scratched surface, and then compaction of the upper unit of geocell, unreinforced and reinforced samples were prepared
15 cm of UGM was continued. The purpose of scratching the com- with a diameter of 25 cm and a height of 20 cm. Except for the special
pacted surface was to improve the interlocking between the geogrid sample size, the resilient modulus tests followed the test protocol
and the UGM. The resilient modulus test followed the test protocol AASHTO T294-94 (AASHTO 1994). In total, 1,000 cycles of
AASHTO T307-99 (AASHTO 2003). In the resilient modulus test, conditioning load were first applied to the sample. Then 15 combi-
1,000 cycles of the conditioning load (confining stress 5 103 kPa nations of different confining stress and repeated deviatoric stress
and maximum cyclic stress 5 103 kPa) were first applied to the were applied in sequence to determine the stress-dependent resilient
sample. Then 15 different combinations of confining and repeated modulus of the sample. Note that the stresses applied to the coarse-
deviatoric stresses were applied in sequence to determine the stress- grained (gravel and sand) and fine-grained (clay) samples were
dependent resilient modulus parameters of the 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 each permanent deformation test. Input
parameters (listed in Table 1) were extracted from the RLT test r-
esults on the unreinforced crushed-stone samples except for the
interaction spring stiffness k. An interface direct shear test was not
performed in the original study, so the interaction spring stiffness k in
Table 1 was determined by fitting the RLT test results for the BX1
geogrid-reinforced sample. Then the same k value was used for the
other two (BX2 and BX3) geogrid-reinforced samples because all
the three geogrids used in the original study had similar material and
aperture dimensions. Without any information available, the shear
dilation angle c 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 Ds3 at
each load sequence of the resilient modulus test can be calculated.
The analytical results of the resilient moduli of the unreinforced
and reinforced samples are compared with the test results in Fig. 3. Fig. 3. Predicted resilient moduli of the geogrid-reinforced samples

Table 1. Input Parameters for Geogrid-Reinforced Crushed Stone

Input parameter Value
Sample size D 5 15 cm
H 5 30 cm
Resilient modulus parameters k1 5 1789
k2 5 0:38
k3 5 20:15
Permanent deformation parameters ðɛ 0 =ɛ r Þ 5 67
r 5 1,000
b 5 0:5
Geogrid tensile stiffness M BX1: 365 kN=m
BX2: 530 kN=m
BX3: 635 kN=m
Geogrid Poisson’s ratio ng 0.3
Interaction spring stiffness k 365,000 kN=m3
Dilation angle c 0
Nlimit for resilient modulus tests 1,000
Nlimit for permanent deformation tests 10,000 Fig. 4. Predicted permanent strains of the geogrid-reinforced samples

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1447

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.

 different. Input parameters (listed in Table 2) 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 condi-
tioning stage of the unreinforced sample. Without any information
available, the shear dilation angle c was taken as zero for all the
UGMs.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Note that the interaction spring stiffness k was assumed the same for
geogrid and geotextile in this parametric analysis. However, in
reality, geogrid generally has a higher k value than geotextile be-
cause of the interlocking between geogrid and granular material. 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 experi-
enced in the base/subbase, as suggested by National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 1-28A (NCHRP

The resilient moduli calculated by the analytical model are 2004). The value of Nlimit was set as 105 in this part of analysis.
compared with the test results in Fig. 5. Both the test and the ana- The following subsections present the effects of material mod-
lytical results showed that an increase in resilient modulus was more ulus (k1 and M), stress level (s3 and s1 2 s3 ), sample diameter D,
significant in the silty clay sample than in the gravel and sand sam- and dilation angle c on the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement. In
ples. The analytical model showed that average increases in the re- this study, the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement was evaluated
silient modulus at different stress levels were 2.8, 3.1, and 13.5% for using the percentages of resilient modulus increase and permanent
reinforced gravel, sand, and silty clay, which compared well with the deformation reduction
measured increases of 3.2, 1.4, and 16.5%, respectively.
No permanent deformation test of the geocell-reinforced sample
was performed in the original study. Only the permanent defor-
mation in the conditioning stage was monitored on the geocell-
reinforced samples. The test results showed that for the gravel and
sand, the permanent deformations of the unreinforced and geocell-
reinforced samples measured in the conditioning stage showed al-
most no difference. For the silty clay, the geocell-reinforced sample
developed significantly more permanent deformation than the un-
reinforced sample. Apparently these results are not reasonable. The
actual reasons for these unreasonable test results are unknown, but
they may result from variations in sample preparation. Therefore,
only the analytical results were presented for the permanent de-
formation 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
sand samples in the conditioning stage of the resilient modulus test.
These results are presented in Fig. 6. The predicted reductions in
permanent strain were 65.7, 52.8, and 76.1% for geocell-reinforced
gravel, sand, and silty clay, respectively.

