GEOSYNTHETICS IN UNPAVED ROADS

G. Madhavi Latha Asha M. Nair

Associate Professor Senior Research Fellow
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Science

Abstract
Inclusion of geosynthetics has been proved to be very effective in providing additional support and good
rideability in roads. This paper presents results from laboratory model studies and field studies carried out
on unreinforced and reinforced unpaved low volume roads sections constructed over weak subgrade. The
relative advantages of placing different reinforcing materials like geotextile, biaxial geogrid and geocell
layer at the interface of subgrade and base course are studied in terms of increase in load carrying
capacity and reduction in rut depth. In laboratory model studies to simulate wheel load, repeated load is
applied manually through a hydraulic jack whereas in field studies the moving vehicle load is simulated by
the passage of a scooter on the road at uniform speed for a maximum of 250 passes. The experimental
and field test results are analysed and compared to understand the relative efficiency of each of these
reinforcing materials in reducing the settlement/rut formation in unpaved roads. Effectiveness of geocell
layer compared to planar geotextile and geogrid layers in terms of increase in load carrying capacity and
reduction in deformations is also studied.
Keywords: Unpaved roads, reinforcement, field tests, geosynthetics, rut depth, geocell layer.

1. INTRODUCTION unpaved road (Giroud and Han, 2004). Researchers

like Bergado et.al (2001), Gregory and Bang (1994),
India has a road network of over 4.32 million km in
Krishnaswamy and Sudhakar (2005) carried out
2011, the third largest road network in the world.
modified CBR tests to understand the beneficial effect
The rural roads in India form a substantial portion of
of geotextile in increasing the California Bearing Ratio.
the Indian road network (3.1 million kilometers as of
Use of geotextile was found to increase the field CBR
May 2011) of which 1.9 million km is unpaved. The
value by 67-73 % (Basu et al. 2009) and the beneficial
transport of agricultural products depends on the quality
effect of geosynthetics was found to be the greatest
of these roads. Many rural roads are of poor quality,
for thin base layer sections (Fannin and Sigurdsson,
potholed, and unable to withstand the loads of heavy
1996). From the field studies carried out, Hufenus et.al.
farm equipment. Well engineered structural design and
(2006) reported that the effect of the geogrid was found
maintenance of these roads is very important for safe
to be reduced when used in direct combination with a
and efficient movement of traffic as well as reduced
separating layer, because optimal interlocking with the
cost and time of travel. Unpaved roads do not have
coarse-grained fill layer was prevented and the grid
an asphaltic wearing course. Hence they derive their
was able to slide on the geotextile. The mattressing
entire structural support through granular base/sub-
effect of geocell reinforcement by virtue of its all-round
base course.
confinement was studied by many researchers like
Use of geosynthetic materials in road construction Bathurst and Jarrett (1988), Pokharel (2010), Thakur
has increased drastically in the recent years. High et.al. (2012).
tensile strength, filtering and drainage characteristics of
From the literature it was evident that the application
geosynthetics have increased its potential in pavement
of geocell reinforcement in pavement application has
applications. The first use of fabrics for reinforcing
roads was attempted by the South Carolina Highway not been extensively studied. This paper presents the
Department in 1926 (Beckham, and Mills, 1935). experimental results from the laboratory model tests and
Since then several laboratory element tests, model field tests carried out on unpaved road sections reinforced
with planar and geocell reinforcements. In model tests,
tests and field tests has been carried out by several
a load of 5 kN was applied repeatedly for 100 cycles and
researchers to understand the various parameters that
the settlement of the plate and heave was measured. In
influence the performance of geosynthetic reinforced
field studies the moving vehicle load was simulated by the
unpaved roads. Giroud and Noiray (1981) suggested
passage of a scooter on the road moving at uniform speed
an improvement factor of (+2) for geotextile reinforced
for a maximum of 250 passes and the relative advantages
unpaved road and [3/2 + 2] for geogrid reinforced

