TA7

E8 US Army Corps
no.ERDC/GSL of Engineers®
TR-09-36 Engineer Research and
c.2 Development Center

LIBRARY
USE ONLY

Cyclic Plate Testing of Geogrid-Reinforced

Highway Pavements
Sarah R. Jersey and Jeb S. Tingle October 2009

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 ERDC/GSL TR-09-36
US-CE-C
October 2009
PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT ) A7
E~
Cyclic Plate Testing of Geogrid-Reinforced no. tJGDCjG-SL
Highway Pavements TR-Q9 -3f>
C..L

Sarah R. Jersey and Jeb S. Tingle

Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

Final report
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

RESEARCH LIBRARY
USAGE ERDC
VICKSBURG, MS
Prepared for Tensa r International Corporation
5883 Glenridge Drive, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30328
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 ii

Abstract: Researchers at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Develop-

ment Center (ERDC) performed cyclic plate load tests on three geogrid-
reinforced highway pavement test sections during the period February-
April 2009. Tests were performed qn a thin crushed limestone aggregate
base over a soft, 3 CBR subgrade. These tests were performed in a 6-ft-
square laboratory containment facility in the ERDC Materials Testing
Laboratory. The pavement was overlain with a rubber mat prior to load
testing. Testing was accomplished via cyclic loading of a circular plate at
several load levels. Load magnitudes were selected to simulate traffic rang-
ing from light passenger vehicle to overloaded tractor-trailer truck traffic.
This loading simulated the shakedown period occurring under initial load-
ing immediately following construction.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional purposes.
Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.
All product names and trademarks cited are the property of their respective owners. The findings of this report are not to
be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 •••
Ill

Contents
F=i~llr~ e~nct lre~IJI~ .................................................................................................................................i\1

f»rt!fCIC:E! •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••\fii

Unit Conversion Fact.ors .••.••..••...•.•........•...••••...••.••.••..•.......•.•.••....•..•.•••.•....•.•....•.......•...••.•.•..•..•.•.•.....•viii

jL ln1troctLJc:rltiol1 •.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••..........•••••••••••••.•..••.••••••••••••••..•.•..•••.•••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.........•.•••• jL
Background ............. ................................................................................................................. 1
Objective and scope of investigation ...................................................................................... 1
Outline of chapters ................................................................................................................... 2

2 Test Plan and Layout ••...•.•..•..••...•..••.•.•.•.........•..•.••.•.......•.............•••..•.••.•..••••.•..•.••..•......••..••.•........ 3

3 Material Characterization ...•....•....•.......•.....•..••.•.•.••.••.•..••.•...•.••..........•........•..•.•....•..•.•••.•....•...•.... 7

Subgrade ..................................... ........................................................................ ........ ..... ..... ... 7
Base course ..... .......... ... ...... ...... ... ..................................................................................... ...... 10
Geogrid ....... ... ......... ... ..................................................................................... ........... .. ........... . 10
Rubber mat .. ...................... ...... ... ... .......................................................... ............................... 14

4 Construction •..••.••..•••.••.••••..••.•.•..•..••.••.••..•..•..•......•.••.•.........•..••.•..•..•.•.••.•...•..•.•.••.•..•..•.••••.•....•.•..•15
Laboratory containment facility ............................................................................................. 15
Su bgrade construction .............................................................................................. ............. 15
Geogrid installation ................................................................................................................ 21
Base course construction ...................................................................................................... 22
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................... ........... 27
Subgrade .................................................................................................................................... 2 7
Surface ....................................................................................................................................... 29

5 Cyclic Plate Load Testing •..•••.••.••.•••••.••.••.••.••.....••.•........••.•..•....•..•.•••..•.••.•..•....•..........•.•...••.•..•.•. 32

Testing procedure ...... ...... ... ......................................................................... .. ......................... 32
Post-test forensics ........................................................ ..... ................................ ..... ................ 35

6 Conclusions and Recommendations ••••••••.•.••..•..•••.•••••.•..•..•..••••.•.•.....••.••••.••.•.•..••.•..•.•.••.•.••.•.•.• 52

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................52
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 52

Fleferer~c~ •.••••.••....•.••.••.••.••..•...•..••.•.••...........•..•.........•...••.•....••....•..•.••.•..........••.••........••.•••..•.••...•.••....•!i4

Report Documentation Page

ERDC/ GSL TR-09-X lv

Figures and Tables

Figures

Figure 1. Test item layout (a) plan view (b) profile view........................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Pavement sensors, profile view................................................................................................ 5
Figure 3. Surface instrumentation, plan view.......................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Subsurface instrumentation, plan view................................................................................... 6
Figure 5. Vicksburg buckshot clay gradation ........................................................................................... 8
Figure 6. Relationship between moisture content and strength for Vicksburg
buckshot clay.............................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 7. Moisture-density resu lts from modified proctor testing of subgrade materials ................... 9
Figure 8. Crushed limestone base course gradation ............................................................................ 11
Figure 9. Moisture-density results from modified proctor testing of base course materials. ........... 12
Figure 10. Observed stress-strain behavior of rubber mat in compression ....................................... 14
Figure 11. Post-construction DCP data, subgrade surface, Item 1 (TX 170), .................................... 19
Figure 12. Post-construction DCP data, subgrade surface, Item 2 (BX 1200).................................. 19
Figure 13. Post-construction DCP data, subgrade surface, Item 3 (TX 150)..................................... 20
Figure 14. Seventeen-point grid used during surface surveys ............................................................ 24
Figure 15. Post-construction DCP data, base surface, Item 1 (TX 170)............................................. 26
Figure 16. Post-construction DCP data, base surface, Item 2 (BX 1200).......................................... 26
Figure 17. Post-construction DCP data, base surface, Item 3 (TX 150).............................................. 27
Figure 18 Typical sinusoidal load pulses at each applied load level.................................................. 33
Figure 19. Permanent deformation at pavement surface, Item 1 (TX 170)....................................... 34
Figure 20. Permanent deformation at pavement surface, Item 2 (BX 1200).................................... 34
Figure 21. Permanent deformation at pavement surface, Item 3 (TX 150)....................................... 35
Figure 22. Summary of permanent deformations at failure for individual load increments ........... 36
Figure 23. Pavement profile along centerline, Item 1 (TX 170)........................................................... 44
Figure 24. Pavement profile along centerline, Item 2 (BX 1200)........................................................ 44
Figure 25. Pavement profile along centerline, Item 3 {TX 150)........................................................... 45
Figure 26. Post-construction and post-test DCP results, Item 1 (TX 170) base surface................... 46
F1gure 27. Post-construction and post-test DCP results, Item 2 {BX 1200) base surface ................ 46
F1gure 28. Post-construction and post-test DCP results, Item 3 base surface.................................. 47
F1gure 29. DCP results. post-test Item 1 (TX 170) base surface, directly beneath load
~l~t~ ........................................................................................................................................................... iljr

F1gure 30. DCP results. post-test Item 2 (BX 1200) base surface. directly beneath load
plate ........................................................................................................................................................... 4.8
Figure 31. DCP results. post-test Item 3 (TX 150) base surface. directly beneath load
~lat~ ........................................................................................................................................................... ~~
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 v

Figure 32. DCP results, post-test Item 1 (TX 170) subgrade surface.................................................. 49
Figure 33. DCP results, post-test Item 2 (BX 1200) subgrade surface. ............................................. 49
Figure 34. DCP results, post-test Item 3 (TX 150) subgrade surface ................................................. 50

Tables

Table 1. Summary of geogrid Information, as received ........................................................................ 14

Table 2. Summary of as-built moisture, density, and strength properties of subgrade .................... 18
Table 3. Summary of in situ strength data (vane shear) ...................................................................... 18
Table 4. Summary of average post-construction in-field CBR strengths ............................................. 20
Table 5. Summary of constructed base course thicknesses ............................................................... 24
Table 6. Summary of post-construction moisture and density data in base course......................... 25
Table 7. Summary of measured base course strengths....................................................................... 27
Table 8. Summary of EPC embedment depth relative to base-subgrade interface .......................... 29
Table 9 . Measured deformation and load cycle level at the conclusion of each load
increment. ................................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 10. Summary of post-test rut depth data under load plate ....................................................... 40
Table 11. Summary of post-test CBR values. ........................................................................................ 40
Table 12. Summary of post-test vane shear data ................................................................................. 50
Table 13. Summary of post-test moisture and density data ................................................................ 50