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- or geotextile- and geocell-reinforced samples.

Table 2. Input Parameters for Geocell-Reinforced Unbound Granular

Materials
Input parameter Value
Sample size D 5 25 cm
H 5 20 cm
Resilient modulus k1 k2 k3
parameters Gravel 555 0.43 0
Sand 433 0.57 0
Silty clay 397 0.49 20:24
Permanent deformation (ɛ 0 =ɛ r ) r b
parameters Gravel 150 2,000 0.3
Sand 80 1,000 0.2
Silty clay 130 2,000 0.4
Geocell tensile stiffness M 280 kN=m
Dilation angle c 0°
Nlimit 1,000 for resilient modulus tests Fig. 5. Predicted resilient moduli of the geocell-reinforced samples:
10,000 for permanent deformation tests (a) gravel; (b) sand; (c) silty clay

1448 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.

 Mr,reinf 2 Mr,unreinf
Increase in resilient modulus ¼  100%
Mr,unreinf
(17a)
ɛ p,unreinf 2 ɛ p, reinf
Reduction in permanent deformation ¼  100%
ɛp,unreinf
(17b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where Mr,unreinf and Mr, reinf 5 resilient moduli of the unreinforced

and geosynthetic-reinforced UGM samples, respectively; and ɛ p,unreinf
and ɛ p, reinf 5 permanent strains after 105 cycles of repeated deviatoric
stress of the unreinforced and the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM
samples, respectively.
Fig. 6. Predicted permanent strains of the geocell-reinforced samples
Geosynthetic Tensile Stiffness
Fig. 7 shows the effects of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on the
benefit of the geosynthetic reinforcement. A number of observations
Table 3. Baseline Input Parameters for Parametric Analysis can be made from Fig. 7. First, an increase in the tensile stiffness of
Input parameter Value the geosynthetic increases the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement.
The trend of this benefit increase is nonlinear. Second, an increase
Sample size D 5 15 cm
in the UGM resilient modulus (by increasing k1 ) reduces the benefit of
H 5 30 cm
geosynthetic reinforcement. This trend is also nonlinear. In reality, in
Resilient modulus parameters k1 5 1,500
the case of geogrid reinforcement, finer UGMs (e.g., sand and clay)
k2 5 0:5
may not interlock as well with the geogrid as coarser UGMs (e.g.,
k3 520:2
crushed stone). Thus, the benefit of geogrid reinforcement on finer
Permanent deformation parameters ðɛ 0 =ɛ r Þ 5 80
UGMs should be limited because the interaction spring stiffness is
r 5 1,000
lower. Third, the benefit of geosynthetics in reducing the permanent
b 5 0:4
deformation is more significant than increasing the resilient mod-
Geosynthetic tensile stiffness M 200 kN=m
ulus. This phenomenon was also observed in experimental studies
Geogrid Poisson’s ratio ng 0.3
by other researchers. Last, with the same sample size and tensile
Interaction spring stiffness k 200,000 kN=m3
stiffness, geocell reinforcement provided more benefit than geogrid
Dilation angle c 0°
or geotextile reinforcement. This finding is reasonable because
Nlimit 100,000
geocell provides direct confinement to the UGM rather than relying