3 Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

4 Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement

of different reinforcing materials placed at the interface of Table 1 : Properties of subgrade soils used
subgrade and base course in terms of increase in load in the experiments
carrying capacity and reduction in rut depth are studied.
The effect of form and strength of reinforcing material are Type of Soil SS1 SS2
studied by comparing the experimental results. Colour Reddish Brown Reddish Brown
Specific gravity 2.71 2.61
2. MATERIALS USED
Soil classification CL SC
Various materials used in carrying out the model
Liquid limit, % 36 45
and field studies are subgrade soil, aggregates and
geosynthetics. Plastic limit, % 24 20

2.1 Subgrade Soil 2.2 Aggregates

Locally available red soil in the campus of Indian Institute Two varieties of aggregates were used to represent the
of Science, Bangalore was used as subgrade soil in base course material in the experiments and they are
the experiments. The soil used for model studies is designated as A1 type aggregate and A2 type aggregate
designated as SS1 and that used for field studies are and their grain size distribution is shown in Fig.2. A1 type
designated as SS2. aggregate represents the aggregate used or model tests
and it conforms to gradation III as specified by Ministry
Subgrade Soil 1
of Rural Roads India. A1 aggregate had maximum dry
Subgrade soil SS1 is classified as clay of low plasticity unit weight of 20.5 kN/m3 at an optimum water content of
(CL) according to the Unified Soil Classification System 4.5%. A2 type aggregate represent the aggregate used
and had a maximum dry unit weight of 18.24 kN/m3 at for the field studies and had an average size 12 mm.
an optimum moisture content of 15.5 % determined from
standard Proctor test. The SS1 soil has an unsoaked CBR
value of 19 % corresponding to standard Proctor effort.
Subgrade Soil 2
The in-situ soil was used for the field studies and was
designated as SS2. SS2 soil had a maximum dry unit
weight 17.82 kN/m3 at an optimum moisture content of
13 % determined from standard Proctor test. The soil
was classified as sandy clay (SC) based on the grain
size distribution curve and had a laboratory CBR value
of 22% at optimum moisture content. The in-situ soil had
an undrained cohesion of 40 kPa. The properties of the
subgrade soils used are given in Table 1 and their grain
size distribution is shown in Fig.1.

Fig. 2 : Grain size distribution of the base course material

Fig. 1 : Grain size distribution of the subgrade soil used
in the experiments
used in the experiments
2.3 Reinforcing Materials
The various reinforcing materials used in the experiments
are geotextile, and biaxial geogrids.
Geotextile (GT)
The geotextile used in the experiments is a polypropylene
multifilament woven fabric. Ultimate tensile strength of
the geotextile was determined by the wide-width strip
method as per ASTM D 4595 01. The geotextile has
an ultimate tensile strength of 55.16 kN/m in the warp
direction. The mobilized tensile strength of the geotextile
material corresponding to 2% strain is 3.02 kN/m, and
the corresponding secant modulus is calculated as 151
kN/m.