Photos

Photo 1. TX 170 Geogrid .......................................................................................................................... 12

Photo 2. TX 150 Geogrid ......................................................................................................................... 13
Photo 3. BX 1200 Geogrid . ..................................................................................................................... 13
Photo 4. Laboratory containment facility............................................................................................... 16
Photo 5. Processing of the subgrade materials to achieve 3 CBR strength ....................................... 16
Photo 6. Clay materials were hand spread in thin lifts. ........................................................................ 17
Photo 7. Compaction of the subgrade using the pneumatic hammer................................................ 17
Photo 8. CBR testing on the CH subgrade ............................................................................................. 21
Photo 9. Prepared subgrade surface prior to geogrid installation ...................................................... 21
Photo 10. Prepared surface prior to placement of crushed limestone materials............................. 22
Photo 11. Hand spreading of aggregate base materials...................................................................... 23
Photo 12. Compaction of the aggregate base course using vibratory plate compactor ................... 23
Photo 13. DCP testing at the surface of the base course .................................................................... 25
Photo 14. EPC being leveled prior to recompaction of clay.................................................................. 28
Photo 15. Burial of the lower EPC, Item 1.............................................................................................. 29
Photo 16. Placement of the pore pressure transducer in direct contact with clay............................ 30
Photo 17. Surface sensors and test setup............................................................................................. 31
Photo 18. MTS control system and data loggers . .................................................................................. 33
Photo 19. Base course surface, post-test, Item 1 (TX 170). ................................................................ 37
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 vi

Photo 20. Base course surface, post-test, Item 2 (BX 1200).............................................................. 37

Photo 21. Base course surface, post-test, Item 3 (TX 150)................................................................. 38
Photo 22. Exposed base and subgrade surfaces, post-test, Item 1 (TX 170).................................... 38
Photo 23. Exposed base and subgrade surfaces, post-test, Item 2 (BX 1200)................................. 39
•
Photo 24. Exposed base and subgrade surfaces, post-test, Item 3 (TX 150).................................... 39
Photo 25. Exhumed geogrid, Item 1 (TX 170)....................................................................................... 41
Photo 26. Exhumed geogrid, Item 2 (BX 1200).................................................................................... 41
Photo 27. Exhumed geogrid, Item 3 (TX 150)........................................................................................ 42
Photo 28. Rutting observed at subgrade surface, Item 1 (TX 170).................................................... 42
Photo 29. Rutting observed at subgrade surface, Item 2 (BX 1200)................................................. 43
Photo 30. Rutting observed at subgrade surface, Item 3 (TX 150).................................................... 43
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 vii

Preface
The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) was
tasked by Tensar International Corporation to construct and traffic three
pavement structures containing geogrid reinforcement at the base-
subgrade interface.

This publication was prepared by personnel of the Airfields and Pave-

ments Branch (APB), ERDC Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory
(GSL), Vicksburg, MS. The findings and recommendations presented in
this report are based upon tests and analyses conducted at the ERDC from
February 2009 to April 2009. The principal investigators for this study
were Sarah R. Jersey and Jeb S. Tingle, APB. The research team included
Matthew D. Norris and Roosevelt Felix, APB, and Harold T. Carr, ERDC
Information and Technology Laboratory (ITL). Jersey and Tingle prepared
this publication under the supervision of Dr. Gary L. Anderton, Chief,
APB; Dr. Larry N. Lynch, Chief, Engineering Systems and Materials Divi-
sion; Dr. William P. Grogan, Deputy Director, GSL; and Dr. David W.
Pittman, Director, GSL.

COL Gary E. Johnston was Commander and Executive Director ofERDC.

Dr. James R. Houston was Director.

Recommended changes for improving this publication in content and/ or

format should be submitted on DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to
Publications and Blank Forms) and forwarded to Headquarters, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECW-EW, 441 G Street NW, Washington,
DC 20314.
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 viii

Unit Conversion Factors

I

Multiply By To Obtain
cubic feet 0.02831685 cubic meters

cubic inches 1.6387064 E-05 cubic meters

cubic yards 0.7645549 cubic meters

degrees Fahrenheit (F-32)/1.8 degrees Celsius

feet 0.3048 meters

inches 0.0254 meters

inch-pounds (force) 0.1129848 newton meters

mils 0.0254 millimeters

pounds (force) 4.448222 newtons

pounds (force) per square foot 47.88026 pascals

pounds (force) per square inch 6.894757 kilopascals

pounds (mass) 0.45359237 kilograms

pounds (mass) per cubic foot 16.01846 kilograms per cubic meter

square feet 0.09290304 square meters

square inches 6.4516 E-04 square meters

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 1

1 Introduction
Background

Geogrid reinforcement has historically been implemented in pavements as

a mechanism for reducing pavement thickness or increasing pavement life.
Testing of these pavement systems has traditionally been performed in the
form of construction and traffic testing of full-scale pavement test sections.
These tests tend to be costly and time consuming in terms of the pavement
construction, the traffic testing and the data collection phases. Historical
documentation has focused on the long-term performance behavior of the
geogrid-reinforced pavements. However, there is a need to quantify the
benefits of the geogrid under the initial traffic conditions, or shake-down.
These benefits can be quantified in terms of the pavement serviceability at
the surface, as well as the stress and strain response at various levels in the
pavement. Full-scale pavement structures constructed in a laboratory con-
tainment facility provide an opportunity to quantify benefits during the
shake-down period.

Objective and scope of investigation

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the reinforcing benefits

of various geogrids during the initial shake-down period due to the initial
loading occurring immediately following construction. To accomplish this,
a series of three test items were constructed in a 6-ft-square laboratory
containment facility. Each pavement test item consisted of the same pave-
ment structure with a different geogrid placed at the base-subgrade
interface. Earth pressure and pore pressure sensors were embedded in the
subgrade of the various test items while displacement sensors were placed
at the pavement surface. Testing was accomplished via cyclic loading of a
12-in.-diam circular plate at the surface of the pavement section. Loads
were applied at six magnitudes per test item. At each load level, response
data were collected at selected predetermined intervals. Data included sur-
face profiles at the pavement surface, deformation under the load plate,
vertical pressure in the subgrade, and pore pressures in the subgrade.
Response data were collected under static and dynamic conditions.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 2

Outline of chapters

Chapter 2 outlines the overall plan of testing for this study. Laboratory
testing and characterization of the pavement materials are described in
'
Chapter 3 of this report. Documentation of construction procedures and
quality control data from construction are presented in Chapter 4· Chap-
ter 5 summarizes the testing process, data collected during plate load test-
ing, and post-test forensics. Conclusions and recommendations are
presented in Chapter 6.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 3

2 Test Plan and Layout

The following section details the overall plan for constructing, loading, and
data collection for the geogrid-reinforced laboratory box testing. The pri-
mary objective of this project was to quantify pavement performance
under the initial application of traffic immediately after construction. The
approach was to build large-scale laboratory tests and observe pavement
performance under a series of loading conditions simulating shake-down.
Response data in the pavement section were also obtained.

This test series consisted of three different items. Figure 1 depicts the plan
and profile views of the test items. Test items were constructed in a 6-ft-
square laboratory containment facility. Each test item was constructed
with 36 in. of high-plasticity clay as the subgrade material. The subgrade
was overlain with a 6-in.-thick base course consisting of crushed lime-
stone. During testing, the aggregate surface was covered with a o.s-in-
thick rubber mat, simulating an asphalt concrete surface layer. Item 1 was
constructed with TX 170 geogrid at the base-subgrade interlace, while
Items 2 and 3 were constructed with BX 1200 and TX 150 geogrids,
respectively, at the base-subgrade interface.

The high-plasticity clay subgrade materials and crushed limestone base

materials underwent laboratory testing for characterization. These tests
were performed to ensure that the materials were constructed at the
appropriate moisture content and density to obtain the desired strength
properties in the laboratory containment facility. Results of these tests are
presented in Chapter 3·

Instrumentation was placed at several locations within the pavement

structure to obtain pavement response parameters. Response parameters
of interest included deflections, stresses, and strains at various locations in
the pavement structure. Vertical stress was measured just below the base-
subgrade interface and at a depth of 12 in. below this interface. These
measurements provide a means of measuring the affect of the various
geogrid products on the distribution of vertical stresses in the clay sub-
grade. Elastic deflections and permanent deformations induced by loading
were measured along the centerline at the pavement surface.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 4

(a)

Item 1 Item 2 Item 3

6' TX 170 BX 1200 TX 150

Neoprene
Mat

36" 3CBR
CH Subgrade

1 <------6,-----~*<~----6-.----~)~~-----6-.----~>1
~

NOT TO SCALE

Figure 1. Test item layout (a) plan view (b) profile view.