Fig. 7. Effect of material modulus on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM: (a) geogrid/geotextile; (b) geogrid/geotextile; (c) geocell;
(d) geocell

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1449

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.

 on frictional stresses. This confinement is particularly helpful for
reinforcing finer UGMs, as demonstrated earlier in this paper. In
addition, for the same sample size, the area of geocell material is
much larger than that of the geogrid material.
Stress Level
Fig. 8 shows the effects of stress level on the benefits of geosynthetic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reinforcement. Similar trends were observed from planar and 3D
geosynthetic-reinforced UGMs. In general, the increase in resilient
modulus was influenced by both the confining and the repeated
deviatoric stresses. At a given confining stress, the resilient modulus
first increased with the deviatoric stress and then decreased after
reaching a peak value. This phenomenon is more evident in planar
geosynthetic-reinforced UGMs at a lower confining stress.
The reduction in 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 lateral re-
straint mechanism of geosynthetics at the lower confining stress. The
decrease in permanent deformation is less sensitive to the change of
deviatoric stress than to the change of confining stress. It should be
noted that Fig. 8 presents the percentage of permanent deformation
reduction. The actual amount of permanent deformation reduction
(ɛ p,unreinf 2 ɛ p, reinf ) still increased with the deviatoric stress.
Sample Diameter and Dilation Angle
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 bond-
ing coefficient a in Eq. (12) increases with the diameter of the sample
D (shown in Fig. 2). Consequently, the benefit of geosynthetic became
more significant, as shown in Figs. 9(a and b). The sensitivity-analysis
results suggest that laboratory test results from smaller samples (e.g.,
0.15 m in diameter) may underestimate the benefits of geogrid or
geotextile reinforcement in the field.
Fig. 8. Effect of stress level on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM: (a) geogrid/geotextile; (b) geogrid/geotextile; (c) geocell;
(d) geocell
1450 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.
For geocell-reinforced samples, varying the sample diameter is
equivalent to changing the pocket size of the geocell. From Eq. (13),
the additional confining stress decreases with the diameter of the
sample. This result implies that a geocell with a smaller pocket di-
ameter can provide better confinement than a geocell with a larger
pocket diameter. This trend is reasonable because 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 d).
The scale effect of the RLT tests is more complicated for geocell
reinforcement because of the interaction with the adjacent cells in the
field, which is largely affected by the geometry and configuration of
the geocell.
The effect of the dilation angle c of the UGM on the benefits of
geosynthetic reinforcement is shown in Fig. 10. As expected, the
benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement increases with the dilation
angle of the UGM.
Discussion
The proposed analytical model consists of three general compo-
nents: (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 modi-
fied by replacing any of the three components with other models.
The current form of the analytical model is selected to be compatible
with the MEPDG.
The proposed analytical model was derived based on mecha-
nistic 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
and the soil was approximated by an interface shear stress at the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Effect of sample diameter on the performance of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM: (a) geogrid/geotextile; (b) geogrid/geotextile; (c) geocell;
(d) geocell

Fig. 10. Effect of dilation angle on the performances of the geosynthetic-reinforced UGM: (a) increase in resilient modulus; (b) reduction in permanent
deformation

location of the geosynthetic. This approximation allowed analysis
of the geosynthetic-soil interaction using a continuum approach.
The interlock mechanism may be more appropriately modeled by a
DEM (e.g., Bhandari and Han 2010). However, the DEM requires
significant computation time and is difficult to adapt to practical
applications. Another assumption of the model is that the repeated
load applied to the sample will not exceed the shakedown limit of
the sample, which means that the sample will eventually reach the
resilient state rather than develop excessive permanent strain or fail.
In addition, the interlocking mechanism between geosynthetic and
soil is approximated by concentric shear stress.
In general, the analytical results show that geosynthetic reinfor-
cement is more effective in 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 RLT test observations, some field test data
(Kwon and Tutumluer 2009) revealed that geosynthetic-reinforced
bases exhibit higher resilient moduli than unreinforced bases even
right after construction. Perkins (2004) attributed the increase in re-
silient modulus in the geosynthetic-reinforced bases after 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
because the confining stress in such tests is controlled externally.
Concluding Remarks
In this paper, an analytical model was proposed to predict the re-
silient modulus and the permanent deformation of geosynthetic-
reinforced UGM under an RLT test based on material properties
of the UGM and the geosynthetics. The resilient and permanent
deformation models used in the derivation of the analytical model
are consistent with the current MEPDG. Both planar and 3D

