ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Technical note

Inuence of geosynthetic reinforcement on the load-settlement

characteristics of two-layer subgrade
Krystyna Kazimierowicz-Frankowska
Institute of Hydroengineering, IBW PAN, ul. Koscierska 7, 80-328 Gdansk-Oliwa, Poland
Received 19 August 2006; received in revised form 21 December 2006; accepted 2 January 2007
Available online 22 February 2007

Abstract
The possibility of realistic prediction of two-layer subgrade load-settlement characteristics is discussed. The case of improvement of the
soft subgrade properties using the geosynthetic reinforcement placed at the boundary between two different subgrade layers is analysed.
In the rst part of the paper, a short review of the main conclusions from experimental results dealing with the inuence of geosynthetic
reinforcement on the load-settlement characteristics of subgrade is presented. Then, the results of using the selected analytical membraneaction model to describe the reinforcement action in soil are discussed. The model is veried on the basis of data obtained from
previously published laboratory tests. Particular attention is devoted to inuencing some basic initial parameters on the accuracy of
obtained results. Important problems which need intensive investigations are identied.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Unpaved roads; Geosynthetic reinforcement; Foundations; Settlements

1. Introduction
The technique of ground improvement using geosynthetics
has developed extensively over the last few decades. It is
especially important in pavement and foundation engineering. An increasing number of studies on the subject have
been conducted by researchers in the last few years (Bera
et al., 2005; Ghosh et al., 2005; Hufenus et al., 2006; Patra
et al., 2005, 2006; Yetimoglu et al., 2005). The experimental
results show (Fannin and Sigurdsson, 1996; Cancelli and
Montanelli, 1999; Som and Sahu, 1999) that the use of
geosynthetic reinforcement is particularly effective when the
subgrade is weak. It is also visible (Milligan et al., 1989) that
geosynthetic reinforcement becomes very effective when the
depth of settlements in the road or foundation surface
increases. So, geosynthetic layers should be used in cases
when the signicant deformations are acceptable. This
assumption is usually acceptable in the case of unpaved
structures (used as temporary roads, forestry roads or
parking areas). A typical reinforced unpaved road consists
Tel.: +48 58 552 20 11; fax: +48 58 552 42 11.

E-mail address: krystyna@ibwpan.gda.pl.

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.01.002

of a layer of ll compacted onto the subgrade with a single

layer of geosynthetic reinforcement (geogrid or geotextile)
placed at the base of the ll.
The methods of analysis and design of reinforced
roads can be classied with the framework of a few groups
(Table 1). It is possible to select two general approaches to
this problem. In the rst of them the analytical models are
used to describe the reinforcement mechanics of geosynthetics. This approach requires proper and realistic assumptions as to the nature of working the reinforced road
structures and particular elements of their constructions. The
modelling errors (on the initial design stage) caused the
signicant errors in the results of calculations of the main
road parameters. Thus, such methods (Giroud and Noiray,
1981; Bourdeau, 1989; Milligan et al., 1989; Houlsby et al.,
1989; Sellmeijer, 1990; Burd, 1995) need good theoretical
knowledge about the mechanics of road structures.
The second approach is based on using numerical methods
(especially nite element methods) to solve the problem of
scope and magnitude of reinforced road deformations. This
kind of calculation enables the determination of material
parameters that would have been difcult to measure in the
experimental study. The nite element models were also used

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

367

Table 1
Methods used to investigate the mechanics of geosynthetic reinforcement in unpaved roads

Main criteria of classifications of methods used to describe the mechanism of geosynthetics reinforcement

