See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265471877

Mechanistic–empirical analysis of the results of finite element analysis on

flexible pavement with geogrid base reinforcement

Article in International Journal of Pavement Engineering · October 2014

DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2014.893315

CITATIONS READS

54 844

4 authors, including:

Murad Abu-Farsakh George Z. Voyiadjis

Louisiana State University Louisiana State University
223 PUBLICATIONS 3,736 CITATIONS 663 PUBLICATIONS 14,562 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Qiming Chen
Glion Institute of Higher Education
47 PUBLICATIONS 1,528 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Development of a Design Methodology for Geosynthetic Reinforced Pavement using Finite Element Numerical Modeling View project

Thermo-Mechanical Description of C45 Steel over a range of Temperatures and Loading Rates View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Murad Abu-Farsakh on 12 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2014
Vol. 15, No. 9, 786–798, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.893315

Mechanistic– empirical analysis of the results of finite element analysis on flexible pavement with
geogrid base reinforcement
Murad Y. Abu-Farsakha*, Jie Gub1, George Z. Voyiadjisb2 and Qiming Chena3
a
Louisiana Transportation Research Center, Louisiana State University, 4101 Gourrier Avenue, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA;
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
(Received 15 July 2012; accepted 7 February 2014)

A finite-element response model was developed using ABAQUS software package to investigate the effect of geogrid base
reinforcement on the response of a flexible pavement structure. Finite-element analyses were then conducted on different
unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced flexible pavement sections. In this analysis, the base course (BC) layer was modelled
using an elasto-plastic bounding surface model. The results of the finite-element analyses showed that the geogrid
reinforcement reduced the lateral strains within the BC and subgrade layers, the vertical strain and shear strain at top of
subgrade, and the surface permanent deformation. The higher tensile modulus geogrid resulted in larger reduction of surface
permanent deformation. Based on the response parameters computed from the finite element analysis, the improvement of
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015

using geogrid for BC reinforcement was then evaluated using the damage models for rutting in the mechanistic – empirical
method developed through NCHRP Project 1-37a. The results of mechanistic –empirical analyses showed that the traffic
benefit ratio values can reach as high as 3.7 for thin base pavement section built over weak subgrade using high tensile
modulus geogrid.
Keywords: geogrid; flexible pavement; finite element analysis; bounding surface model; mechanistic – empirical analysis

1. Introduction Moghaddas-Nejad and Small 1996, Cancelli and Mon-

Pavement structures are built to support loads induced by
traffic vehicle loading and to distribute them safely to the
subgrade soil. A conventional flexible pavement structure
consists of a surface layer of asphalt concrete (AC) and a
base course (BC) layer of granular materials built on top of
a subgrade layer. The major structural function of a base
layer is to provide a stable platform for the construction of
the asphalt layer and reduce the compressive stresses on
the subgrade and tensile stresses in the asphalt layer. BC
layers can be the cause of pavement failures, due to
inadequate capacity of support to upper layers or to being
insufficiently stiff, such that they fail to transfer the load
uniformly to the subgrade, leading to localised over-
loading of the subgrade, and resulting in excessive
pavement rutting. With high quality aggregates becoming
scarce in many parts of the country, exploring alternatives
to existing methods of building and rehabilitating roads is
essential. The use of geogrid reinforcement of BC layers
offers one such alternative. The benefits of geogrid base
reinforcement lies in the possibility of extending the
service life of the pavement or reducing the base thickness
(Berg et al. 2000).
Over the last three decades, numerous experimental
studies have been conducted to evaluate the use of
geosynthetic products as an inclusion in flexible
pavements for reinforcement (e.g. Miura et al. 1990,
tanelli 1999, Al-Qadi et al. 2008). The experimental
results have demonstrated that the amount of improvement
in pavement performance due to geogrid base reinforce-
ment depends on the physical properties of geogrid
(Webster 1993), mechanical properties of geogrid
(Cancelli and Montanelli 1999, Perkins 1999, Berg et al.
2000), location of geogrid in pavement (Hass et al. 1988,
Webster 1993, Perkins 1999, Al-Qadi et al. 2008),
thickness of base layer (Collin et al. 1996, Kinney et al.
1998), strength of the subgrade (Cancelli and Montanelli
1999, Perkins 1999) and so on.
The finite element method, as a universal numerical
approach, has been widely used by researchers for
assessing the improvements due to geosynthetic reinforce-
ment (Barksdale et al. 1989, Dondi 1994, Wathugala et al.
1996, Perkins and Edens 2002, Kwon et al. 2005, Nazzal
et al. 2010). One major advantage of the finite element
method over the experimental study is that the uncertainty
introduced by differences in the constructed layer
thicknesses and properties of compacted layers can be
eliminated. The finite element analyses demonstrated the
effect of many parameters (e.g. geogrid tensile modulus,
geogrid location, base thickness, and subgrade strength) on
the geogrid benefit. The finite element results also showed
that the geosynthetic reinforcement reduces the lateral
strains within the BC and subgrade layers through