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1451

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.

 geosynthetic-reinforced UGM samples can be analyzed. The pro- interface direct shear test. Note that Us and Ug are both functions of
posed analytical model was validated using the test results from two radius r.
published studies. Overall, the analytical results from the proposed Because the thickness of the planar geosynthetic is generally small
model match the experimental data well. (about 1–2 mm), the geosynthetic can be analyzed under a plane-
A parametric analysis was conducted to investigate the effect of stress condition. The equilibrium equation of a geosynthetic ele-
input parameters to the analytical model. In general, the calculated ment is
resilient modulus and permanent deformation showed reasonable
dTrr Trr 2 Tuu
variations with changes in the material properties (e.g., tensile stiff- þ þS¼0 (19)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ness of the geosynthetics, resilient modulus and dilation angle of the dr r

UGM), sample diameter, and stress level.
where Trr and Tuu 5 radial and tangent normal stress components
The analytical model proposed in this study provides a rational
(in force/length) in the geosynthetic. Trr and Tuu can be calculated
tool to analyze and understand RLT test data on geosynthetic-
as
reinforced UGM samples. It can be used to assist in the develop-
ment of simplified design parameters (calibration factors or equivalent

dUg Ug
material properties) for a geosynthetic-reinforced base in a mechanistic- Trr ¼ M 2 þ ng (20)
1 2 ng dr r
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. M Ug dUg
Tuu ¼ þ ng (21)
The stress path and stress history of the UGM base material are much 1 2 n2g r dr
more complex than the stress applied in an RLT test. Future studies
are needed on the stress conditions in the granular base layer gen- where M 5 tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic (in force/length) and
erated by construction and traffic loads. The analytical model can be ng 5 Poisson’s ratio of the geosynthetic. Note that in reality, geogrid
improved in the future based on advances in these areas. and geotextile are mostly anisotropic structures. However, to sim-
plify the problem to an axisymmetric condition, the geosynthetic
Appendix. Estimation of Equivalent Additional materials are characterized here as an equivalent isotropic material
Confining Stress from Planar Geosynthetic- with two elastic constants (M and ng ) in this study. Substituting
Reinforced Unbound Granular Material Cylinder Eqs. (18), (20), and (21) into Eq. (19) yields

2 
M d Ug dUg Ug  
A layer of planar geosynthetic (geogrid or geotextile) with a tensile þ 2 þ k Us 2 Ug ¼ 0 (22)
stiffness of M and Poisson’s ratio ng is placed in the middle of a 12n 2 dr 2 rdr r 2

cylinder sample with diameter D. When the sample is subjected to

a repeated deviatoric stress, the sample will gradually develop a
permanent horizontal strain ɛ 3, p . Consequently, given the inter-
locking between the UGM and the geosynthetic, the geosynthetic
will be stretched horizontally. The radial interaction stress between
the geosynthetic and soil can be modeled using a series of interaction
springs, as shown in Fig. 11. The magnitude of the radial interaction
stress S can be calculated as
 
S ¼ k Us 2 Ug (18)
In reality, the radial displacement of the UGM Us should vary at
different vertical location as a result of the localized restraint stress
at the middle of the sample. However, in this study, it is assumed that
the restraint stress is uniformly distributed to the entire thickness of
the sample through particle interlocking. Therefore, the stress and
strain are independent of the vertical location. For simplicity, it is
further assumed that the radial displacements of geosynthetic and the
soil are proportional to each other at any radius r.
Ug ¼ aUs (23)