Finally, pore pressures and temperature were measured near the top of the
subgrade during the construction, testing, and post-test phases. A profile
view of the sensor layout is depicted schematically in Figure 2. Figure 3 .•
shows the plan view of the surface sensors, while subsurface sensors are
shown in Figure 4.

After construction, the test items were loaded to failure via cyclic loading
of a 12-in.-diam plate. Loading was applied using a 1.2-sec pulse. The load
was applied sinusoidally with 0.3 sec of loading followed by a 0.9-sec rest
period. Each item was loaded at the following magnitudes: 3,000 lb,
6,ooo lb, 9,000 lb, 11,000 lb, 13,000 lb, and 15,000 lb. The 3,000-lb load
represents highway loads associated with a lightweight passenger vehicle,
while the 15,000-lb load represents the highway loads associated with an
overloaded tractor-trailer truck. Testing was carried out at each load level
for 5,000 cycles or until a permanent deformation of 0.50 in. was meas-
ured beneath the load plate. Upon completion of a load increment, the
applied load was increased to the next level. Testing continued in this
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 5

Instrumentation Layout

..,._N
12" Diam. Plate
Limestone 6"
(GP-GW)
• 2"
T
36"

High-Plasticity Clay Subgrade (CH)

Design CBR = 3

• Piezometer CJ Earth Pressure CeU

\j Plate L VDT \1 Surface LVDT I Load Cell

Not To Scale

Figure 2. Pavement sensors, profile view.

72"
- ..

I I" 13.75" I I" 12.125" 6"

6" 12.125"

I I l I

+ - -N 72'
,
~ ~ ~ 0~ ~ \I
36"
I
40" 36"

-'-

'J Surface L VDT 'J Plate L VDT 0 Load CeU

Not To Scale

Figure 3. Surface instrumentation, plan view.

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 6

72"

24"
36"

24" _._ •
.I

I 36"
+-- N 72"
_.._ a:o~.­
J
I
36"

36"

DID Vertical Pressure Cells

Not To Scale • Moisture Probe

Figure 4. Subsurface instrumentation, plan view.

manner until the conclusion of cycling at 15,000 lb. After testing, forensic
investigations were performed. Data collected during this phase included
surface profiles and strength characterization at the base and subgrade
surface.
.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5, provide detailed descriptions of the pavement •

materials, test section construction and quality assurance, and plate load
testing and post test forensics, respectively.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 7

3 Material Characterization
Materials used during construction of the laboratory test items are
described in this section. Subgrade and base materials underwent a suite
of laboratory characterization tests in the ERDC soils lab prior to construc-
tion of the laboratory box test items. The results of these tests are summa-
rized in this section.

Subgrade

The subgrade was constructed using a locally available clay, known as

Vicksburg buckshot clay. This soil has been used in historical full-scale
pavement testing at the ERDC. Due to the reduced permeability and high
plastic fines content of buckshot clay, moisture is retained when used as a
subgrade material. Moisture retention leads to a consistent subgrade
strength. Figure 5 shows the gradation of the buckshot clay used in this
test series. The soil is composed of 98% fines passing the #200 sieve. The
liquid limit, plastic limit, and plastic index were 83, 29, and 34, respec-
tively. The soil classifies as a high-plasticity clay (CH) in the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and A-7-6( 63) according to the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO)
procedure.

As mentioned previously, when processed to a uniform moisture condi-

tion, the CH materials exhibit a predictable and consistent strength. The
moisture capacity and reduced permeability of the material lead to a rela-
tionship between the moisture content of the CH and the resulti_ng
strength, as shown in Figure 6. Based on this relationship, a moisture con-
tent of approximately 41% was required to obtain the 3 CBR strength
required for the subgrade.

Modified Proctor tests were performed in accordance with American Soci-

ety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557-07, Method A (Modified). The
results of this test are shown in Figure 7. At the target moisture content of
41.0%, the maximum dry density is 77.8 pcf.
 m
::a
0
~
G)
(/)
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
r-
U. S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER -t
4 3 2 1112 1 lf
• 1,2 lts 3 4 6 8 10 1416 20 30 40 50 70 100 140 200 ::a
100 0
0
•
U)
w•
90 r-....... ..... 10 en
~"- r-
80 1\ 20
f'
t-
:c
C>
70
"" 30 t-
:c
-C>
~ 60
>-
Q)

ffi
z
50
"" ~
40

50
~
>-
Q)
a::
w
In
a::
1.1.. <:{
t- 0
~ 40 u
60 t-
u zw
a::
w
a.. u
a::
30 70 w
a..

20 80

10 90

0 100
100 50 10 5 1 0 .5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY
COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
SAMPLE NO. MATERIAl ClAIIIFCATION NAT\1\'11. ll Pl PI GRADATION CURVES
1 Vick~Bucksrot Clav Hiqh Plasticity Clay (CH) 83 29 54
PROJECT T ensar Geogrid T est Section
SOURCE Waterways Experiment Station
DATE August 2008

Figure 5. Vicksburg buckshot clay gradation.

co
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 9

CBR vs. M oistu re Content for CH

100

~ lo... As Molded CBRs

ASTM D 1883
90

~
ASTM D 1557-A

80

70
A"'\
60 \
Ii 50
\
IX
al
u
40
\
30
~
~
20 ~
10
~ ...........
~
6

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 so
Moisture Content, %

Figure 6. Relationship between moisture content and strength for Vicksburg buckshot clay.

85 T T
0 Modified Proctor Restuls
84
- · Zero Air Voids Curve

83 +

82 ~

' '
~ t-

~:;:"

-·--0
c. 81
~
f /)
~
'
80
c:
(1)
0
79 -
' '
~
0
78 - ' "
77
' ' '
76 -

75 ~-----+------+------+-------------+------+-------------

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Moisture Content (0/o)

Figure 7. Moisture-density results from modif ied proctor testing of subgrade materials.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 10

Base course

The base course was constructed using a locally available crushed lime-
stone. This material is considered typical for construction in state highway
•
pavements.

Figure 8 shows the gradation of the base course aggregate used in this test
item. The soil was composed of 61% gravel, 32% sands, and 7% fines pass-
ing the #200 sieve with nonplastic fines. The coefficients of uniformity
(Cc), and uniformity (Cu) were 3·55 and 49.33, respectively. The soil is
classified as a poorly graded silty gravel (GP-GM) in the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and A-1-a according the AASHTO procedure.

Modified Proctor tests were performed in accordance with ASTM

D1557-07, Method C Modified. The results of this test are shown in
Figure 9. At the optimum moisture content of 4.3%, the maximum dry
density is 148.9 pcf.

Geogrid

Three different geogrids were tested during this suite of tests: TX 170
(Photo 1), TX 150 (Photo 2), and BX 1200 (Photo 3). The triaxial geogrids
(TX 170 and 150) consist of a series of concentric triangles, forming a
series of concentric hexagons. The biaxial geogrid consists of a series of
rectangles, providing reinforcement in the longitudinal and transverse
directions.

Pertinent information related to the products as received at the ERDC is

summarized in Table 1.
 m
:::c
0
~
G')

U S STANDARD SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES

,...
UJ
U S STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER ~

100
4 3 2 1112 1 l f • 112 3 /s 3 4 6 8 10 1416 20 30 40 so 70 100 140 200 :::c
0 I

90
'~ 10
I
0
c.o
w
en
I

\
80 f'L 20

.....
70 \ 30 .....

\
I
t5 C)

~ 60 40 ~
>
(Il
\ >
(Il
0::
ffiso
z so w
(f)

u..
1\ 0::
<{
.....
~ 40
v
0::
w
"\1'\
60
0
v
.....
zw
v
0..
30 '\. 70
0::
w
l 0..