*Corresponding author. Email: cefars@lsu.edu

q 2014 Taylor & Francis
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
mobilising lateral confinement/restraint. The reduction in
the vertical and shear strains at the top of subgrade layer
was also reported in the literature.
For the past 20 years or so, many efforts have been
made to incorporate the structural benefits of geosyn-
thetics in the design of flexible pavements (Webster 1993,
Montanelli et al. 1997, The Tensar Corporation 1997,
Perkins et al. 2009). The current main flexible pavement
design method that accounts for the geogrid reinforcement
is using a modified 1993 AASHTO flexible pavement
design guide (AASHTO 1993). This approach basically
involves quantifying the structural contribution of geogrid
on flexible pavement by the increase in the structural layer
coefficient of the BC and/or the reduction in the thickness
of the base layer (Montanelli et al. 1997, The Tensar
Corporation 1997). Recently, Perkins et al. (2009)
developed a mechanistic – empirical model for geosyn-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015
thetics base-reinforced flexible pavement, based upon the
models and procedures of an existing mechanistic –
empirical model developed for unreinforced pavements
through NCHRP project I-37A (ARA 2004). Several new
components related to the reinforcement are introduced in
their model, which include structural elements for the
reinforcement, an isotropic linear elastic model for the
reinforcement, a Coulomb friction mode for reinforce-
ment –aggregate interaction, additional responses model-
ling steps that account for the influence of reinforcement
on lateral confinement of the base aggregate during
construction and subsequent traffic loading, and a
modified permanent deformation damage model for
aggregates within the influence zone of the reinforcement.
The ability of the proposed model to predict the significant
improvement in the rutting performance for reinforced
sections as compared to unreinforced sections has been
demonstrated through comparison of their model to the
test sections constructed by Perkins (1999) and Perkins
and Cortez (2005). A similar study was conducted by
Nazzal et al. (2010) using finite element analysis based on
a critical two-surface model to evaluate the response of
geosynthetic-reinforced pavements.
In this paper, an elasto-plastic bounding surface model
developed by Dafalias and Herrmann (1986) was
implemented into ABAQUS finite element software
package through a user-defined subroutine, UMAT. The
implemented model was validated using the results of
laboratory triaxial tests and was later used to develop a
finite element model to assess the benefits of reinforcing
the BC layer in a flexible pavement structure with geogrid
reinforcement and to evaluate the influence of the different
variables on the degree of improvement on the
performance of these pavement structures. The mechan-
istic – empirical approach was utilised to evaluate the
improvement of the inclusion of the geogrid layer within
the BC layer using the response parameters computed
from the finite element analysis results.
787
2. Finite element modelling of reinforced flexible
pavements
To accurately study pavement behaviours, three-dimen-
sional (3D) modelling of pavement is usually needed from
a theoretical point of view. However, 3D modelling of
pavement is time consuming and not practical to run
multiple cases. As such, a 2D axisymmetric finite element
model was developed using the ABAQUS finite element
software package to analyse the flexible pavement
structure with geogrid reinforced bases. This is also
consistent with the laboratory study reported in the
literature (e.g. Al-Qadi et al. 1994, Perkins 1999, Abu-
Farsakh and Chen 2011) in which the applied surface load
(the wheel load) is modelled using a circular load.
2.1 Finite element mesh
Eight-node biquadratic axisymmetric quadrilateral
elements were used to discretise the subgrade, base and
AC, while three-node quadratic axisymmetric membrane
elements with thickness of 1 mm were used to discretise
the geogrid reinforcement. The radius of the mesh was
selected based on the distance at which the vertical and
horizontal strains become insignificantly small in all
layers. And the depth of the mesh was chosen to be at the
depth at which the maximum induced vertical stress in
the subgrade became insignificantly small (, 0.01% of the
applied pressure). The number of finite element meshes
with different degrees of refinement was tried first in order
to obtain an appropriate mesh for the analysis of pavement
that converges to a unique solution. The finally adopted
finite element model is illustrated in Figure 1, which has a
radius of 4.5 m and a depth of 4 m.
2.2 Loading and boundary conditions
The loading model in this study included applying gravity
loads in the first load step of the analysis, then applying
100 cycles of loading to simulate dual wheels under an
equivalent 80 kN single-axle load. The wheel load was
simulated by applying the contact pressure of 550 kPa,
which was used in AASHO road test, on a circular area
with a radius of 152 mm at the surface. A haversine-shaped
load with the maximum magnitude of 80 kN was adopted
in the finite element analyses. It was implemented into the
ABAQUS with the use of a user subroutine (DLOAD).
Conventional kinematic boundary conditions were
adopted, i.e. no normal displacement is allowed on the two
sides of model and at the bottom surface of the model,
while the top surface of the model is free of restrain.
2.3 Residual stress
Residual stresses develop in the BC layer as a result of the
initial compaction and subsequent repeated traffic loading.
 788 M.Y. Abu-Farsakh et al.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015
Figure 1. Finite element model for reinforced pavement.
These residual stresses should be properly quantified and
taken into account for determining the initial stress state of
a flexible pavement system.
A residual stress of 21 kPa was assumed to exist
throughout the depth of the BC layer in unreinforced
section in accordance with the field measurements of
Barksdale and Alba (1993) (Figure 2(a)). Usually in
reinforced section, the residual stresses around the geogrid
would be higher due to the geogrid stiffening effect.
However, the nature and the distribution of the locked-in
Figure 2. Residual stresses distribution.
horizontal residual stresses in the BC around the geogrid
reinforcement are still not well understood. They should
depend on variables such as geogrid properties, granular
base properties and construction procedure. Discrete
element analysis conducted by Konietzky et al. (2004)
and McDowell et al. (2006) indicated that the zone of the
lateral confinement effect of geogrid tends extend to
approximately 100 mm from geogrid side. Furthermore,
the confinement effect of geogrid was shown to be great at
the immediate vicinity of the geogrid, and decreased
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 789