where k 5 interaction spring stiffness (in force=length3 ) and Us and
Ug 5 radial displacements of the UGM and the geosynthetic, re-
spectively. The interaction spring stiffness k is a parameter commonly
used in the numerical modeling of geosynthetic-soil interaction
(Yang et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2011). It can be determined from an
where the parameter a 5 a measure of the bonding between the
UGM and the geosynthetic. When the UGM and the geosynthetic are
fully bonded to each other, a 5 1. When there is no bonding stress
between the soil and the geosynthetic, a 5 0.
Substituting Eq. (23) into Eq. (22) yields

d 2 Ug dUg Ug kð1 2 aÞ 1 2 ng
2
þ 2 2 þ Ug ¼ 0 (24)
dr2 rdr r aM

The solution to the preceding differential equation is

Ug ¼ C1 J1 ðb × rÞ þ C2 Y1 ðb × rÞ (25)

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
ukð1 2 aÞ 1 2 n2
t g
b¼ (26)
aM

where J1 ðxÞ and Y1 ðxÞ 5 Bessel functions of the first and the second
Fig. 11. Equilibrium of a geosynthetic element
kinds and constants C1 and C2 , as well as a, can be solved based on
the three boundary conditions

1452 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.

 Ug ¼0 (27)
r¼0
Trr jr¼D=2 ¼ 0 (28)
 
Ug r¼D=2
¼ a × Us jr¼D=2 ¼ a 2ɛ 3,p D (29)
2 pavement reinforced with geogrid.” J. Eng. Mech., 129(7), 801–811.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MALAVIYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on 06/22/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Substituting Eqs. (27) and (29) into Eq. (25) yields
aD  
C1 ¼ × 2ɛ 3, p (30)
2J1 b × D
2
C2 ¼ 0 (31)
Substituting Eq. (28) into Eq. (25) yields
 