Proposed mechanism of
reinforcement working

Deformations which are necessary

to activiate the reinforcement
mechanism

Matchematical methods, which are

used to solve the problem

Base-course aggregate lateral

restraint

Large deformation

Analytical methods

Increase in stiffness of the

base-course aggregate

Small deformation

Numerical methods

Improved vertical stress

distribution on the subgrade

Reduction of shear stress in

the subgrade soil

successfully in back-analyses of experimental results (Burd

and Houlsby, 1989). The development of typical numerical
procedures of calculations caused some important idealizations of problem. The main ones deal with the following
elements: geometry of construction; load conditions; material
behaviour and constitutive models of materials; selection of
numerical technique. The main problem is that particular
models are not veried against extensive experimental data.
The aim of this paper is to present some practical
important conclusions from analysis of the results of
geosynthetic reinforced subgrade deformation and bearing
capacity under a monotonic load. The scope of the article is
limited to investigation of two-layer systems (granular
layer over soft ground) reinforced with a geosynthetic layer
(placed at the boundary between two subgrade layers)see
Fig. 1. This model may be a scheme of simple construction
of unpaved road. The study is limited to cases where the
thickness of the compacted ll layer (H) is comparable with
the footing width (2B).
The rst part of the present contribution is devoted to
formulating and summarizing of the main conclusions
from selected experimental results presented in recent
literature. Some basic empirical ndings are described
and the simple empirical formula is proposed to describe
the effect of improvement of the load-settlement correlation after inclusion of the reinforcement.

base

2B

reinforcement

subgrade

Fig. 1. Typical cross section of two-layer subgrade reinforced with

geosynthetic.

The second part of this paper deals with discussion of the

results of testing the selected membrane-action model
(Burd, 1995) to describe the behaviour of reinforcement
layer. The use of tensile membrane concept in professional
calculations of reinforcement subgrade settlements was
initiated by Giroud and Noiray (1981). After a time some
other authors applied the concept (with different, sometimes opposite, assumptionssee Houlsby and Jewell,
1990; Burd, 1995) to predict the settlements of reinforced
subgrades, in cases when great deformations are acceptable. The attention is focused on factors strongly affecting
precision of calculation results. The theoretically estimated
settlements of two-layer subgrades are compared with

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

368

directly measured values from previously published

laboratory tests.
2. Main conclusions from experimental results
2.1. Bearing capacity factors and improvement ratio
A standard approach to designing unpaved roads and
foundations reinforced with geosynthetics is the assumption that the bearing capacity of the weak subgrade is
improved. The benecial effect of reinforcement for
increasing the ultimate bearing capacity has been expressed
in terms of a dimensionless quantity called the bearing
capacity factor (BCR):
quR
BCR
,
(1)
qu

Table 2
Bearing capacity factors used for reinforced and unreinforced systems
Reference

Unreinforced
subgrade

Reinforced
subgrade

Improvement
ratio

Steward et al. (1977)

Bender and
Barenburg (1978)
Giroud and Noiray
(1981)
De Groot et al. (1986)
Milligan et al. (1989)
Houlsby and Jewell
(1990)

2.80
3.30

5.00
6.00

1.79
1.82

3.14

5.14

1.64

3.00
2.57
3.07

5.00
5.14
5.69

1.67
2.00
1.85

where qu(R) is the subgrade ultimate bearing capacity with

the inclusion of reinforcement and qu is the subgrade
ultimate bearing capacity in unreinforced soil.
Much higher BCRs are used for the subgrade in the case
of reinforced systems than unreinforced ones (Table 2).
The average BCR used for the unreinforced systems is
about 3.1 (Ep) and for the reinforced one is approximately
(p+2). In practice, unpaved roads and most shallow
foundations are designed for limited settlements. Thus, it is
essential to determine their response for loads below the
subgrade ultimate bearing capacity.
2.2. The dependence between the load capacity ratio (LCR)
and the scope of settlements
In the current paper results of a few accurately
performed experiments (Table 3) dealing with two-layer
unpaved systems investigated are discussed.
The general nature of the load-settlement curves for
unreinforced and geosynthetic-reinforced two-layer soil
system is schematically shown in Fig. 2. It is convenient to
introduce the following dimensionless variables to estimate
displacement:
U D/2B (in the case of rectangular footing), where D
is the footing settlement and B is a half width of footing
and U D/D (in the case of circular footing), where D is
diameter of footing.
The experimental results have led to the conclusion that
two different stages can be determined in the loadsettlement characteristics of two-layer soil systems:
1. First phasewhere the experimental data obtained for
both kinds of two-layer subgrades (with and without the