linearly within the influence zone. Kwon et al. (2008) is a smooth surface consisting of two ellipses and one
successfully modelled the benefits of including geogrids in hyperbola with continuous tangents as shown in
the base by assigning residual stress concentrations up to Figure 3. The bar over the stress quantity denotes an
63 kPa. While a maximum residual stress of 63 kPa was image point on the bounding surface. The real stress
adopted in this study, a modified residual stress point sij within the bounding surface is related to the
distribution (i.e. linear distribution instead of step image stress point sij on the bounding surface through
distribution used in Kwon et al.’s study) shown in Figure 2 a mapping rule.
(b) was assumed in this analysis. The actual residual For ellipse 1:
stresses distribution may depend on many variables, such
!2
J
!
as the types of geogrid, location of geogrid, properties of R22
subgrade and aggregate, and compaction procedure. This F ¼ ðI 2 I 0 Þ I þ I0 þ ðR 2 1Þ2 ¼ 0: ð1Þ
R N
is beyond the scope of this study.
All the residual stresses were applied as initial stress For the hyperbola:
conditions. Since the residual stresses distribution for !2
J I 0 J I 0
!" !#
reinforced cases is not readily available in ABAQUS, a I0 RA
F¼ I 2 2 2 2 1þ2 ¼ 0:
user-defined subroutine (SIGNI) was developed to R N R N R N
simulate it. ð2Þ
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015

For ellipse 2:
3. Constitutive models and material parameters
3.1 AC layer F ¼ ðI 2 TI 0 Þ½I 2 ðT þ 2zÞI 0 % 2 rJ 2 ¼ 0; ð3Þ
In this study, the elastic-perfectly plastic model was used
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where I ¼ fs}T fs}; J ¼ 1=2fS}T fS}; fs} is the
for the AC layer. The plasticity was introduced by effective stress vector; fS} is the deviatoric stress vector;
specification of an ultimate yield stress corresponding to a N is the slope of the classical critical state line; R, A and T
perfect plasticity hardening law. The parameters used for are the bounding surface shape parameters;
the AC layer is presented in Table 1. z ¼ 2ðTðZ þ TF 0 Þ=ðZ þ 2TF 0 )); r ¼ Tp2 =ZðZ 0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiþ 2TF Þ;
0
F ¼ N= 1 þ y ; Z ¼ ðN=RÞð1 þ y 2 1 þ y ); and
2 2

3.2 BC layer
Conventional plasticity models with isotropic hardening
rules are described in terms of a yield surface. Stress states
lying below the current yield surface always produce
elastic behaviour. This feature of conventional plasticity
models make them suited for the prediction of permanent
strain under a single cycle of the load application but not
the accumulation of permanent strain under repeated
loads.
The crushed limestone base material was modelled
using the elastoplastic bounding surface model (Dafalias
and Herrmann 1986). The bounding surface model is
described in terms of two surfaces represented in the
stress space shown in Figure 3. The larger surface
represents the bounding surface, which is equivalent to
a yield surface in a conventional plasticity model. The
smaller surface denotes an elastic zone. Stress states
within the elastic zone produce purely elastic behaviour.
Stress states lying between the elastic zone and the
bounding surface are capable of producing both elastic
and inelastic behaviour. As the stress state approaches
the bounding surface, the rate of plastic strain increases.
Both isotropic and kinematic hardening rules were used
to describe the evolution of the bounding surface as the
plastic strain develops. The associated flow rule is
adopted in the model. The bounding surface FðI; J ; u; I 0 Þ
y ¼ RA=N.
The bounding surface model was implemented into the
USER MATERIAL subroutines for ABAQUS finite
element program by a FORTRAN code. Table 1 presents
a summary of the calibrated model parameters used in the
finite element analysis conducted in this study.
3.3 Subgrade layer
The subgrade was modelled using the modified Cam Clay
model available in ABAQUS. The yield function of the
modified Cam Clay model corresponding to a particular
value pc of the preconsolidation pressure has the form
shown in Equation (4) and is represented by an ellipse in
the q –p plane as shown in Figure 4.
f ¼ q 2 2 M 2c pðpc 2 pÞ; ð4Þ
where Mc is the slope of critical state line in the q– p plane
and pc is the preconsolidation pressure.
Three sets of the Modified Cam Clay model
parameters were selected to describe the behaviour of
different subgrade materials adopted in another study
(Nazzal 2007) to represent weak, moderate and stiff
subgrades that correspond to California bearing ratio
(CBR) values of 1.5, 7 and 15. The selected parameters are
presented in Table 1.
 790 M.Y. Abu-Farsakh et al.