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

 Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads
Geogrids
Two varieties of biaxial geogrids made of polypropylene
(PP) were used in the present study. They are designated
as strong biaxial geogrid (SG) and weak biaxial geogrid
(WG) based on their ultimate tensile strength. The tensile
properties of the geogrids were obtained from standard
multi-rib tension test (as per ASTM: D 6637-01). Load-
elongation response of the geosynthetics used in the
experiments is shown in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 : Load-elongation response of the geosynthetics
3. PREPARATION OF TEST SECTIONS
3.1 Model Tests
Model tests were carried out in a steel tank of 750 mm
750 mm cross section and 620 mm height. Load
was applied through a circular steel plate of 150 mm
diameter and 10 mm thickness. For the construction
of the model test sections, subgrade soil 1 (SS1) was
used as subgrade material and aggregate 1 (A1) was
used as the granular base course. The height of soil
subgrade was maintained as 400 mm and that of
granular sub-base layer was maintained as 200 mm in
all the tests. Compaction of the infill was done using a
drop hammer of 5 kg mass falling from a height of 450
mm on a square base plate of 150 mm 150 mm in
size. The subgrade soil was compacted in 4 equal lifts
of 100 mm thickness and each lift was given 50 blows
using the drop hammer. The compacted subgrade soil
had a dry unit weight of 12 kN/m3 at a water content of
17.50.5 % (slightly to the wet of OMC).
On top of the soil subgrade, the granular sub-base layer
was placed. The water content of the granular sub-
base was maintained as 4.5 % and was compacted in a
5
single lift of 200 mm thickness using the drop hammer
described above. A total of 75 blows were given using
the drop hammer for its compaction. The maximum
dry unit weight achieved by the sub-base layer was
160.5 kN/m3.
3.2 Field Tests
The field tests were carried in a section of plan area
1 m 2 m. To simulate the worst condition the in-situ
soil (SS2 soil) at the location was mixed with excess
amount of water and made slushy for a depth of 10 cm
and leveled. The prepared SS2 soil had a bulk unit
weight of 17 kN/m3 at a water content of 30%. The
undrained cohesion and CBR of the prepared subgrade
was 12 kPa and 1% respectively. On the leveled
subgrade, aggregate layer of 10 cm thickness was
prepared at a unit weight of 13 kN/m3 for unreinforced
cases. For reinforced cases, prior to the placement
of aggregate layer, the reinforcing layer was placed
above the subgrade. After the base course was placed
and leveled, a surface course of 5 cm thickness was
constructed. This was done by mixing the in-situ dry
soil with 10% water and compacted using the drop
hammer described above.
4. PLANNING OF EXPERIMENTS
In both the model studies and field studies to prevent the
mixing of aggregate layers with that of subgrade layer a
layer of geotextile was placed at the interface.
4.1 Model Studies
Four model load tests were carried out in the steel test
tank. Relative performance of planar and cellular forms
of reinforcement is studied in these experiments. To
understand the effect of strength of reinforcing material
on the performance of these systems, geogrids of low
(26.4 kN/m) and high tensile strength (38.1 kN/m) were
used in different tests. To study the effect of form
and quantity of reinforcement on the load-deformation
behaviour of these systems, the weak biaxial geogrid
was used to form a geocell mattress of 90 mm height.
This geocell was made by cutting weak biaxial geogrid
to the required length and height from a full roll and
placing the planar geogrid sheets in transverse and
diagonal directions with plastic strips inserted at
the connections to form a cellular network of grid.
Connections were made in diamond pattern. The plan
view of this pattern and the photograph of the geocell
used in the model tests are shown in Fig. 4. Area of
geogrid used in the formation of geocell mattress was
1.863 m2 whereas the area of geogrid used in test with
planar geogrid of same type was 0.5475 m2. Details of
the model test studies carried out and their designations
are summarized in Table 2.
Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014
6 Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement

Fig. 4 : Plan view of the diamond configuration and the photograph of the geocell used in the model tests