Table 3
Basic information about selected experimental results
Reference

Base layer

Subgrade type

Geosynthetic
properties: type and
tensile strength

Experimental stand

Load type

Som and Sahu (1999)

Compacted furnace
ash: four different
thicknesses: 4, 7.5, 11,
15 cm

Articially
consolidated kaoline;
cu 12 kPa

Polypropylene,
multilament nonwoven (31  13.4 kN/
m) and polypropylene,
needle-punched woven
geotextile
(40.8  22.3 kN/m)

Steel tank: diameter

70 cm, height 70 cm

Alenowicz (1989) and

Alenowicz and
Dembicki (1991)

Sand layer: ve
different thicknesses:
5, 10, 15, 20, 30 cm

Clay: cu 7.4 kPa

Polypropylene nonwoven geotextile:

10.6  17.7 kN/m

Rectangular
strongbox: length
265 cm; width 50 cm;
depth 107 cm

Love et al. (1987)

Compacted sand:
three different
thicknesses: 5, 7.5,
10 cm

Clay: cu1 6 kPa;

cu2 9 kPa; cu3 14
kPa

Geogrid (Tensar SS)

2.7  2.7 kN/m

Rectangular
strongbox: length
100 cm; width 30 cm;
depth 60 cm

Load was applied to

the 15 cm diameter
rigid circular footing
in increments using
level systems, the next
load increment was
applied when the
settlement stabilized.
The 20 cm wide
footing was driven to a
maximum
displacement 9.75 cm
with constant
displacement
rate 7.5 mm/min
The 7.5 cm wide
footing was driven to a
maximum
displacement of 5 cm
in 30 s

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

reinforcement) can be approximated by the one common

curve (point 1 in Fig. 2). It is limited by the range of
deformations U D/2Bp0.1 in the case of rectangular
footing or U D/Dp0.1 in the case of circular footing.
2. Second phasewhen the effect of reduction of settlements for the two-layer system reinforced with geosynthetic layer can be observed. For settlements greater
than that described in the previous point improvement
in the load-carrying capacity is clearly visible in all
experimentally investigated two-layer systems.

Average footing pressure

q
qr

Settlement

369

with
geosynthetic

without
geosynthetic

Improvement in the load-carrying capacity of a reinforced

soil layer typically expressed by LCR is dened as
q
LCR r ,
(2)
q

Fig. 2. General nature of the loaddisplacement curves for unreinforced

and reinforced subgrade.

where qr is the pressure for reinforced soil bed at a specied

settlement and q is the pressure for unreinforced soil bed at
the same settlement.
Figs. 3 and 4 show the relationship between the value of
LCR and normalized magnitude of two-layer surface
displacement calculated on the basis of the experimental
results presented by Alenowicz (1989) and Som and Sahu
(1999).

A
Q

50-300mm

2B=200mm

cu=7,4 kPa

C
1.25

1.25

two different thicknesses of the sand layer

sand thickness =30cm
sand thickness = 5cm

1.2
Load capacity ratio

Load capacity ratio

1.2

the average results for thicknesses of

the sand layer in the range: 5- 30cm

1.15

1.1

1.05

1.15

1.1

1.05

1
0.2

0.3
/2B

0.4

0.5

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

/2B

Fig. 3. Variation of load capacity factor with D/2B. Calculated from data reported by Alenowicz (1989). (A) Experimental stand-up. (B) Results for two
different thicknesses of basic layer. (C) The average value for four different base thicknesses (H in the range: 0.251.5 2B).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

370

Table 4
Coefcients a and b for some analysed cases, cf. Eq. (3)

A
Q

D=150mm

40-150mm

cu=12 kPa

Reference

Alenowicz (1989) thickness of the sand layer: 30 cm

(1.5 2B)
Alenowicz (1989) thickness of the sand layer: 5 cm
(0.25 2B)
Alenowicz (1989) the average values for four
different base thicknesses H in the range: 0.251.5 2B
Som and Sahu (1999) the average values for four
different base thicknesses H in the range: 0.271D

0.497

0.932

0.530

0.962

0.624

0.911

1.635

0.900

B
1.5

A
Q

Load Capacity Ratio

1.4

2B

1.3

base

1.2

1.1

B'=2B+2Htan

subgrade

1
0.12

0.16

0.2

0.24

0.28

0.32

?
 # '

/D

Fig. 4. Variation of load capacity factor with D/D. Calculated from data
reported by Som and Sahu (1999). (A) Experimental stand-up. (B) The
average value for four different base thicknesses (H in the range: 0.271D).