Table 1. Model parameters for AC, base, subgrade and geosynthetics.

Model Parameters for AC layer (50 mm thick)
n Elastic modulus(kPa) Yield stress (kPa)
0.35 3,450,000 770
Model parameters for crushed limestone base material (thickness varies, Figure 1)
l k n Mc Me Rc Re Ac Ae T C S Hc He
0.018 0.0018 0.3 0.37 0.37 2 2 0.02 0.02 0.01 0 1 20 20
Material parameters for different subgrade soils
G (kPa) Mc l k e0 CBR
Weak 5,170 0.65 0.225 0.11 0.95 1.5
Medium 20,000 1 0.11 0.084 0.95 7
Stiff 35,000 1.56 0.022 0.005 0.54 15
Model parameters for geogrids
Reference name Elastic modulus (kPa)a n
Geogrid type I GGI 585,100 0.25
Geogrid type II GGII 860,000 0.25
Geogrid type III GGIII 950,000 0.25
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015

Note: n is the Poisson’s ratio; l is the virgin compression slope; k is the swell/recompression slope; Mc is the critical state line in compression; Me is the
critical state line in extension; Rc and Re are the bounding surface shape parameters for ellipse 1; Ac and Ae are the bounding surface shape parameters for
hyperbola; T is the bounding surface shape parameter for ellipse 2; C is the projection centre parameter; S is the elastic zone parameter; Hc and He are the
shape hardening parameters; G is the shear modulus; Mc is the slope of critical state line; e0 is the initial void ratio and CBR is the California bearing ratio.
a
Elastic modulus of geogrid is equal to the tensile modulus of geogrid divided by the thickness of geogrid reinforcement.

3.4 Geogrid layer
A linear elastic model was used to describe the behaviour
of geogrid material. Such model proved to be efficient
when used by other researchers (e.g. Dondi 1994, Perkins
2001, Ling and Liu 2003), especially since the induced
strain in the geogrid is very small and is considered within
the elastic range. Three geogrid types with different
equivalent elastic modulus were used. A summary of these
properties is shown in Table 1.
3.5 Geosynthetic –soil interface
For geosynthetic–soil interface, a full bonding between the
geosynthetic and the soil surrounding is assumed. Based on
the extensive study on the effect of geogrid interface
properties, Nazzal (2007) reported that the full bonding
condition case was similar to case with Eslip value of 0.5 mm.
The Eslip describes the interface shear stiffness, and is the limit
of the relative shear displacement before the allowable
interface shear stress is reached. For the case of a paved
system, the allowed surface rutting is small and large slippage
is not likely to occur unless excessive rutting takes place
(Barksdale et al. 1989, Espinoza 1994). As such, full bonding
assumption should be considered acceptable. The ABAQUS
contact interaction feature was used in this study to model the
geogrid–soil interface. With this feature, one surface
definition provides the ‘master’ surface and the other surface
definition provides the ‘slave’ surface. The master surface is
used for rigid body surface, while the slave surface is used for
deformable body surface. The interaction simulation consists
of two components: one normal to the surfaces and one
tangential to the surfaces. The interface in the normal
direction is assumed to be ‘hard contact’ and no separation is
allowed. While in the tangential direction, full interlocking
was assumed between the geogrid layer and material
surrounding it. This was done by using the tie-condition in
ABAQUS interaction feature, where each node of the slave
surface is tied to the nearest node on the master surface.
4. Verification of the bounding surface model
In order to verify the ability of the bounding surface model
to predict the performance of crushed limestone base
material, the predicted constitutive behaviours of the
crushed limestone were first checked against the results
from monotonic and cyclic triaxial tests on the crushed
limestone specimen. The cyclic triaxial test consisted of
applying a haversine-shaped load pulse, which consisted of
0.1 s load duration and a 0.9 s rest period. The sample was
tested for 10,000 cycles. The confining pressure was fixed at
21 kPa, and the peak cyclic stress applied was 230 kPa.
Figure 5(a) presents the comparison between the simulation
and experimental results of monotonic test. A comparison
of the simulation with the experimental results of cyclic
triaxial tests is presented in Figure 5(b). The figures clearly
demonstrate that the model predictions have a very good
agreement with the experimental test results.
5. Results of finite element analysis
In the following sections, the analytical discussions of the
results of the finite element analysis are presented. It
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 791
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of bounding surface [after Dafalias and Herrmann (1986)].

should be noted that the strain results presented here are

for total strains.