2 1 2 ng
b × J0 b × D 2 × J1 b × D ¼ 0 (32)
2 D 2 design.” NCHRP Research Result Digest 285, National Cooperative
Eq. (32) is an implicit equation of a. The solution to this equation
with a typical range of ng , D, and k=M has been obtained, as shown
in Fig. 2.
References
AASHTO. (1994). “Standard method of test for resilient modulus of sub-
grade soils and untreated base/subbase materials.” AASHTO T 294-94,
Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2003). “Standard test method for determining the resilient
modulus of soils and aggregate materials.” AASHTO T 307-99,
Washington, DC.
Al-Qadi, I., Dessouky, S., Kwon, J., and Tutumluer, E. (2008). “Geogrid
in flexible pavements: Validated mechanism.” Transportation Research
Record 2045, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 102–109.
ARA, Inc. (2004). “Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and
rehabilitated pavement structures.” Final Rep. NCHRP Project 1-37A,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Bhandari, A., and Han, J. (2010). “Investigation of geotextile-soil inter-
action under a cyclic wheel load using the discrete element method.”
J. Geotextile Geomembr., 28(1), 33–43.
Bolton, M. D. (1986). “The strength and dilatancy of sands.” Geotechnique,
36(1), 65–78.
Brown, S. F., Kwan, J., and Thom, N. H. (2007). “Identifying the key
parameters that influence geogrid reinforcement of railway ballast.”
J. Geotextile Geomembr., 25(6), 326–335.
Giroud, J. P., and Han, J. (2004a). “Design method for geogrid-reinforced
unpaved roads. I: Development of design method.” J. Geotech. Geo-
environ. Eng., 130(8), 775–786.
Giroud, J. P., and Han, J. (2004b). “Design method for geogrid-reinforced
unpaved roads. II: Calibration and applications.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 130(8), 787–797.
Han, J., and Bhandari, A. (2010). “The influence of geogrid aperture size on
the behavior of reinforced granular bases.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Geo-
mechanics and Geotechnics: From Micro to Macro, M. Jiang, F. Liu,
and M. Bolton, eds., CRC Press, London, 683–687.
Han, J., et al. (2011). “Performance of geocell-reinforced RAP bases over
weak subgrade under full-scale moving wheel loads.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng., 23(11), 1525–1534.
Huang, J., Parsons, R. L., Han, J., and Pierson, M. (2011). “Numerical
analysis of a laterally loaded shaft constructed within an MSE wall.”
Geotextiles Geomembr., 29(3), 233–241.
Kwon, J., and Tutumluer, E. (2009). “Geogrid base reinforcement with
aggregate interlock and modeling of associated stiffness enhancement in
mechanistic pavement analysis.” Transportation Research Record
2116, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 85–95.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER 2013 / 1453
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:1443-1453.
Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E., and Al-Qadi, I. L. (2009). “Validated mechanistic
model for geogrid base reinforced flexible pavements.” J. Transp. Eng.,
135(12), 915–926.
Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E., and Konietzky, H. (2008). “Aggregate base re-
sidual stresses affecting geogrid reinforced flexible pavement response.”
Int. J. Pave. Eng., 9(4), 275–285.
Ling, H. I., and Liu, H. (2003). “Finite element studies of asphalt concrete
McDowell, G. R., Harireche, O., Konietzky, H., Brown, S. F., Thom, N. H.
(2006). “Discrete element modelling of geogrid-reinforced aggre-
gates.” Proc., Institution of Civil Engineers: Geotech. Eng., 159 (GEI),
35–48.
Mengelt, M. J., Edil, T. B., and Benson, C. H. (2000). “Reinforcement of
flexible pavements using geocells.” Geo. Eng. Rep. 00-04, Univ. of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Moghaddas-Nejad, F., and Small, J. C. (2003). “Resilient and permanent
characteristics of reinforced granular materials by repeated load triaxial
tests.” J. ASTM Geotech. Test., 26(2), 152–166.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). (2004).
“Laboratory determination of resilient modulus for flexible pavement
Highway Research Program, Washington, DC.
Nazzal, M. (2007). “Laboratory characterization and numerical modeling of
geogrid-reinforced bases in flexible pavements.” Ph.D. dissertation,
Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA.
Perkins, S. W. (2002). “Evaluation of geosynthetic-reinforced flexible
pavement systems using two pavement test facilities.” FHWA/MT-02-
008/20040, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Ad-
ministration, Washington, DC.
Perkins, S. W. (2004). “Development of design methods for geosynthetic-
reinforced flexible pavements.” DTFH61-01-X-00068, U.S. De-
partment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Wash-
ington, DC.
Perkins, S. W., and Ismeik, M. (1997). “A synthesis and evaluation of
geosynthetic-reinforced base layers in flexible pavements, part I.”
Geosynthetics Int., 4(6), 549–604.
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 2116, Trans-
portation Research Board, Washington, DC, 76–84.
Tatsuoka, F. (1987). “Discussion of “The strength and dilatancy of sands
by Bolton, M. D.” Geotechnique, 37(1), 219–226.
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, West Conshohocken, PA, 154–172.
Webster, S. L. (1979a). “Investigation of beach sand trafficability en-
hancement using sand-grid confinement and membrane reinforcement
concepts. Rep. 1: Sand test sections 1 and 2.” Tech. Rep. GL-79-20,
Geotechnical Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experimentation Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Webster, S. L. (1979b). “Investigation of beach sand trafficability en-
hancement using sand-grid confinement and membrane reinforcement
concepts. Rep. 2: Sand test sections 3 and 4.” Tech. Rep. GL-79-20,
Geotechnical Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experimentation Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Webster, S. L. (1992). “Geogrid reinforced base courses for flexible
pavements for light aircraft, test section construction, behavior under
traffic, laboratory tests, and design criteria.” Tech. Rep. GL-93-6, Geo-
technical Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Ex-
perimentation Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Yang, X. (2010). “Numerical analyses of geocell-reinforced granular soils
under static and repeated loads.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS.
Yang, X., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., and Parsons, R. L. (2012). “A three-
dimensional mechanistic-empirical model for geocell-reinforced un-
paved roads.” Acta Geotech., 8(2), 201–283.
Yang, X., Han, J., Parsons, R. L., and Leshchinsky, D. (2010). “Three-
dimensional numerical modeling of single geocell-reinforced sand.”
Front. Archit. Civ. Eng. China, 4(2), 233–240.