It is clearly visible that the magnitude of load capacity

factors remain practically constant (LCR 1) for displacements: Up0.1 D/2B (the rst case) or Up0.1 D/D (the second
case). For greater deformations the value of its magnitude
increases with increasing subgrade settlements. The linear
curve describes the trend in data for ratio of subgrade
settlement to width of loaded footing versus LCR. The
following formula approximates the correlation very well:
LCR a  U b,

B
Q
2B
base

'

geosynthetic
B'=2B+2Htan'
subgrade

(3)

where U indicates two-layer displacement expressed as

U D/2B or U D/D relative to rectangular and circular
footings; a and b are constants. The values of respective
coefcients are presented in Table 4.
2.3. Other observationsthe load spread mechanism
The load spread mechanism within the aggregate layer is
conventionally modelled (Giroud and Noiray, 1981; Burd
and Frydman, 1997) by assuming that the vertical stresses
caused by the footing load are conned to a zone dened
by lines inclined at angle a to the vertical (Fig. 5). It is
assumed that load is distributed uniformly over a width B0
at the base of the ll layer. Although this is a problem of

Fig. 5. Assumed load spread within the base layer: (A) without the
reinforcement and (B) with reinforcement.

how to calculate the chosen value of a. Houlsby et al.

(1989) suggested that the assumption that a of tan1 is
equal to 0.5 can be used in calculations. The important
question is if reinforcement layer changed the load spread
angle (Gabr et al., 1998; Shin et al., 2001). The results of
published experimental works (Milligan et al., 1989)
suggested that geosynthetic reinforcement changed the
angle from a (subgrade without the reinforcement) to a0
(subgrade with reinforcement). On the other hand, Giroud
and Noiray (1981) concluded that a a0 p/4f/2, where
f indicates the angle of internal friction of ll layer.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

Another important conclusion which follows from

experimental investigations deals with the dependence
between the values of a0 and a obtained for the same
thickness of top subgrade layer. Experimental data, carried
out by Alenowicz (1989) for H in the range between 0.25
and 1.5 2B suggested that this correlation is as follows:

50

with reinforcement (')

without reinforcement ()

Angle of dispersion

40

a0  1:3  a.

30

20

10

0
0

0.4

0.8
H/2B

1.2

371

1.6

Fig. 6. Variation of load dispersion angle versus thickness of soil layer

above the geosynthetic. Plotted from experimental data reported by
Alenowicz (1989).

(5)

Results of the research programme performed by Som and

Sahu (1999) suggested the signicant inuence of magnitude of loading on the value of a0 (Fig. 7). It is visible that
the load dispersion angle changes on increasing the load
level applied to the footing. Love et al. (1987) investigated
the inuence of the strength of the soft subgrade soil
(below the reinforcement layer) on the mechanism of load
spread within the sand soil layer (above the reinforcement).
They concluded that the magnitude of a0 tends to be greater
for soft than rm clays.
In general, it may be concluded that different researchers
have studied the inuence of selected factors on the load
spread mechanism in subgrade, although their conclusions
are not consistent. At present, it is still unclear how, in
particular cases, the value of load dispersion angle should
be calculated.
3. Theoretical model

Explanation of the problem is important, as the value of

load dispersion angle has signicant inuence on the
layered soil bearing capacity.
Below, a very short review of research results dealing
with the different parameters affecting the magnitude of
load spread angle is presented. The rst parameter is the
thickness of the soil layer above the reinforcement.
Milligan and Love (1984) and Alenowicz (1989) independently investigated experimentally the dependence between
the value of the parameter and magnitude of load spread
angle. Unfortunately, on the basis of similar experimental
programmes, they formulate different conclusions.
Milligan and Love (1984) suggest that the value of a0
tends to increase as the layer thickness increases. The test
results reported by Alenowicz (Fig. 6) show that the
magnitude of load dispersion angle decreases with increasing thickness of sand layer. It was found that the
experimentally obtained relation may be described by the
following empirical formula:
ln a C  lnH=2B D,