5.1 Lateral strain

Traffic loading applied to the pavement surface creates a
lateral movement of the BC aggregate. As a result, tensile
strains are created in the base below the applied load. As
the base aggregates move downward and outward from the
loading area, vertical strains develop, leading to a
permanent deformation in the wheel path. One of the
main reinforcement mechanisms attributed to geosyn-
thetics in paved roads is the direct prevention of lateral
movement or potential tensile strain of BC aggregate,
which is called confinement effect/lateral restraint
mechanism (Perkins et al. 2004). The lateral strains

Figure 4. Modified cam clay yield surface in q – p plane. Figure 5. Verification of bounding surface model simulation.
 792 M.Y. Abu-Farsakh et al.
profiles at different distances from the centre of the wheel
load predicted from the finite element analysis for
unreinforced and reinforced sections are shown in Figure 6.
It can be seen from the figures that the geogrid reinforcement
constrained the lateral strains within the BC layer and the
subgrade layer. It is also noted that the constraining effect
was mainly below the wheel load area and it decreased with
increasing the distance from the centre of the wheel load and
became almost negligible at a distance of 304 mm (i.e. two
times radius of loading plate) from the centre of the wheel
load. The figures show that higher stiffness geogrids
provided much greater reduction in lateral tensile strain.
5.2 Vertical strain
Figure 7 shows the vertical strain profiles at different
locations within the subgrade layer for unreinforced and
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015
reinforced sections. It is noted from these figures that the
inclusion of the geogrid layer resulted in significant
reduction in the vertical strain at the top of subgrade layer
and this kind of reduction decreased with the increase in the
distance from the top. The figure clearly demonstrates the
effect of geogrid tensile modulus on the induced vertical
strain, i.e. pavement sections reinforced with geogrid of
higher tensile modulus exhibited lower vertical strain than
the pavement sections with geogrid of lower tensile modulus.
5.3 Shear strain
Many studies indicated that the geogrid reinforcement
benefits can be attributed to the reduction of shear strain at
Figure 6. Lateral strain profile of unreinforced and reinforced sections with 150 mm thick base layer built on weak subgrade and geogrid
placed at the bottom of base course layer.
top the subgrade soil (Berg et al. 2000, Perkins 2002).
Figure 8 presents the shear strain distributions at the top of
the subgrade layer. It is noticed that the geogrid resulted
not only in decreasing the shear strains at the top of the
subgrade layer, but also in providing a better distribution
of these strains. This is expected since the shear strain
transmitted from the BC layer to the subgrade would
decrease as shearing of the base transmits tensile load to
the geogrid reinforcement. Again, the higher tensile
modulus geogrid provided more reduction in the shear
strains development.
5.4 Permanent deformation
Less shear strain, coupled with less vertical and lateral
strains results in a better stress state leading to lower
permanent deformation accumulation with repeated
loading. Finite element analyses were conducted on 12
unreinforced sections with three different subgrade
strength properties and four BC layer thicknesses. The
three different subgrades included: a weak subgrade with a
CBR value less than 1.5, a moderate subgrade with a CBR
value of 7 and a stiff subgrade with a CBR of 15, while the
four different BC layer thicknesses varied from 150 to
300 mm, and included: 150 , 200 , 250 and 300 mm base
layer thicknesses. Table 2 presents a summary of the
different sections investigated in this study. Finite element
analyses were then conducted on the different pavement
sections reinforced with a geogrid layer placed at the
bottom of the BC layer. Three geogrid types with different
tensile modulus were used in this study. Figure 9 depicts
examples of the permanent deformation curves computed
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 793
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015

Figure 7. Vertical strain profiles within subgrade for unreinforced and reinforced sections with 150 mm thick base layer built on weak
subgrade and geogrid placed at the bottom of base course layer.
 794 M.Y. Abu-Farsakh et al.

Table 2. Pavement sections studied.

Section BC thickness (mm) Subgrade quality

Section 1a 150 Weak
Section 1b 150 Moderate
Section 1c 150 Stiff
Section 2a 200 Weak
Section 2b 200 Moderate
Section 2c 200 Stiff
Section 3a 250 Weak
Section 3b 250 Moderate
Section 3c 250 Stiff
Section 4a 300 Weak
Section 4b 300 Moderate
Section 4c 300 Stiff
Figure 8. Shear strain profiles at top of subgrade for
unreinforced and reinforced section with 150 mm thick base
layer built on weak subgrade and geogrid placed at the bottom of
base course layer. plastic strain in sub-layer i and h i is the thickness of sub-
layer i.
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015