20

10
""~
""'- r-r--- r--
1"-- r-
80

' 90

0 100
100 so 10 s 1 o.s 01 oos 0 .01 0 oos 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY
COAASE J FI NE COAASE MED IUM FI NE
IAIA PLE NO MATERID.l CLASS IFICATCN NAT\1\-% ll Pl PI GRADATION CURVES
1 Cl'U5hed Limestone Poorly Graded S ilty Gravel (GP-GMl NP
PROJECT Tensar Geogrid Test Section
SOURCE Waterways Expenment Stat1on
DATE August 2008

Figure 8. Crushed limestone base course gradation.

......
......
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 13

Photo 2. TX 150 Geogrid.

Photo 3. BX 1200 Geogrid.

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 14

Table 1. Summary of geogrid Information, as received.

Product Work Order/Lot No. Roll No. Date of Manufacture
TX 170 10055/01 049 10/05/2008
TX150 11075/01 ' 067 7/23/2008
BX1200 040932 0068 6/20/2008

Rubber mat

A o.s-in.-thick neoprene rubber mat was placed at the pavement surface to

simulate a flexible pavement surface. The 4-ft by 6-ft mat was procured
from MS Rubber in Vicksburg, MS. A modulus of 4,600 psi was measured
during compressive testing of the rubber at load levels between 3,000 and
15,000 lb (Figure 10).

Rubber Mat Compression Test

800 r
700 .:;:

~ 600 1
c..
'-'
fl)
500 =-
~
fl)
-
i
~

~ 400
"0 +
~
=c.. 300 .:::. _
~ 200 I --Test I
-- Test 2

o r+ ~~~~==--_,~-+~-+-+~--~~~~~,_~~T~e~st~3j
0 5 10 15 20 25
Strain (o/o)

Figure 10. Observed stress-strain behavior of rubber mat in compression.

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 15

4 Construction
The test items were constructed and tested during the period of February
through April 2009. The construction procedures are documented in this
section. Additionally, quality assurance data obtained during construction
is summarized in this section.

Laboratory containment facility

A 6-ft-square, 4.5-ft-deep reinforced steel box was used as a containment

facility for laboratory pavement structures (Photo 4). The containment
facility was composed of 1-in.-thick steel plates reinforced with 1/4-in.-
thick, 6-in.-square structural steel tubing along the bottom and three sides
of the box. The front of the facility was composed of removable 1/4-in.-
thick, 6-in.-square structural steel tubing. The front of the facility was
removed to facilitate the construction process. The tubes were bolted to
the containment facility one layer at a time as construction proceeded,
simplifying the process of placing and compacting the soil materials within
the test facility.

Prior to placement of the soil, the containment facility was lined with poly-
ethylene in order to minimize moisture migration and desiccation of the
test items during construction and testing.

Subgrade construction

The subgrade materials were spread to a 12-in.-thick lift on a soil-

processing strip. Subgrade soils were allowed to dry until reaching the
desired moisture content. The clay was mixed and pulverized in an
iterative manner to break down clods and bring about moisture equilib-
rium using a rotary mixer, as shown in Photo 5. Upon reaching the desired
moisture content, the clay was hand spread in the containment facility in
thin lifts (Photo 6). Each lift was compacted using a pneumatic compactor,
as shown in Photo 7· The compacted lifts were approximately 4 in. thick.
The use of thin lifts helped to ensure adequate compaction of the subgrade
materials.

Upon compaction of each subgrade lift, a series of tests were performed to

ensure the uniformity of the lift and that the subgrade met the design
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 1.6

Photo 4. Laboratory containment facility.

Photo 5. Processing of the subgrade materials to achieve 3 CBR strength.

ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 17

Photo 6. Clay materials were hand spread in thin lifts.

Photo 7. Compaction of the subgrade using the pneumatic hammer.

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 18

strength of 3 CBR. Tests provided measures of the dry density, moisture

content, and strength of the subgrade.

The nuclear densometer was used to obtain a measure of the moisture

content and dry density following ASTM D3017-05 and ASTM D2922-04.
Samples were also taken to obtain oven- and microwave-dried moisture
contents. Microwave-dried moisture contents were obtained for every lift,
while nuclear densometer and oven-dried moisture contents were per-
formed on alternating lifts. These results are summarized in Table 2 for
the three test items.

Vane shear tests were performed on each lift after compaction to asses the
subgrade strength throughout the construction process. Five tests were
performed on each lift following ASTM D2573-08. In these tests, the small
vane (0.62 in. x 1.24 in.) was used to shear the soil. In situ and remolded
strength results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 2. Summary of as-built moisture, density, and strength properties of subgrade.

Product Wet Density Dry Density Moisture Oven-Dried

pcf pcf Content,% Moisture
Content,%

Item 1 112.9 83.0 36.1 40.9

Item 2 109.9 79.4 30.4 41.8

Item 3 111.3 81.4 36.9 41.3

Table 3. Summary of in situ strength data (vane shear).

Average Shear Strength, psi Remolded Shear Strength, psi

Standard Standard
Product Average Deviation Average Deviation

Item 1 13.5 2.6 7.4 1.5

Item 2 12.9 2.6 7.1 1.6

Item 3 13.3 2.4 7.2 1.4

Dual-mass dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests were performed upon

completion of the subgrade. Due to the low design strength of the sub-
grade, the lighter (10.1lb) hammer was used. The strength profiles are
shown in Figures 11, 12, and 12 for Items 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Three
DCP tests were performed for each test item, following ASTM D6951-03.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 19

DCP Results: Subgrade Surface, Item 1 (TX 170)

CBR(%)
10 100
0

5 t t + ..

--·-
c
•
10

20 + +

25 + t + t

30

- Post-Construction DCP I - Post-Construction DCP 2 - Post-Construction DCP 3

Figure 11. Post-construction DCP data, subgrade surface, Item 1 (TX 170),

DCP Results: Subgrade Surface, Item 2 (BX 1200)

CBR(%)
10 100
0 r

i-
5 - +
~
+
.... I I

I
"'"':'
c I0 •

-
t t
·-.c I

...c. I
cu I I
Q 15 I Ciiir +

I I
r~ _.
t
20

25 L l
- Post-Construction DCP I - Post-Constructton DCP 2 - Post-Construction DCP 3

Figure 12. Post-construction DCP data, subgrade surface, Item 2 (BX 1200).
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 20

DCP Results: Subgrade Surface, Item 3 (TX 150)

CBR(%)
10 j
100
0 I I I I I
-' L
I

r ~
I
5
- T
,.- - t ..I 1- ll - ~ - __,__ -+-

t l I
. l - I 1[ ~ I
. . .. I
.
-·-
""'c=" I 0
.....c
c.
~
-r I
I
+

I
••
1--
!--
I I
-

~ 15 - +- - ~- 1- +-
I
r .. - r- +- t r- +
...
t • I I I

I
-
20

t 1
+- +--~ - +--

r-i I I

'
~ - +- • +- -

I
- I I i I
25

- Post-Construction DCP I - Post-Construction DCP 2 - Post-Construction DCP 3

Figure 13. Post-construction DCP data, subgrade surface, Item 3 (TX 150).

The CBR strength in these plots was determined using the correlations
developed by Webster et al. (1994) for use on CH materials. The DCP
results show that the subgrade was consistent within each test item. In-
field California Bearing Ratio (CBR) tests were also performed at the sub-
grade surface to confirm the DCP estimated CBR results (Photo 8). Post-
construction CBR values are summarized in Table 4.

The subgrade was built beyond the minimum 36-in. thickness. After the
completion of the QC/QA tests at the subgrade surface, the surface was
trimmed to provide a flat, even surface. The prepared subgrade surface is
shown in Photo 9. This provided a means for obtaining a consistent base
course thickness.

Table 4. Summary of average post-construction in-field CBR strengths.

Product Subgrade Surface CBR, %
Item 1 2.9
Item 2 3.1

Item 3 2.8

l
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 21

Photo 8. CBR testing on the CH subgrade.

Photo 9. Prepared subgrade surface prior to geogrid installation.

Geogrid installation

For each test item, the appropriate geogrid was trimmed from a roll
provided by Tensar. The geogrid was hand cut to a 6-ft square to fit within
the containment facility. Each geogrid sample was obtained from the
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 22

center of the roll. The geogrid was hand tightened to prevent kinking or
moonscaping during placement. Photo 10 shows the subgrade and geogrid
surface prior to placement of the crushed limestone base.

Photo 10. Prepared surface prior to placement of crushed limestone materials.