(4)

where an indicates the angle of dispersion, respectively: in

two-layer subgrade with or without the reinforcement at
boundary between layers; H is the thickness of the soil
layer above the geosynthetic layer; B is the half width of
footing; C and D are the coefcients. For the data from
Fig. 6, C1 0.55, D1 3.03 (the values obtained for
subgrade with reinforcement) and C2 0.53, D2 2.72
are coefcients determined for the system without the
reinforcement.

One of the interesting analytical models based on an

assumption of membrane action of reinforcement (originally presented by Burd, 1995) has been applied to
calculation of two-layer subgrade settlements.
The basic assumptions of the concept can be summarized
as




The plane strain conditions are assumed.

The soil in each layer is homogeneous and isotropic. The
sand acts to spread the load beneath the footing and the
foundation fails to appear when bearing capacity failure
occurs within the clay.
 Fill layer is sufciently stiff for the vertical displacement
and the vertical displacement of footing is equal to the
vertical displacement of geosynthetic reinforcement.
 The value of B0 (half width of loaded area at base of
llsee Fig. 8) is independent of footing displacement.
 The following stresses act on the reinforcement (see Fig. 8):
(a) Normal stress su, applied to the top surface of the
reinforcement su const. for 0oxoB0 . The stresses
are associated with the load, Q, applied to the footing
by the following formula:
Z
Q 2 su  cos j  ds,
(6)
where the signicance of the symbols j and ds is shown
in Fig. 9.
Eq. (6) can be simplied to form (since ds cos f dx)
Q 2B0 su .

(7)

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

372

30

30
25
Angle of dispersion

Angle of dispersion

25

q=0.75qUBC
without geosynthetic
with geosynthetic

20
15
10
q=0.5qUBC
without geosynthetic
with geosynthetic

20
15
10
5

0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

H/D

0.8

H/D
30
q=1qUBC
without geosynthetic

Angle of dispersion

25

with geosynthetic

20
15
10
5
0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

H/D
Fig. 7. Variation of load dispersion angle versus magnitude of loading. Calculated from data reported by Som and Sahu (1999).

x1
B'

NcCu
b

Fig. 8. Assumed stresses acting on geosynthetic reinforcement.

(b) Normal, uniform reaction Nccu, applied to the bottom

surface of the reinforcement for 0oxob. Nc is a BCR;
cu indicates the undrained shear strength of the
subgrade. The reaction is associated with the load, Q,
applied to the footing by the following formula:
Z
Q 2 N c cu  cos j  ds  2N c cu b.
(8)

(c) Shear stresses are indicated by tr for boxox0

(see Fig. 8). tr can be expressed as
tr k  cu g  H  tan fr ,

(9)

where k cu is the adhesion at the reinforcementclay interface;

fr is the angle of friction between the ll and the reinforcement; g is the unit weight of the layer above the geosynthetic

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

obtained by Love et al. (1987) have been taken into

account (see Table 3); for the second case the experimental
data reported by Alenowicz (1989) and Alenowicz and
Dembicki (1991) have been compared with their theoretical
prediction.
Love et al. (1987) investigated the effectiveness of
geogrid reinforcement, placed at the base of a layer of
granular ll on the surface of soft clay. The experiments
were performed for three different top subgrade layer
thicknesses and for three different clay strengths. Results of
six of the experimental tests were compared with their
prediction obtained by using the proposed model. The

T+dT

+d

ds

Fig. 9. Equilibrium of a geosynthetic element ds.