Three main damage models will be used in the study,

up to 100 load cycles using the finite element analysis for namely one for the AC material (Equation (6)), one for the
unreinforced and geogrid reinforced sections 1a – c and base (Equation (7)) and one for subgrade materials
4a –c. It can clearly be seen that the geogrid reinforcement (Equation (8)). The parameters of these models were
reduced the permanent deformation for all reinforced determined through national calibration efforts using
sections. However, the magnitude of reduction depends on the long-term pavement performance database and
the geogrid tensile modulus, the subgrade strength and the laboratory tests conducted on the different pavement
thickness of BC layer, such that greater reduction is materials used.
noticed for a weaker subgrade, a thinner BC layer and a For AC layer,
higher tensile modulus geogrid.
1p
¼ k1 1023:4488 T 1:5606 N 0:473844 ; ð6Þ
1v
6. Evaluation of the reinforcing effect using a where 1p is the accumulated plastic strain at N repetitions
mechanistic – empirical approach of load, 1v is the vertical strain of the asphalt material, N is
The improvement of the inclusion of the geogrid layer the number of load repetitions, T is the pavement
within the BC layer was evaluated using the mechanistic – temperature, k1 is used to correct for the variable confining
empirical context frame. In this approach, the response pressures that occur at different depths and is expressed as:
parameters (e.g. strain, stress) computed from the finite k1 ¼ ðC 1 þ C 2 ·depthÞ·0:328196depth ; C 1 ¼ 20:1039·h2ac
element analysis results are used to determine the þ2:4868·hac 2 17:342; and C 2 ¼ 20:0172·h2ac 2
pavement structure distresses based on empirical models 1:7331·hac þ 27:428 and hac is the asphalt layer thickness.
available in AASHTO mechanistic – empirical pavement For BC layer,
design guide (ARA 2004). !
The permanent deformation of pavement structures 1p 10 2ðP=NÞb
¼ bGB e ; ð7Þ
was determined by first dividing each pavement layer into 1v 1r
sub-layers. Damage models are then used to relate the
vertical compressive strain, computed from the finite where bGB is the national model calibration factor for
element analysis, at the mid-depth of each sub-layer and unbound BC material and is equal to 1.673; 10 ; b and r are
the number of traffic applications to layer plastic strains. material parameters and 1r is the resilient strain imposed in
The overall permanent deformation is then computed laboratory test to obtain material properties.
using Equation (5) as the sum of permanent deformation For subgrade layer,
for each individual sub-layer. !
1p 10 2ðP=NÞb
¼ bSG e ; ð8Þ
Ns
X 1v 1r
Dp ¼ 1ip ·h i ; ð5Þ
i¼1 where bSG is the national model calibration factor for
subgrade material and is equal to 1.35.
where Dp is the permanent deformation of pavement The effect of geogrid tensile modulus, subgrade strength
section, N s is the number of sub-layers, 1ip is the total and base thickness on the rutting performance of sections
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering 795
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015

Figure 9. Rutting curves of different pavement with different geogrid type located at the bottom of base course layer.
 796 M.Y. Abu-Farsakh et al.

Table 3. Summary of rutting of unreinforced and reinforced sections.

Section Geogrid Nf rutting TBR Section Geogrid Nf rutting TBR

Section 1a None 5.74E þ 04 NA Section 3a None 3.77E þ 05 NA
Section 1a Type I 1.41E þ 05 2.45 Section 3a Type I 7.50E þ 05 1.99
Section 1a Type II 1.93E þ 05 3.37 Section 3a Type II 8.97E þ 05 2.38
Section 1a Type III 2.15E þ 05 3.74 Section 3a Type III 9.46E þ 05 2.51
Section 1b None 1.89E þ 05 NA Section 3b None 9.84E þ 05 NA
Section 1b Type I 4.48E þ 05 2.37 Section 3b Type I 1.59E þ 06 1.62
Section 1b Type II 5.78E þ 05 3.06 Section 3b Type II 1.93E þ 06 1.96
Section 1b Type III 6.07E þ 05 3.21 Section 3b Type III 2.11E þ 06 2.14
Section 1c None 1.16E þ 06 NA Section 3c None 2.36E þ 06 NA
Section 1c Type I 2.47E þ 06 2.13 Section 3c Type I 3.63E þ 06 1.54
Section 1c Type II 3.19E þ 06 2.75 Section 3c Type II 3.82E þ 06 1.65
Section 1c Type III 3.29E þ 06 2.84 Section 3c Type III 4.04E þ 06 1.71
Section 2a None 8.67E þ 04 NA Section 4a None 8.93E þ 05 NA
Section 2a Type I 1.93E þ 05 2.23 Section 4a Type I 1.33E þ 06 1.49
Section 2a Type II 2.50E þ 05 2.88 Section 4a Type II 1.54E þ 06 1.72
Section 2a Type III 2.73E þ 05 3.15 Section 4a Type III 1.63E þ 06 1.83
Section 2b None 3.25E þ 05 NA Section 4b None 1.96E þ 06 NA
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015

Section 2b Type I 7.09E þ 05 2.18 Section 4b Type I 2.65E þ 06 1.35

Section 2b Type II 8.55E þ 05 2.63 Section 4b Type II 2.92E þ 06 1.49
Section 2b Type III 9.26E þ 05 2.85 Section 4b Type III 3.02E þ 06 1.54
Section 2c None 1.26E þ 06 NA Section 4c None 2.78E þ 06 NA
Section 2c Type I 2.33E þ 06 1.85 Section 4c Type I 2.92E þ 06 1.05
Section 2c Type II 2.67E þ 06 2.12 Section 4c Type II 3.09E þ 06 1.11
Section 2c Type III 2.73E þ 06 2.17 Section 4c Type III 3.34E þ 06 1.2