Base course construction

The crushed limestone aggregate was sprayed with water and allowed to
drain, providing surface saturated conditions. Upon reaching the desired
moisture content, the aggregate was hand spread in the containment facil-
ity in thin lifts (Photo 11). Aggregate was dropped using a skid-steer loader
and hand spread over the geogrid surface. Each lift was compacted using a
vibratory plate compactor, as shown in Photo 12. An iterative process of
laying aggregate and performing a survey of the pavement surface was
used to ensure that the compacted base course was the appropriate thick-
ness.

As mentioned previously, a survey was performed on the final compacted

surface for each lift. A grid of 17 points was surveyed (Figure 14). The aver-
age thicknesses from survey data obtained at the surface of the subgrade
and base layers was used to calculate the average base course thicknesses
summarized in Table s.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 23

Photo 11. Hand spreading of aggregate base materials.

Photo 12. Compaction of the aggregate base course using vibratory plate compactor.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 24

72"

e
.. 54"
~I

N 72"
e
"

,
18" 36" 54''

Not To Scale

Figure 14. Seventeen-point grid used during surface surveys.

Table 5 . Summary of constructed base course thicknesses.

Product Thickness, in.

Item 1 6.01

Item 2 6.04

Item 3 6.11

Upon compaction of the base course, a series of tests were performed on

the limestone to ensure the uniformity of the lift and the strength of the
unbound aggregate lift. The nuclear densometer was used to obtain a
measure of the moisture content and dry density following ASTM Stan-
dards D2922-04 and D3017-05. Samples were also taken to obtain oven-
and microwave-dried moisture contents. These results are summarized in
Table 6.

DCP tests were performed after compaction of the base course using the
dual-mass DCP (Photo 13), following ASTM D6951-03. The large (17.6-lb)
hammer was used at the surface, while the small (10.1-lb) hammer was
used in the subgrade zone. Raw data were analyzed using Webster's
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 25

Table 6. Summary of post-ronstruction moisture and density data in base course.

Oven-Dried
Wet Dry Moisture Moisture
Product Density, pet Density, pcf Content,% Content,%

Item 1 138.4 133.6 3.6 3.31

Item 2 152.2 144.9 5.0 4.10

Item 3 143.7 137.8 4.3 4.38

Photo 13. DCP testing at the surface of the base course.

general equation relating DCP Index (mm/blow) to CBR strength (%)

(Webster et al. 1992). The DCP estimated strength profiles are shown in
Figures 15, 16, and 17 for Items 1, 2, and 3, respectively. As the figures
show, three replicates were performed in each test item. These DCP results
incorporate the 6-in. aggregate base and the soft clay subgrade. The inter-
face at a depth of 6 in. is clearly defined. Consistency was observed
between DCP tests performed at the various locations in each test item.
In-field CBR tests were performed at the base surface. Post-construction
CBR values are summarized in Table 7·
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 26

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone Surface, Item 1 (TX 170)

CBR (%)
I 10 100
0 - T --- ---,-- I l
I
r--- T
T r
I I I

I
I

5 - - _j
~ iiiiiiiil - -I - j
I
I

-
~
=
·-
10 -1-

......c I
+- ~ - -l I --

s::::a.
~ I
~ 15
I I
I I I I
20 I I I
I
I
25 I I I I I

- Post-Construction DCP I -Post-Construction DCP 2 - Post-Construction DCP 3

Figure 15. Post-construction DCP data, base surface, Item 1 (TX 170).

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone Surface, Item 2 (BX 1200)

CBR (%)

0
1

! ,-
10
.--- T r r ~
100

l l
I

I ! I
5 t
I I I
I
I
~ .I ...

I
I
I

l I
l- ~
I

-
~
·-......=c
s::::a.
~
10 I· I+
I
+ - - I~

I
I
~ t
T

~ 15 I
I I
20 I I I
I I I

25 I I I I I
- Post-Construction DCP I - Post-Construction DCP 2 - Post-Construction DCP 3

Figure 16. Post-construction DCP data, base surface, Item 2 (BX 1200).
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 27

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone Surface, Item 3 (TX 150)

CBR(%)
10 100
0 .,.

5 ,. j-

"""=' I 0
......_
=
-
.Cl
Q.
Q
~
15

20 --------~--~--~~~~~=---~~4---~-~

25 -_____j______L__· - l. ~
- Post-Construction DCP l - Post-Construction DCP 2 - Post-Construction DCP 3

Figure 17. Post-construction DCP data, base surface, Item 3 (TX 150).

Table 7. Summary of measured base course strengths.

Product In-Field CBR (%)

Item 1 30.7

Item 2 28.9

Item 3 27.3

Instrumentation

Sensors were placed in the subgrade and at the pavement surface to quan-
tify the benefits provided by each of the geogrids tested. The instrumenta-
tion layout in profile was shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the plan view
of the surface sensors while subsurface sensors were shown in Figure 4·
These sensors are described in greater detail in the following section.

Subgrade

Two g-in.-diam Geokon® earth pressure cells (EPCs) were placed in the
subgrade. These sensors were capable of measuring earth pressures up
58.60 psi. The upper EPC was placed 2 in. below the base-subgrade
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 28

interface while the lower EPC was placed 12 in. below the base-subgrade
interface. Both EPCs were placed directly under the center of the load
plate.

After compaction of the lift associated with each EPC, the subgrade was
excavated by hand to place the EPC. Soils were carefully removed to
ensure that the EPC was placed at the desired depth within the pavement
profile. A thin lift of sand was placed beneath the EPC to ensure adequate
contact between the bottom of the EPC and the clay subgrade. The EPC
was leveled prior to recompaction of the surrounding clay (Photo 14). The
clay surface was hand tamped as it was replaced to prevent the inclusion of
voids (Photo 15). The subgrade surface was recompacted using the pneu-
matic hammer in the zone surrounding the EPC prior to placement of the
subsequent lift. The elevation of the EPC surface was obtained prior to
being recovered with soil.

The depths of embedment below the base-subgrade surface are summa-

rized in Table 8.

Photo 14. EPC being leveled prior to recompaction of clay.

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 29

Photo 15. Burial of the lower EPC, Item 1.

Table 8. Summary of EPC embedment depth relative to base-subgrade interface.

Test Item UpperEPC Lower EPC

Item 1 3.36 in. 12.66 in.

Item 2 1.97 in. 11.69 in.

Item 3 2.18 in. 12.02 in.

A Geokon® Model 45008 pore pressure transducer was placed 2 in. below
the base-subgrade interface. This sensor was capable of measuring pore
pressures up so.B psi. Prior to placement in each test item, the pore pres-
sure sensor was fully saturated. The subgrade was hand excavated in a
manner similar to that used to place the EPCs. The pore pressure sensor
was placed in direct contact with the clay subgrade (shown in Photo 16) as
recommended by the manufacturer. The subgrade was replaced and
recompacted prior to placement of the geogrid and base course.

Surface

A series of six linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs) were

placed at the surface of the rubber mat. The sensor offsets relative to the
center of the loading foot are shown in Figure 3. These sensors were placed
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 30

Photo 16. Placement of the pore pressure transducer in direct contact with clay.

along the centerline of the pavement surface, providing a mechanism for

measuring deflection basins during cyclic plate load testing as well as
quantifying the accumulation of permanent deformations at the mat
surface throughout the pavement life. An LVDT was placed on the circular
load plate, providing a measure of deformations directly beneath the load.

The LVDT setup is shown in Photo 17. An additional LVDT is located in

the actuator assembly. This LVDT may be used to measure permanent
deformations; however, bending in the actuator support system prevents
using this measurement to calculate elastic deformations at the pavement
surface during cyclic loading.
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 31

Photo 17. Surface sensors and test setup.

•
 ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 32

5 Cyclic Plate Load Testing

Testing procedure

The testing system is shown in Photo 17. A 50,000-lb Gilmore hydraulic

actuator was used to apply cyclic loads to the pavement test items. Testing
was controlled using a computerized MTS control system (Photo 18). The
load was transmitted to the pavement via a 12-in.-diam, 1-in.-thick steel
plate. The plate was a 0.25-in.-thick neoprene pad to reduce stress concen-
trations near the edge of the load plate. Applied loads were measured
using a load cell located between the actuator and the load plate. The load
cell used in this experiment had a capacity of 50,000 lb.