An element of the geosynthetic reinforcement of length

ds acts forces shown in Fig. 9. The forces parallel to the
reinforcement can be written as
dT
.
(10)
ds
The forces perpendicular to the geosynthetics can be
written as

t

sT

dj
.
ds

373

(11)

The length of reinforcement for 0oxox0 can be

calculated according to the following formula:
Z
Tx
ds,
(12)
L x0
J

Table 5
Parameters adopted in the verication study
H (mm)

cu (kPa)

a0 (1)

75
75
75
100
100
100

6
9
14
6
9
14

27.5
25
17.5
30
24
17

a 0:5; fr 20 ; B 37.5 mm; g 19 kN=m3 .

A
Q

where J indicates the reinforcement stiffness, T(x) is the

reinforcement tension.
On the other hand, the length of reinforcement for
0oxox0 can be expressed as
s
 2
Z x0
dy
1
dx.
(13)
L
dx
0

75 mm

2B=75mm

cu1=6 kPa

cu1=9 kPa
cu3=14 kPa

From Eqs. (6)(13) one obtains the relationship, which can

be used to calculate the pre-failure settlements of two-layer
subgrade reinforced with geosynthetic:
 4
 
D
3Q  Q0 D
3N c cu Q  Q0 2

0,
(14)

b
8J
b
32JQtr

B
0

40

120

160

200

0.2
/2B

(15)

To solve Eq. (14) the professional program Mathematica

has been used.

80

where Q0 in Eq. (14) indicates the footing load per unit

length at zero displacement:
Q0 2  B0  N c  cu .

Q [kPa]

cu=14kPa
0.4

4. Prediction of subgrade settlements against experimental

data

0.6

A detailed comparison of calculated and measured

values of subgrade settlements has been done on two
examples. For the rst one, the experimental results

0.8

cu=9kPa

cu=6kPa

Fig. 10. (A) Experimental set-up. (B) Theory (unbroken lines) versus
experiment (symbols) reported by Love et al. (1987).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

basic initial parameters used in the calculations (Table 5)

were estimated by authors of the experimental programme.
Fig. 10 shows the average load pressure versus settlement
curves for ll thickness of 75 mm. These results have been
obtained from three experiments performed with different
values of the undrained shear strength of the soil layer
below the reinforcement. It is visible that settlements
increase with decreasing subgrade cohesion. The same
trend was observed in Fig. 11 plotted for ll thickness
of 100 mm.
At small values of footing displacements the tested
model is not suitable to predict settlements of two-layer
subgrades. Although at a large displacement the results of
approximation of experimental data are quite satisfactory.
It is clearly visible that for subgrades characterized by
undrained shear strength 6 and 9 kPa the calculated values
of settlements are comparable with experimental data for
footing displacement greater than 0.10.2 D/2B. For the
third of tested subgrades (cu 14) the difference between
the calculated and measured displacements is insignicant
for UX0.3 D/2B.
Figs. 10 and 11 have been plotted using the experimentally selected values of load dispersion angle in the top
subgrade layer. Fig. 12 shows the same experimental results

A
Q

75 mm

2B=75mm

cu1=6 kPa

cu2=9 kPa
cu3=14 kPa

B
Q [kPa]
0

50

100

150

200

250

0.2
cu=9kPa
/2B

374

0.4

cu=14kPa
cu=6kPa

0.6

0.8

Fig. 12. (A) Experimental set-up. (B) Theory (unbroken lines) versus
experiment (symbols) reported by Love et al. (1987). Angle of dispersion
load taken after Giroud and Noiray (1981).

100mm

2B=75mm

cu1=6 kPa

cu2=9 kPa
cu3=14 kPa

B
Q [kPa]
0

40

80

120

160

200

which are presented in Fig. 10 and their prediction

corresponding to the value of a0 obtained from Giroud
and Noirays (1981) suggestions: a a0 p/4f/2. The
prediction of displacements differs greatly from experimental results. It shows important inuence of angle of
load dispersion on the obtained results.
The inuence of the geosynthetic stiffness on the
maximum subgrade settlements is presented in Fig. 13.
The geosynthetic stiffness (typically kN/m) is expressed
as follows:
J

0.2

/2B

cu = 14 kPa
cu = 6 kPa
0.4
cu = 9 kPa
0.6

0.8
Fig. 11. (A) Experimental set-up. (B) Theory (unbroken lines) versus
experiment (symbols) reported by Love et al. (1987).