reinforced with geogrid layer placed at the bottom of the BC
layer was evaluated using the mechanistic–empirical
approach describe above. Twelve different pavement
sections (sections 1a–c, 2a–c, 3a–c and 4a–c in Table 2)
combining the bracketing combination of four BC
thicknesses and three subgrade stiffness and three geogrid
types, namely geogrid types I, III and IV, were used in this
evaluation. Table 3 presents the number of traffic passes to
reach 25 mm of permanent surface deformation (or rut
depth) for each of the different evaluated unreinforced and
reinforced pavement sections. The traffic benefit ratio
(TBR) values in this table corresponds to the ratio of the
number of load cycles to achieve a rut depth of 25 mm in
reinforced section to that of an unreinforced section.
TBR results in Table 3 were also illustrated in
Figure 10. It can be seen from the table and figure that the
increase of the geogrid tensile modulus resulted in a
greater reduction in the permanent deformation of the
reinforced pavement system and hence the increase in
number of load repetitions needed to reach the 25-mm rut
depth. This is consistent with the finite element findings
that higher tensile modulus geogrid results in more
reduction in vertical strains. It also can be seen that the
improvement provided by the geogrid reinforcement
decreased with the increase of the BC thickness and
subgrade strength. The pavement sections built on a weak
subgrade with medium to thin BC thickness demonstrated
appreciable reduction on rutting due to geogrid reinforce-
ment, while negligible to modest reinforcement effects on
rutting were obtained for pavement sections having a stiff
subgrade or thick BC layer. For weak, moderate and stiff
subgrades, the average TBR values for different tensile
modulus geogrids range from 1.7 to 3.2, 1.5 to 2.9 and 1.1
to 2.6, respectively, as the thickness of the BC decreases
from 300 to 150 mm.
7. Conclusions
A finite element model was developed to assess the
benefits of reinforcing the BC layer in a flexible pavement
structure with geogrid reinforcement and to evaluate the
influence of the different variables on the degree of
improvement in the performance of these pavement
structures. The mechanistic –empirical approach was then
utilised to evaluate the improvement of the inclusion of the
geogrid layer within the BC layer using the response
parameters computed from the finite element analysis
results. Based on the results of the numerical modelling
analysis of reinforced bases in flexible pavement system,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
a. The use of geogrid base reinforcement resulted in
reducing the lateral strains within the BC and
subgrade layers, reducing the vertical strain and
shear strain at top of subgrade, and reducing the
surface permanent deformation.
b. The geogrid benefits in reducing the developed
strains were more appreciable in sections with weak
 International Journal of Pavement Engineering
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015
Figure 10. TBR of pavement system with reinforced bases.
subgrades compared to those in sections with stiff
subgrades. In addition, these benefits were reduced
as the thickness of the BC layer increased and were
enhanced as the tensile modulus of the geogrid
layer increased.
c. The increase in the geogrid tensile modulus resulted
in significant reduction of surface permanent
deformation. However, the effect of geogrid tensile
modulus decreased with the increase in the
thickness of the reinforced BC layer and increase
in subgrade strength.
d. The results of mechanistic – empirical analyses
showed that the predicted service life of pavement
797
structure in terms of TBR can be significantly
increased with the inclusion of geogrid base
reinforcement in pavement structure. The TBR
values can reach as high as 3.7 for thin base
pavement sections built over weak subgrades using
high tensile modulus geogrids.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their thanks to Mark Morvant,
Zhongjie Zhang and Gavin Gautreau at LTRC for providing
valuable help and support in this study.
Funding
This research was funded by the Louisiana Transportation
Research Center (LTRC) and the Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development.
Notes
1. Email: jgu3@lsu.edu
2. Email: voyiadjis@eng.lsu.edu
3. Email: qchen1@lsu.edu
References
Abu-Farsakh, M. and Chen, Q., 2011. Evaluation of geogrid base
reinforcement in flexible pavement using cyclic plate load
testing. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 12
(3), 275–288.
Al-Qadi, I.L., et al., 1994. Laboratory evaluation of geosynthetics
reinforced pavement sections. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1439, 25 – 31.
Al-Qadi, I.L., et al., 2008. Geogrid in flexible pavements:
validated mechanism. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2045,
102– 109.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), 1993. AASHTO guide for design of
pavement structures. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division, 2004. Guide for
mechanistic – empirical design of new and rehabilitated
pavement structures. Available from: http://www.trb.org/
mepdg/guide.htm, [Accessed January 2011].
Barksdale, R.D., Brown, S.F., and Chan, F., 1989. Potential
benefits of geosynthetics in flexible pavement systems.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Report No. 315 56.
Barksdale, R.D. and Alba, J.L., 1993. Laboratory determination
of resilient modulus for flexible pavement design. Washing-
ton, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council. Interim Report No. 2, prepared for NCHRP.
Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., and Perkins, S.W., 2000.