Loading was applied sinusoidally. Each pulse had a total duration of

1.2 sec. The load was applied for a 0.3-sec duration followed by a 0.9-sec
rest period. Each test item was loaded using a series of load increments:
3,000 lb, 6,ooo lb, 9,000 lb, 11,000 lb, 13,000 lb, and 15,000 lb. During
•
the rest period, a 100-lb surcharge was maintained. Figure 18 shows meas-
ured load pulses at the six load levels. The pulses were typical of the load
pulses applied during testing.

Testing proceeded as described in the following section. The actuator was

placed at the center of the test section. Cyclic loading was performed with
a maximum load of 3,000 lb. Instrumentation response data for the
LVDTs, EPCs, and load cell were recorded during the following intervals:
o cycles (baseline), 1-10 cycles, 21- 30 cycles, 41-50 cycles, 66-75 cycles,
91-100 cycles, 291-300 cycles, 491-500 cycles, 741- 750 cycles, 991-
1000 cycles, 1991-2000 cycles, 2991-3000 cycles, 3991-4000 cycles,
and4991-5000 cycles. These data were recorded at a rate of 1,000 points
per second. Permanent deformation at the plate was monitored through-
out testing. Testing was concluded at 5,000 cycles or a permanent
deformation of 0.5 in. from the beginning of the load interval. This process
was repeated at each load level. The environmental instrumentation data
(pore pressures and subgrade temperature) were monitored and recorded
at 5-min intervals throughout construction, testing, and post-traffic
forensics.

The permanent deformations measured at the plate are shown in

Figures 19, 20, and 21 for Items 1, 2, and 3, respectively. These figures
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 33

Photo 18. MTS control system and dataloggers.

16000 j - 3000 lb
14000 - 6000 lb
- 9000 lb
12000
li OOO ib

---
.Q

'0
10000
.,.
r - 13000 lb
15000 1b
~
Q
...;j 8000
'0

·--c.c.
G.l

6000
<
4000

2000

0 { '-' L J I • .&.. ••• •

0 0.5 I 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Time (sec)

Figure 18 Typical sinusoidal load pulses at each applied load level.

ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 34

Number of Cycles
1 10 100 1000 10000
0.000 ~
/'o.

.:1;1 .:::,
"'
!;..
0. ,:r.,
"'

--
1:!._
..,.
..... , ....
"r', T' -J
~

7 • .- 'I
I - -&... ~

0.100 ~ t~ \ ~ - r- ""'t
........... ~~9. f- t-
,"'- ... , /
t ~
:""'

'I I' /

-,
~

0.200 ...,_ ~
f I
~ I I
"'
'" ' ~
' 1~ ~
~
~~ J
c I " ~
·-..... '\~ .....k-
/
0

~
I
~
~
6a. 0.300
'. ...
,
,
"
~
~
Q
0.400 - 0 3 kips
I
I
'
1 ~-...l )

I I
""' ...... >II
,, ......
)
~
/ ~ l.
! I l 1
0 6 kips
1\ \\
.).

,I
I
6 9 kips I

0.500 - )( 11 kips \ I

)I( 13 kips I\ vI I\ \ /
I
0 15 kips
~ 'tt\ _l
)k
0.600 ~
~ · ~ . ~ ~ ~

Figure 19. Permanent deformation at pavement surface, Item 1 (TX 170).

Number of Cycles
1 10 100 1000 10000
0.00 ,
[ ... ' ,-'-, I lr- !-. _rh
I I I I I I
:
x,
1'- "' '--'

~
- J
1-
I-

: -B..
,.. L
· ~ ~ I lA.
A
I • ~
0.10

~;~
t t +-
~

r- .,.. ~

I I I
1~
'
I 'Ill.
I -.: 'I
' / I
=
0.20 '
' ""'
, ,-,

"'
y)
'\K I ~!), c\ I

·-0
.....
~
ea. 0.30 --
~, _u ~ )~ \J
I ; ~ ., t 1-
................ I 1

--..,~
~~
~
~
0 3 kips
I I
I
~
0.40 - II ' I

-~
0 6 kips \/ I

6 9 kips
~~
I

\ 1\ I

0.50
)( 1 I kips ~ t
r L
-
1
0.60
)I( 13 kips

0 15 kips
J ~ ~ ~
I
i I K ~
\'
~ ~ L \ L~ . '-

Figure 20. Permanent deformation at pavement surface, Item 2 (BX 1200).

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 35

Number of Cycles
10 100 1000 10000
0.00 --.

0.20
=
·-
0
~
c:
5
I.
0.30
~
~
~ 0 3 kips
0.40
0 6 kips
.. ..
I
I
t: 9 kips
~E I I kips
0.50
)K 13 kips
0 15 kips
0.60 -

Figure 21. Permanent deformation at pavement surface, Item 3 (TX 150).

represent the performance of the pavement under the shake-down condi-

tions at each applied load level. The measured permanent deformations
under each load level and the number of cycles required to achieve failure
are summarized in Table g. This deformation is analogous to a rutting
response in a full-scale pavement section.

Figure 22 presents the measured deformations graphically. The number of

cycles required to produce the deformation is noted for each load incre-
ment. As this figure shows, Items 1 and 2 showed similar behavior~ with
Item 1 undergoing reduced deformations. Item 3 displayed a different
deformation response with reduced deformations at all levels.

Post-test forensics

After load testing was completed, a series of tests were performed to

quantify any changes in physical properties during testing. Tests were
performed to quantify the strength of the pavement layers and the
deformations associated with testing. Tests were performed at the base
course surface as well as the subgrade surface. After testing the base
course, the crushed limestone material was excavated to expose the
geogrid and the subgrade surface.
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 36

Table 9. Measured deformation and load cycle level at the conclusion of each load increment.

Load Increment Item 1 Item 2 ltem3

3,000 lb 0.057 in. 0.179 in. 0 .030 in.

(5000 cycles) (5000 cycles) (5000 cycles)

6,000 lb 0.221 in. 0.264 in. 0.078 in.

(5000 cyc les) (5000 cyc les) (5000 cycles)

9,000 lb 0.415 in. 0.655 in. 0.125 in.

(5000 cycles) (500 0 cycles) (5000 cycles)

11,000 lb 0.581 in. 0.604 in. 0 .167 in.

(5000 cycles) (1500 cycles) (5000 cycles)

13,000 lb 0.754 in. 0 .709 in. 0 .262 in.

(1300 cycles) (150 cycles) (5000 cycles)

15,000 lb 0.776 in. 0.668 in. 0.836 in.

(75 cycles) (50 cycles) (5000 cycles)

1 --
Oltem 1 0
0
0.9 •Item 2 0
U')
Oltem 3 0

-·- ,._
0 1.0
0.8 - ("')

c:
. 0
0
-; 0.7 - 0 0
o o_

-
·-0nJ
E
....
0
0.6 ~
0
0
1.0
1.0
- .....
-

......
Q) 0.5

-
c
c: 0.4
Q)
c:
nJ
0
0
E
.... 0.3 J 0

Q) 0
0
Q. 0
0.2 - 1.0

0.1 -;

0 ' T

3,000 lb 6,000 lb 9,000 lb 11,000 lb 13,000 lb 15,000 lb

Load level

Figure 22. Summary of permanent deformations at failure for individual load increments.

The exposed base course surfaces are shown in Photos 19-21. Photo 22
shows the pavement profile after removal of part of the subgrade in Item 1.
Discernable deformation is observed in both the base and subgrade layers.
The same view is shown in Photos 23 and 24 for Items 2 and 3, respec-
tively. Measured rut depths at the base and subgrade surfaces are
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 37

Photo 19. Base course surface, post-test, Item 1 (TX 170).

Photo 20. Base course surface, post-test, Item 2 (BX 1200).

ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 38

••

Photo 21. Base course surface, post-test, Item 3 (TX 150).

Photo 22. Exposed base and subgrade surfaces, post-test, Item 1 (TX 170).
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 39

.. .. . .. \ .

Photo 23. Exposed base and subgrade surfaces, post-test, Item 2 (BX 1200) .

.. ..
.,.
~
. ...
,.... ..,.. -#
... ..,.
"' -
.,.. ,..
,.. ,(
_,
•
~
... -,1

- - •
~ -...... . 'i'
. -: ~.,. .r

- •

Photo 24. Exposed base and subgrade surfaces, post-test, Item 3 (TX 150).
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 40

summarized in Table 10. It should be noted that these rut depths should
not be directly compared, as the test items had undergone different traffic
levels prior to failure.
t

Table 10. Summary of post-test rut depth data under load plate.
Test Item Rut at Base Surface Rut at Subgrade Surface
Item 1 2.5 in. 2 in.
Item 2 3.125 in. 3 in.