T
,


(16)

where T is the load per meter width (kN/m); e the strain of

geosynthetic samples.
The main factors which affect geosynthetic stiffness are
loading sequence, rate of loading, time after application of
load, strain level, and temperature.
The calculations were carried out for J in the range
between 4 and 500 kN/m. As expected, the obtained results
show that footing settlement decreases with increasing
geosynthetic stiffness. The best t was obtained for
J 28kN/m.
The membrane-action model was also used to predict
the results of experiments reported by Alenowicz (1989).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

375

Q
75mm

2B=75mm

50mm

2B=200mm

cu1=6 kPa

cu=7.4 kPa

B
Q [kPa]
0

40

80

120

160

B
Q [kPa]

20

40

60

80

0
0.2

J=500kN/m

0.4

J=28kN/m

J=56kN/m

J=4kN/m
0.6

0.2
/2B

/2B

45
30

0.4
0.8

Fig. 13. (A) Experimental set-up. (B) Theory (unbroken lines) versus
experiment (symbols) reported by Love et al. (1987). The inuence of
geosynthetic stiffness on obtained results.

Fig. 14 shows typical results of comparison between the

experimental results and their theoretical prediction. The
calculations were performed for two different values of
load dispersion angle in the top layer of the soil. The
rst value: a0 451 was recognized experimentally by
Alenowicz (1989). The second one (a0 301) was calculated after earlier cited proposition (Giroud and Noiray,
1981). It is clearly visible that approximation of experimental results is valid only in the range of footing
displacements UX0.3 D/2B.

0.6
Fig. 14. (A) Experimental set-up. (B) Theory (unbroken lines) versus
experiment (symbols) reported by Alenowicz (1989).




5. Conclusions
The limitations and advantages of a model, based on a
membrane reinforcement mechanism, were examined to
predict the loaded subgrade settlements. The comparison
of the two-layer subgrade behaviour (with and without
reinforcement) was also enclosed. The obtained results lead
to the following practical conclusions:

The load settlement characteristics of two-layer subgrade with or without the geosynthetic layer do not
differ much for the initial range of settlements. Therefore, a common loadsettlement curve approximates the
behaviour of both kinds of structures sufciently well
for settlements lower than approximately 0.1 D/2B.

Inclusion of a geosynthetic layer, at the two-layer

subgrade interface, improves the load settlement characteristics at greater footing settlements. Benets of
using geosynthetic reinforcement increase with increasing settlements according to the empirical formula (3).
The discussed theoretical model can be applied with
satisfactory results to predict subgrade reaction for settlements greater than approximately UX0.20.3 (D/2B).
The important problem is the accurate estimation of the
initial model parameters. The key parameter is the load
dispersion angle in the top subgrade layer. Even minor
modications of its value lead to signicant errors in
calculated subgrade settlements.
A little is known about the deformation of two-layer
reinforced soil systems under repeated loading (Das
et al., 1998). The most common design approach to this
problem is based on the empirical formulae. From the
engineering point of view, knowledge of the problem is
very important as the systems are often subjected to
repeated loads.

References
Alenowicz, J., 1989. Inuence of geotextile on bearing-capacity of twolayer road subgrade. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Gdansk
(in Polish).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
376