Table 2 : Details of the model tests carried out of two different geometries. The area of biaxial geogrid
used to prepare the layer of geocell was 5.85 m2 in
Sl Design- Schematic
Details of the test one case and 2 m2 in the other case. Accordingly the
No ation sketch
geocell configurations had two different aspect ratios;
Unreinforced granular namely aspect ratio of 1 and 0.25 respectively as
1 sub-base overlying UR shown in Fig. 5.
weak subgrade
Table 3 : Details of the field tests carried out
Granular sub-base Type of rein-
Test
overlying weak forcement Notation Description of road
No.
2 subgrade reinforced WG used
with weak geogrid at
None Subgrade +10 cm
the interface
1 with weak UR aggregate layer + 5
Granular sub-base subgrade cm surface layer
overlying weak
3 subgrade reinforced SG Subgrade + geotextile
with strong geogrid at Biaxial layer + biaxial geogrid
2 BG
the interface geogrid +10 cm aggregate layer
+ 5 cm surface layer
Granular sub-base
reinforced with 90 Geocell Subgrade + geotextile
mm height geocell made of layer +10 cm geocell
4 GC-BG
layer made of BX 3 biaxial GC 5.85 layer filled with
geogrid overlying geogrid (area aggregate + 5 cm
weak subgrade 5.85 m2) surface layer
4.2 Field Studies Geocell Subgrade + geotextile
To understand the effect of form and aspect ratio of made of layer +10 cm geocell
geocells in reducing rut depth, four field experiments 4 biaxial GC 2 layer filled with
geogrid (area aggregate + 5 cm
were carried out and the details are summarized in
2 m 2) surface layer
Table 3. Strong geogrid was used for forming the
geocells. A layer of geocell was constructed in diamond
5. TEST PROCEDURE
pattern at the site to a size of 2 m 1 m using biaxial
geogrid and anchor pins of 6 mm diameter and 10 cm 5.1 Model Studies
effective height and placed above the geotextile as
In the model studies a manually operated hydraulic
shown in Fig. 5. Tests were done with geocell layers
jack of 100 kN capacity was used to push the 150 mm

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

 Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads 7

Fig. 5 : Geocell layer prepared at the site for field studies

(a) aspect ratio: 0.25 (b) aspect ratio 1

diameter loading plate to the bed and the applied load

was measured using a load cell of 10 kN capacity.
The applied load was transferred to the plate through
a steel ball of 10 mm diameter which was placed in a
groove at the centre of the loading plate. A pressure
of 295 kPa was applied repeatedly on the unreinforced
and reinforced model unpaved road sections for a
total of 100 cycles. Model load tests presented in the
paper are repeated load tests on unreinforced and
reinforced unpaved road sections. Repeated load tests
in laboratory are commonly used to simulate the cyclic
loading conditions of field unpaved roads (e.g., Saride
et al. 2014). Many analytical models are available for
simulating geosynthetic reinforced unpaved roads,
including geocell reinforced roads, which use data from
repeated load tests into the mechanistic design of these
roads (Pokharel et al. 2011; Yang et al. 2013)
Loading was done in increments and the vertical
displacements of the loading plate were recorded.
While unloading, a seating load of 0.1 kN was ensured Fig. 6 : Schematic sketch of the experimental set-up
to remain on the loading plate, so as to not to lose its
contact. The surface profile of the granular sub-base on the plan of the road section is shown in Fig. 8. The
layer was mapped at every 10 th cycle. Schematic surface profile was measured at all grid points after
sketch of the test set up is shown in Fig. 6. every 20 passes until 200 passes were completed.
Then it was passed continuously for 50 times more
5.2 Field Studies and the final profiles were noted. If the vehicle started
A 4-stroke, 102 cc, single cylinder scooter of skidding in any point of time, the test was stopped at
dimensions 1765 715 1130 mm with 1235 mm that particular stage and the corresponding number
wheel base and ground clearance of 145 mm was of passes and surface profiles were noted. From
used in experiments. The weight of the vehicle was the surface profiles, the rut depth developed was
106 kg and it was driven by a person weighing 55 computed as per the procedure outlined by ASTM:
kg along the centerline of the finished roadbed. The E 1703/E 1703M 95. Rut depth is defined as the
speed of the vehicle was maintained as 18 to 20 maximum measured perpendicular distance between
KMPH and the vehicle was passed in one direction the bottom surface of the straight edge and the
only. The testing arrangement and the schematic contact area of the gage with the pavement surface
diagram showing the layout of the grid points marked at a specific location. This is shown in Fig. 7.