Item 3 1. 75 in. 1.4375 in.

The exhumed geogrids are shown in Photos 25-27. These photos show the
thin layer of clay that pushed through the geogrids directly under the
loading plate. The rut bowl at the subgrade surface is shown in Photos 28-
30. These photos show the locations where the clay subgrade was
dislodged during removal of the geogrids.

Profile data were obtained pre and post-test at the base and subgrade sur-
faces. The 17-point layout was used to ensure lift thickness, as described
previously. Additionally, a profile was obtained along the centerline of
each test item. This profile was taken in the East-West direction, perpen-
dicular to the instrumentation setup. The elevation data were used to
develop a measure of the pavement profile. The pre- and post-test pave-
ment profiles are shown in Figures 23-25 for Items 1, 2, and 3,
respectively.

Strength characteristics in the base course were obtained through in-field

CBR tests and DCP tests. Additionally, vane shear tests were performed
at the subgrade surface. The post-test CBR values are summarized in Table
11.

Table 11. Summary of post-test CBR values.

CBR Strength, %

Test Item Base Subgrade

Item 1 33 2.8
Item 2 44.5 2.8
Item 3 59.1 3.6
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 41

Photo 25. Exhumed geogrid, Item 1 (TX 170).

Photo 26. Exhumed geogrid, Item 2 (BX 1200).

ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 42

Photo 27. Exhumed geogrid, Item 3 (TX 150).

Photo 28. Rutting observed at subgrade surface, Item 1 (TX 170).

ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 43

Photo 29. Rutting observed at subgrade surface, Item 2 (BX 1200).

...
,....
,.,.
.
,.... ~
,.
-

Photo 30. Rutting observed at subgrade surface, Item 3 (TX 150).

ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 44

Pavement Profiles, Item 1

46 -------------------------------------------------------------,

44 - - - - -
-~ ~~ -~

42

""'=' 40
·--=
= 38
-...
.~
4':
Q
~ 36 +

34 . -~ Base Pre-Test
e Base Post-Test
32 -~ Subgrade Pre-Test
:A Subgrade Post-Test
30 ......__._ f .. ~-l f t l + l f I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Lateral Offset, North to South (in.)

Figure 23. Pavement profile along centerline, Item 1 (TX 170).

Pavement Profiles, Item 2

48 T - ~

t
46~~~~~~~~~~ - •<) - -~ -
44

42

-~ Base Pre-Test
34
e Base Post-Test
32 -~ Subgrade Pre-Test
:A Subgrade Post-Test
30 ~~--+-~~~~----~----4-+-~~--~4---~-+----1-+----+~~

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Lateral Offset, North to South (in.)

Figure 24. Pavement profile along centerline, Item 2 (BX 1200).

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 45

Pavement Profiles, Item 3

48

46 ~~-~.~~--~--~~
- a u a =• =•
44
-
. . . -;- 42 i
·-c
'-'
c 40
.;.
_._

·-....
0
.....
(OS
38 -=
-

-(J

[;I;J
36 -
--
• ~ Base Pre-Test
34 -
e Base Post-Test
• l!!t
32 +
...
Subgrade Pre-Test
i!i Subgrade Post-Test
30 t t t t-+- I ~ 1 + 1 I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Lateral Offset, North to South (in.)

Figure 25. Pavement profile along centerline, Item 3 (TX 150).

DCPs were performed in three locations outside of the deformation bowl.

The post-test DCP data are superimposed over the post-construction DCP
data in Figures 26-28 for Items 1, 2, and 3, respectively. DCP tests were
also performed in the center of the deformation bowl. These tests were
carried out to a depth of 6 in. to prevent damaging the underlying EPC.
The results of these tests are plotted in Figures 29-31. DCP tests were also
performed after the base materials were removed and the subgrade was
exposed. The post-construction and post-test DCP tests at the subgrade
surface are shown in Figures 32-34 for Items 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
These results indicate a strength increase in the base course due to
cementation during curing and over the test period.

The strength gain in Itern 3 is slightly greater than the strength increase
observed in Items 1 and 2. The increased strength in Item 3 due to curing
may have contributed to the reduced deformations observed relative to
Items 1 and 2. No significant change in strength was observed in the
subgrade.

The vane shear was used to assess the exposed subgrade materials.
Tests were performed outside the center of loading in locations near the
pre-test vane shear tests. The results of these tests are summarized
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 46

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone Surface, Item 1 (TX 170)

CBR (%)
10 100
0 c-

.. ....
~ ·····
--
• • • • • cl.;:. ~ ~.
- I -·~~-
r-
I

I
- -
..-r--• --.
. I• •
~-
. I

-. I
~- ~· ! - io '
-- ::..::.-. --
-- - - -- -----
~--- 1'

• r · ~·
""'=' 10
·-_-=....=.. I
~--
Q.

~
~
15
I .. .,
l ~
~-
.~..- ~i:.·
•
~~
i• .•

I i- --• -.
20
1- -
25
- -Post-Construction DCP 1 --Post-Construction DCP 2 - -Post-Construction DCP 3
• • Post-Test DCP I • • Post Test DCP 2 • • Post-Test DCP 3

Figure 26. Post-construction and post-test DCP results, Item 1 (TX 170) base surface.

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone Surface, Item 2 (BX 1200)

CBR (%)
1 10 100
0
I . - - -_-. = - • I
I

....
I
- •

- ..
~
- I
!'

5
• ~
-
- -- - - -
I• • I•

i•
~ ~ I'" I• • • -:b5:::'- -
I I

""'=' I0
=
- - ._ I

--
·--=....
_..
I .r - · - ..
Q.
~ 1~-
~ 15 - · -1-
-
- --;,=:.... :-.-:.r- ~--

20
t- 1- -
I•
--
• io-

I
"""" ~

25 -

- - Post-Construction DCP I --Post-Construction DCP 2 - -Post-Construction DCP 3

• • Post-Test DCP l • • Post Test DCP 2 • • Post-Test DCP 3

Figure 27. Post-construction and post-test DCP results, Item 2 (BX 1200) base surface.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 47

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone Surface, Item 3 (TX 150)

CBR (%)
10 100
0
- ..
I

5 t-

- ----
-- -
....-;- I 0 t- t-

=
-
.c

Q
Q,
~
15 -J - t- +

__.====-- ..
20 ~+~
- ~-- -- t

1
25 l
- - Post-Construction DCP I - - Post-Construction DCP 2 - -Post-Construction DCP 3
• • Post-Test DCP I - • Post Test DCP 2 • • Post-Test DCP 3

Figure 28. Post-construction and post-test DCP results, Item 3 base surface.

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone under Load Plate, Item 1 (TX 170)

CBR(%)
10 100
0 +

t t
!
I r ' ·- - .. ..,.. - I
T

2 ·- i

-
·-....c:c: 3
Q.
Q,l
t- +

Q
i
4 .. i
. I
I
5
+ .. I

6 l
- Test I - Test 2

Figure 29. DCP results, post-test Item 1 (TX 170) base surface, directly beneath load plate.
 ·~

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 48

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone under Load Plate, Item 2 (BX 1200)
CBR(%)
1 10 100
0 I

--·-...=
•

.c 3
2

Q.
Q,j
Q
4
I

5 -

6
- Test 1 - Test 2 - Test 3

Figure 30. DCP results, post-test Item 2 (BX 1200) base surface, directly beneath load plate.

DCP Results: Crushed Limestone under Load Plate, Item 3 (TX 150)

CBR(%)
1 10 100
0 -

-·--=
2
• I • •
I
...
.c 3
Q.
Q,j
-
I
1- - 1-

Q
4
I
5

I -
6 .!..

- Test 1 - Test 2 - Test 3

Figure 31. DCP results, post-test Item 3 (TX 150) base surface, directly beneath load plate.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 49

DCP Results: Subgrade Surface, Item 1 (TX 170)

CBR (%)
1 10 100
0 I I I ..
5
I I
-.. - I

·--
10 + t +
I

-
=•
.c
..... 15
~
c.
-----------!-------!----!----+

25 + + +

30 ----------~----~--~---- -~~---------- ...