Geosynthetic reinforcement of the aggregate base course of
flexible pavement structures. In: GMA white paper II.
Roseville, MN: Geosynthetic Materials Association, 100.
Cancelli, A. and Montanelli, F., 1999. In-ground test for
geosynthetic reinforced flexible paved roads. In: Proceedings
 798 M.Y. Abu-Farsakh et al.
of the conference geosynthetics ‘99, April, Boston, MA,
USA. Roseville, MN: Industrial Fabrics Association
International (IFAI), 863– 878.
Collin, J.G., Kinney, T.C., and Fu, X., 1996. Full scale highway
load test of flexible pavement system with geogrid reinforced
base courses. Geosynthetics International, 3 (4), 537– 549.
Dafalias, Y.F. and Herrmann, L.R., 1986. Bounding surface
plasticity II: application to isotropic cohesive soils. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, 112 (12), 1263– 1291.
Dondi, G., 1994. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of a
reinforced paved road. In: Proceedings of the fifth
international conference on geotextiles, geomembrane and
related products, Singapore. Singapore: Southeast Asia
Chapter, International Geotextile Society, 95 – 100.
Espinoza, R.D., 1994. Soil– geotextile interaction: evaluation of
membrane support. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 13,
281– 293.
Hass, R., Walls, J., and Carroll, R.G., 1988. Geogrid
reinforcement of granular bases in flexible pavements.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
Downloaded by [University of Arizona] at 12:17 06 January 2015
tation Research Board, 1188, 19 – 27.
Kinney, T.C., Abbott, J., and Schuler, J., 1998. Benefits of using
geogrids for base reinforcement with regard to rutting.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, 1611, 86 – 96.
Konietzky, H., et al., 2004. Use of DEM to model the
interlocking effect of geogrids under static and cyclic
loading. In: Y. Shimizu, R. Hart and P. Cundall, eds.
Numerical modeling in micromechanics via particle
methods. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 3 – 11.
Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E., and Kim, M., 2005. Development of a
mechanistic model for geosynthetic-reinforced flexible
pavements. Geosynthetics International, 12 (6), 310–320.
Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E., and Konietzky, H., 2008. Aggregate
base residual stresses affecting geogrid reinforced flexible
pavement response. International Journal of Pavement
Engineering, 9 (4), 275– 285.
Ling, H.I. and Liu, H., 2003. Finite element studies of asphalt
concrete pavement reinforced with geogrid. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 129 (7), 801– 811.
McDowell, G.R., et al., 2006. Discrete element modeling of
geogrid-reinforced aggregates. Proceedings of The Insti-
tution of Civil Engineers: Geotechnical Engineering, 159,
35 – 478.
Miura, N., et al., 1990. Polymer grid reinforced pavement on soft
clay grounds. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9 (1),
99 – 123.
Moghaddas-Nejad, F. and Small, J.C., 1996. Effect of geogrid
reinforcement in model track tests on pavements. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 122 (6), 468– 474.
View publication stats
Montanelli, F., Zhao, A., and Rimoldi, P., 1997. Geosynthetic –
reinforced pavement system: testing & design. In: Proceed-
ings of the conference geosynthetics ’97, March 1997 Long
Beach, CA, USA 619– 632.
Nazzal, M., 2007. Laboratory characterization and numerical
modeling of geogrid reinforced bases in flexible pavements.
(PhD). Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.
Nazzal, M., Abu-Farsakh, M., and Mohammad, L., 2010.
Implementation of a critical state two-surface model to
evaluate the response of geosynthetic reinforced pavements.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 10 (5), 202–212.
Perkins, S.W., 1999. Federal Highway Administration Report
FHWA/MT-99-001/8138 Geosynthetic reinforcement of
flexible pavements laboratory based pavement test sections.
Helena: Montana Department of Transportation, 109 pp.
Perkins, S.W., 2001. Mechanistic – empirical modeling and
design model development of geosynthetic reinforced flexible
pavements. Helena: Montana Department of transportation.
Report No FHWA/MT-01- 002/99160-1A.
Perkins, S.W., 2002. Evaluation of geosynthetic reinforced flexible
pavement systems using two pavements test facilities. Helena:
Montana Department of Transportation. Federal Highway
Administration Report FHWA/MT-02-008/20040 120.
Perkins, S.W. and Cortez, E.R., 2005. Evaluation of base-
reinforced pavements using a heavy vehicle simulator.
Geosynthetics International, 12 (2), 86 – 98.
Perkins, S.W. and Edens, M.Q., 2002. Finite element and distress
models for geogrid-reinforced pavements. International
Journal of Pavement Engineering, 3 (4), 239– 250.
Perkins, S.W., et al., 2004. Development of design methods for
geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavements. Washington, DC:
US Department of transportation. Federal Highway Admin-
istration FHWA Report No. DTFH61- 01-X-00068.
Perkins, S.W., et al., 2009. A mechanistic – empirical model for
base-reinforced flexible pavements. International Journal of
Pavement Engineering, 10 (2), 101– 114.
The Tensar Corporation, 1997. Design guideline for flexible
pavements with tensar geogrid reinforced base layers. Tensar
technical BR96, Atlanta, GA: TTN.
Wathugala, G.W., Huang, B., and Pal, S., 1996. Numerical
simulation of geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavement.
Transportation Research Record, 1534, 58 – 65.
Webster, S.L., 1993. Technical report GL-93-6.86 pp. Geogrid
reinforced base courses for flexible pavements for light
aircraft: test section construction, behavior under traffic,
laboratory tests, and design criteria. Vicksburg, MS: USAE
Waterways Experiment Station.