K. Kazimierowicz-Frankowska / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (2007) 366376

Alenowicz, J., Dembicki, E., 1991. Recent laboratory research on unpaved

road behaviour. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 10 (1), 2135.
Bender, D.A., Berenburg, E.J., 1978. Design and behaviour of soil-fabricaggregate systems. Transportation Research Record 671, Washington,
DC.
Bera, A.K., Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., 2005. Regression model for bearing
capacity of a square footing on reinforced pond ash. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 23 (3), 261285.
Bourdeau, P.L., 1989. Modelling of membrane action in a twolayer reinforced soil system. Computers and Geotechnics 7 (12),
1935.
Burd, H.J., 1995. Analysis of membrane action in reinforced unpaved
roads. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 32, 946956.
Burd, H.J., Frydman, S., 1997. Bearing capacity of plane-strain footing on
layered soils. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34, 241253.
Burd, H.J., Houlsby, G.T., 1989. Numerical modeling of reinforced
unpaved roads. Proceeding of the Third International Symposium on
Numerical Models in Geomechanics, Canada.
Cancelli, A., Montanelli, F., 1999. In ground test for geosynthetic
reinforced exible paved roads. Proceedings of the International
Conference Geosynthetics99, 863878.
Das, B.M., Khing, K.H., Shin, E.C., 1998. Stabilization of weak clay with
strong sand and geogrid at sand-clay interface. Transportation
Research Record No. 1611, National Research Council, Washington,
DC, pp. 5562.
De Groot, M., Janse, E., Maagdenberg, T.A.C., Van den Berg, C., 1986.
Design method and guidelines for geotextile application in road
construction. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Geotextiles. Vienna, Austria, pp. 741746.
Fannin, R.J., Sigurdsson, O., 1996. Field observations on stabilization of
unpaved roads with geosynthetics. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122 (7), 544553.
Gabr, M.A., Dodson, R., Collin, J.G., 1998. A study of stress distribution
in geogrid-reinforced sand. Geosynthetics in Foundation Reinforcement and Erosion Control System, Geotechnical Special Technical
Publication, vol. 76, ASCE, pp. 6276.
Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., Bera, A.K., 2005. Bearing capacity of square
footing on pond ash reinforced with jute geotextile. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 23 (2), 144173.
Giroud, J.P., Noiray, L., 1981. Geotextile reinforced unpaved road design.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 107 (GT9),
12331254.

Houlsby, G.T., Jewell, R.A., 1990. Design of reinforced unpaved roads for
small rut depths. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Geotextiles Geomembranes and Related Products, Balkema, vol. 1.
The Hague, The Nederlands, pp. 171176.
Houlsby, G.T., Milligan, G.W.E., Jewell, R.A., Burd, H.J., 1989. A new
approach to the design of unpaved roads. Ground Engineering 22 (3),
2529.
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor, P., Springman, S.M.,
Brounimann, R., 2006. Full-scale eld tests on geosynthetic reinforced
unpaved roads on soft subgrade. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24
(1), 2137.
Love, J.P., Burd, H.J., Milligan, W.E., Houlsby, G.T., 1987. Analytical
and model studies of reinforcement of a layer of granular ll on a soft
clay subgrade. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 24, 611622.
Milligan, G.W.E., Love, J.P., 1984. Model testing of geogrids under an
aggregate layer on soft ground. Proceedings of Symposium on Polymer
Grid Reinforcement in Civil Engineering, pp. 128138.
Milligan, G.W.E., Jewell, R.A., Houlsby, G.T., Burd, H.J., 1989. A new
approach to the design of unpaved roadsPart I. Ground Engineering
22 (8), 2529.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., Atalar, C., 2005. Bearing capacity of embedded
strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (5), 454462.
Patra, C.R., Das, B.M., Bhoi, M., Shin, E.C., 2006. Eccentrically loaded
strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (4), 254259.
Sellmeijer, J.B., 1990. Design of geotextile reinforced paved roads and
parking areas. Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on
Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Hague, pp. 177182.
Shin, E.C., Kim, D.H., Das, B.M., Lee, E.S., 2001. Stress distribution in
reclaimed land under a geogrid-reinforced granular pad. Proceedings
of XI International Conference of Offshore and Polar Engineering,
Stavanger, Norway, pp. 675680.
Som, N., Sahu, R.B., 1999. Bearing capacity of a geotextile-reinforced
unpaved road as a function of deformation: a model study.
Geosynthetics International 6 (1), 117.
Steward, J.E., Williamson, R., Mahoney, J., 1977. Guidelines for use of
fabrics in construction and maintenance of low-volume roads. USDA
Forest Service, Report No. FHWA-TS-78-205.
Yetimoglu, T., Inanir, M., Inanir, O.E., 2005. A study on bearing capacity
of randomly distributed ber-reinforced sand lls overlying soft clay.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (2), 174183.