- - Post-Construction DCP I - - Post-Construction DCP 2 - -Post-Construction DCP 3
• • Post-Test DCP I • • Post Test DCP 2 • • Post-Test DCP 3

Figure 32. DCP results, post-test Item 1 (TX 170) subgrade surface.

DCP Results: Subgrade Surface, Item 2 (BX 1200)

CBR (%)
10 100
0 I
I
I
I
I
- -
• I

5
~
I I~ •
-
----
-- - -I •
4 i
I
...

"'-=- I 0
j -·-
·-- - -
I

I ...
·--=
+ + +
~

I
- =
- --
- •
+
~ +

J
20 + + •. + ~

25
- - Post-Construction DCP I - - Post-Construction DCP 2 Post-Construction DCP 3
• • Post-Test DCP I - • Post Test DCP 2 • • Post-Test DCP 3

Figure 33. DCP results, post-test Item 2 (BX 1200) subgrade surface.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 50

DCP Results: Subgrade Surface, Item 3 (TX 150)

CBR(%)
I 10 100
0 I• •
L
I' I
' . _---- -
5
..
I
...
i
1- .1-- -
I •
'I ...
... ~ ~- -
.c
Q.

Q 15
I •

- -
~ '
~
""
~
,_
I
•

--- - '
20 -- I
I ·- - -

25
- Post-Construction DCP l Post-Construction DCP 2 Post-Construction DCP 3
• • Post-Test DCP I • • Post Test DCP 2 • • Post-Test DCP 3

Figure 34. DCP results, post-test Item 3 (TX 150) subgrade surface.

in Table . Additional tests were performed directly under the load plate
and above the EPC. These test results are also shown in Table .

Table 12. Summary of post-test vane shear data.

Test Item Edges Under Load Plate

In Situ Remolded In Situ Remolded

psi psi psi psi•

Item 1 13.3 8.4 14.8 9.5

Item 2 13.7 7.1 11.5 6.1

Item 3 16.8 10.6 17.2 7.5

These tests were difficult to perform, as the subgrade was 2 in. thick in this
zone. Rutting at the base-subgrade interface caused a 1/8- to 1/ 4-in.-thick
layer of clay to adhere to the bottom of the geogrid under the loaded plate.
Exhumation of the geogrid resulted in the removal of this material, leading
to a thin lift of clay above the upper EPC.

Post-test measurements of density and moisture content were obtained

using the nuclear densometer. These results are summarized in Table 13.
ERDC/ GSL TR-09-36 51

Table 13. Summary of post-test moisture and density data.

Test Item Wet Density Dry Density Moisture

pet pet Content, %

Base Course

Item 1 _a - -
Item 2 151.4 145.2 4.3

Item 3 138.6 135.3 3.2

Subgrade

Item 1 109.8 80.6 35.2

Item 2 107.9 78.6 36.9

Item 3 110.6 81.1 36.6

a Data not available.

ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 52

6 Conclusions and Recommendations

The ERDC evaluated three geogrid-reinforced pavement structures for
Tensar International Corporation. Three test items were constructed in a
laboratory containment facility with different geogrids placed at the base-
subgrade interface. This report addresses the construction and cyclic plate
load testing of the subject test items. Conclusions from the assessment and
recommendations for future work are summarized below.

Conclusions

The following conclusions resulted from the construction and cyclic plate
load testing ofTensar's geogrid products:

• In testing of short durations, such as the tests reported herein,

variations in cure time are discernible between different test items.
High-quality control and delays in pavement construction could
prevent these variations.
• Relative improvements in performance were observed between the
three geogrid products tested. Items 1 and 2 (TX 170 and BX 120o)
exhibited similar performance behavior. Item 1 was capable of
withstanding additional traffic relative to Item 2. At load levels of
11,000, 13,000, and 15,000 lb, Item 1 was capable of sustaining an
additional3,000, 1,150, and 25 passes, respectively.
• Minimal densification of the aggregate base was observed during post-
test forensics.
• Observed failures at high loads were based on exceeding the bearing
capacity of the soft clay subgrade layer. Test items were able to
withstand 5,000 cycles of load without exceeding the 0.50-in. rut
criterion at magnitudes at or below 9,000 lb.

Recommendations

Based on the laboratory testing completed by the ERDC, the following

recommendations are provided:

• It is recommended that an additional test consisting of a 6-in. base

overlaying a 3 CBR subgrade be performed to quantify the
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 53

improvement of the geogrid-reinforced test items relative to a control

test item.
• It is recommended that Item 3, TX 150, be retested due to the
fundamentally different pavement performance observed in Item 3
relative to Items 1 and 2.
• It is recommended that DCP testing be performed just prior to cyclic
plate loading. This will provide a more representative strength profile
than the green strengths obtained immediately after construction.
• It is recommended that the surcharge used during sinusoidal loading
be increased. A greater surcharge load would ensure adequate contact
between the rubber mat and the base course surface at high rut depths.
ERDC/GSL TR-09-36 54

References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2009.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods ofsampling
and testing. 29th ed. Washington, DC.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Annual book ofASTM standards.
West Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM D1557-07. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics

ofsoil using modified effort (56,ooo ft-lbfjft3 (2,700 kN-mjm3)).

ASTM D2487-06. Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering

purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).

ASTM D2573-08. Standard test method for field vane shear test in cohesive soil.

ASTM D2922-04. Standard test methods for density ofsoil and soil aggregate in
place by nuclear methods (shallow depth).

ASTM D3017-05. Standard test methods for water content ofsoil and rock in place
by nuclear methods (shallow depth).

ASTM D4318-05. Standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity
index of soils.

ASTM D4429-04. Standard test method for CBR (California bearing ratio) of soils
in place.

ASTM D6951-03. Standard test methodfor the use of the dynamic cone
penetrometer in shallow pavement applications.

Tingle, J. S., and S. R. Jersey. 2005. Cyclic plate load testing ofgeosynthetic-reinforced
unbound aggregate roads. Transportation Research Record No. 1936.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 1960. The Unified Soil Classification
System. Technical Memorandum No. 3-357. Vicksburg, MS.

Webster, S. L., R. H. Grau, and T. P. Williams. 1992. Description and application of dual-
mass dynamic cone penetrometer. Instruction Report GL-92-3. Vicksburg, MS:
US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.

Webster, S. L., R. W. Brown, and J. R. Porter. 1994. Force projection site evaluation
using the electrical cone penetrometer (ECP) and the dynamic cone
penetrometer (DCP). Technical Report GL-94-17. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Public reporttng burden for th1~ collection ?f i~form~tion is e.stimat~ to av~rage 1 hour per response, i~cluding the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, galherin and maintainin
the d~ta ne.eded, and completmg and rev1ewmg th1s ~llect1on of 1nformat1on. S~nd co~ments regard1ng this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, includin~ suggestions fo~
reduc1ng thiS burden to Department of Defense, Washington Head~uarters Serv1ces..D.1rectorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 12 04, Arlin ton
VA 22202-4302. Re~pondents should be aware that notwithstandmg any other prov1S1on of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it d g i
display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. oes no
1. REPORT DATE (00-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From_ To)
October 2009 Final report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Sa. CONTRACT NUMBER

Cyclic Plate Testing of Geogrid Reinforced Highway Pavements Sb. GRANT NUMBER

Sc. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) Sd. PROJECT NUMBER

Sarah R. Jersey Se. TASK NUMBER

Sf. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT

NUMBER
U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory ERDC/GSL TR-09-36
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199

9. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

Tensar International Corporation
5883 Glenridge Dr., Suite 200
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR' S REPORT
Atlanta, GA 30328 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Researchers at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) performed cyclic plate load tests on three geogrid-
reinforced highway pavement test sections during the period February- April2009. Tests were performed on a thin crushed limestone
aggregate base over a soft, 3 CBR subgrade. These tests were performed in a 6-ft-square laboratory containment facility in the ERDC
Materials Testing Laboratory. The pavement was overlain with a rubber mat prior to load testing. Testing was accomplished via cyclic
loading of a circular plate at several load levels. Load magnitudes were selected to simulate traffic ranging from light passenger vehicle
to overloaded tractor-trailer truck traffic. This loading simulated the shake-down period occurring under initial loading immediately
following construction.

1S. SUBJECT TERMS

Flexible pavement Geosynthetics
Geogrid-reinforcement Laboratory testing
17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES PERSON

b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include

a. REPORT
area code)
63
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239.18