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

8 Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement

Fig. 7 : Rut Depth as defined by ASTM:E 1703/E

1703M 95

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Fig. 8 : Testing arrangement and the layout plan of grid points for
measuring rut depth
6.1 Model Test Results
Two varieties of geogrids viz., a strong geogrid and
a weak geogrid were used in planar form in the
experiments to understand the effect of reinforcement
strength on the load-deformation behaviour of the
reinforced unpaved road sections. To study the effect of
the form of reinforcement, test with planar geogrid and
test with cellular reinforcement constructed using same
geogrid are compared. Unreinforced section could bear
only a pressure of 253 kPa beyond which the settlement
was enormous. Hence, unreinforced sections were not
loaded further whereas all the reinforced sections could
withstand the applied pressure of 295 kPa. Pressure-
settlement response corresponding to the loading stage
of first cycle for unreinforced and geogrid reinforced
sections in planar and cellular forms is shown in Fig.
9. In the first loading cycle itself, under a pressure
of 253 kPa, a settlement of 82 mm was measured
for unreinforced section whereas for the reinforced Fig. 9 : Pressure-settlement response corresponding to the
sections in the first loading cycle the settlement was first loading stage for unreinforced and reinforced sections
within 35-40 mm.
of reinforcement tensile strength in case of stronger
To quantify the benefit of geosynthetic reinforcement,
reinforcement.
a dimensionless parameter called as Improvement
Factor (I F ) is used. I F is defined as the ratio of The elastic and plastic settlements developed in the
pressure sustained by a reinforced section to that of unreinforced and reinforced model test sections were
unreinforced section for a particular settlement in the computed from the repeated load test results and
static loading stage. The variation of improvement are presented in Fig. 11. The magnitude of elastic
factor with settlement of the loading plate for the settlement developed in various sections was very less
loading stage of first cycle is shown in Fig. 10. From as seen in Fig. 11a. The geocell mattress made of weak
Fig. 10 it is seen that the section reinforced with planar biaxial geogrid has the highest elastic settlement and
weak geogrid exhibited constant improvement factor unreinforced section has the least elastic settlement.
at all levels of settlement whereas for strong geogrid The elastic settlement of the unpaved road section
and geocell reinforced sections, the improvement in reinforced with strong geogrid is higher than the elastic
bearing pressure is gradual. This difference could be settlement measured in road section reinforced with
due to the difference in time taken for the mobilization weak geogrid, indicating that the strength and stiffness

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

 Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads
Fig. 10 : Variation of improvement factor with normalised
settlement of the plate, s/B (%)
Fig. 11 : Variation of elastic and plastic settlement with
number of load cycles for unreinforced and
geogrid reinforced systems
9
of the reinforcement influence the elastic settlements
of road sections. Though the geocell mattress is made
of weak geogrid, the quantity of reinforcement used
was more for cellular confinement and its assemblage
using plastic strips make it very stiff.
On comparison of plastic settlements it was observed
that the road section reinforced with geocell mattress
developed slightly more plastic settlements than the
sections reinforced with planar layers of geosynthetics.
The reason for the increase in settlements in geocell
reinforced sections could be the insertion of large
amount of polymeric geogrid in cellular form into the
sub-base layer, replacing the stronger aggregate.
Section reinforced with strong geogrid developed higher
plastic settlements compared to weak geogrid during
initial load cycles, but after 40 cycles its performance
was slightly better than the section reinforced with the
weak geogrid.
Surface profile of the unreinforced and reinforced
sections at the end of 100 cycles of load application
was compared and the results are presented in Fig. 12.
From the figure it is observed that all the reinforced and
unreinforced systems exhibited a punching failure and
the heave/settlement got stabilised at a distance of 300
mm from the centre of the plate. The settlement and
heave measured for unreinforced section were more
compared to any of the reinforced test sections. One
very important observation made from these tests is that
geocell reinforced test section showed comparatively
less differential settlements and the geocell layer was
effective in arresting the heave adjacent to the loading
plate completely. This indicates that the granular sub-
base confined within the geocell pockets acts as a stiff
cushion to the load and helps in distributing the applied
load to a larger area.
Fig. 12 : Surface profiles at the end of 100 load cycles for
reinforced and unreinforced systems
Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014
10 Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement

6.2 Results from Field Model Tests immediate and thereafter there was no progressive
change in the cross section profile with the number
The effect of form and quantity of reinforcement was
of passes. The maximum heave and subsidence
studied in the field tests. The field test results were
were observed within 100 passes and afterwards
compared for the three sections shown in Fig. 8. The
remained constant from 100 passes to 200 passes.
test results at Section 1 and Section 3 showed slightly
This behaviour is because the geocell layer acts as
similar responses. The cross section profile and the
stiff reinforcing mat for the road and supports the load.
rut depth measured at those two sections were almost
Even the heave and subsidence observed in geocell
more in majority of the cases when compared to Section
reinforced sections was relatively small compared
2. Since the vehicle was passed only at the central 10
to planar sections because geocell layer allows
cm width of road more deformations were also observed
uniform distribution of loads and reduces differential
at the central portion of the road. In unreinforced
settlements. For geocell layout having an aspect ratio
section within 17 passes of the vehicle, a maximum
of 0.25, the maximum subsidence observed at the
depression of 95, 57 and 132 mm were observed when
end of 250 passes was 100, 68 and 82 mm whereas
compared to the initial ground surface in Sections 1,
for an aspect ratio of 1, the maximum depression
2 and 3 respectively. Afterwards, the vehicle started
observed after 250 passes was 73, 47 and 76 mm for
skidding because of softer slushy subgrade. Hence the
Sections 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Among the two geocell
test was stopped at 17 vehicle passes. The surface
configurations, the one having an aspect ratio of 0.25
profile of the unreinforced section for the three sections
had a higher subsidence, because the area of biaxial
at the end of 17 passes is shown in Fig. 13.
geogrid used for preparing this geocell is very less
compared to the other geocell configuration, making
it less stiffer. The cross section profile of geocell layer
with an aspect ratio of 0.25 is shown in Fig. 14.

Fig. 13 : Cross section profile at various sections for

unreinforced road
In all the reinforced tests, the use of geotextile was
effective in preventing the intermixing subgrade and
base course layers. All the reinforced sections could
withstand the full 250 passes with variations in surface
profiles. For planar geogrid reinforced section, the
maximum depression observed after 250 passes were
92, 56 and 90 mm for Sections 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
In the case of geocell reinforced section base courses,
the settlements developed after the vehicle pass was
Fig. 14 : Cross section profile at various sections for geocell
(GC2) reinforced road
From the surface profile the rut depth was computed
as described in Fig.7 for the three sections and is
shown Fig. 15. From the figure it is clear that all
the reinforced sections sustained higher number of
wheel passes compared to unreinforced section. The
planar geogrid when used along with the geotextile
could effectively prevent intermixing of aggregate

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

 Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads 11

and subgrade layers and provide a better interlocking

effect for the base course aggregates. Test sections
reinforced with planar geogrid layer and geocell layer
with an aspect ratio 0.25 developed almost similar
rut depth. This infers that for the same amount of
reinforcement i.e., 2m2, the geocell configuration was
not effective in reducing the rut depth. The reason
for this is the low aspect ratio (0.25) for geocells in
the layer. When the pocket size was more, the cells
are not effective in holding the aggregate. The biaxial
geogrid layer, being continuous throughout the road
section, provided better support and hence effective
friction development at the interface. Geocell layer
with an aspect ratio of 1 was effective in reducing
rut depth effectively because the geocell layout
used 5.85 m 2 of biaxial geogrid. The pocket size of
the geocell was small and hence imparted a greater
confining effect which eventually reduced rut depth
as seen in Fig. 15.
Perkins (1999) defined Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR) as
the number of cycles to reach a particular permanent
surface deformation, for a reinforced test section,
divided by the number of cycles to reach this same
deformation in an unreinforced test section with the
same layer thicknesses. The TBR values are calculated
for different reinforced test sections for different rut
depths and are plotted in Fig. 16. From the figure it is
seen that geocell layer with an aspect ratio of 1 was
effective in reducing the rut depth compared to other
reinforced sections.
6.3. Summary of Results from Laboratory and Field
Model Tests
Both the laboratory and field model studies compare
the effect of form of reinforcement on the behaviour of
unpaved test sections. From the results it is observed
that the effect of strength in planar form is evident
only at higher levels of penetration. This is because
of the initial strain which is required for mobilizing the
tensile strength of reinforcement. Geocell layer always
increases the load carrying capacity of the unpaved
road sections. The honeycombed structure of geocell
gives a mattressing effect and increases the load
carrying capacity of the test sections. The effectiveness
of geocell layer depends upon the pocket size of the
geocell and the strength of the material used for making
the same. In the model studies, weak geogrid was used
for making the geocell and also there was an overlay
of 110 mm above the geocell layer. The insertion of
geocell layer at the interface itself restricts the denser
packing of granular base course. In field studies the
geocell layer was made using stronger geogrid and
hence it was more effective in distributing the load but Fig. 15 : Rut depth developed in the field studies in different
the effectiveness was dependent on the pocket size. test sections

Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014

12 Indian Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Improvement
Fig. 16 : Traffic Benefit Ratios of different reinforcing
materials for various field sections
Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014
7. CONCLUSIONS
From the laboratory and field model studies carried out on
unreinforced and geosynthetic reinforced unpaved road
sections, the following conclusions are made:
Geosynthetics are effective in increasing the load
carrying capacity and reducing rut depth.
The honeycombed structure of geocell imparts a
mattressing effect when used in pavements which
results in the reduction of rutting and surface
heave.
The effectiveness of geocell layout depends upon the
pocket size and the strength of the material used for
its construction.
REFERENCES
ASTM Standard E1703/E 1703M: Standard Test
Method for Measuring Rut-Depth of Pavement Surfaces
Using a Straightedge, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
Basu, G., Roy, A.N., Bhattacharyya, S.K. and Ghosh,
S. K. (2009): Construction of Unpaved Rural Road
Using JuteSynthetic Blended Woven GeotextileA
Case Study:Geotextiles and Geomembranes,Vol 27,
No. 6, pp 506-512.
Bathurst, R.J. and Jarrett, P.M. (1988): Large-Scale
Model Tests of geocomposite Mattresses Over Peat
Subgrades. National Research Council, Transportation
Research, Vol 1188, pp 28- 36
Beckham, W.K. and Mills, W.H. (1935): Cotton-Fabric-
Reinforced Roads: Engineering News Record, Vol 114,
No.14, pp 453-455.
Bergado, D.T., Youwai, S., Hai, C.N. and Voottipruex,
P. (2001): Interaction of Nonwoven Needle-Punched
Geotextiles under Axisymmetric Loading Conditions:
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol 19, No. 5,pp
299-328.
Fannin, R.J. and Sigurdsson, O. (1996): Field
Observations on Stabilization of Unpaved Roads with
Geosynthetics.Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,Vol
122, No. 7, pp 544-553.
Giroud, J.P. and Han, J. (2004): Design Method for
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Roads. I. Development
of Design Method: Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 130, No.8, pp
775-786.
Giroud, J.P. and Han, J. (2004): Design Method for
Geogrid-Reinforced Unpaved Roads. II. Calibration
and Applications: Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol 130, No.8, pp
787-797.
 Geosynthetics in Unpaved Roads
Giroud, J.P. and Noiray, L. (1981): Geotextile-
Reinforced Unpaved Road Design: Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol 107, No.9, pp
1233-1254.
Gregory, G.H. and Bang, S. (1994): Design of Flexible
Pavement Subgrades with Geosynthetics. Proc., 30th
Symposium on Engineering Geology and Geotechnical
Engineering., 569-582.
Hufenus, R., Rueegger, R., Banjac, R., Mayor,
P., Springman, S. M. and Brnnimann, R. (2006):
Full-Scale Field Tests on Geosynthetic Reinforced
Unpaved Roads on Soft Subgrade: Geotextiles and
Geomembranes,Vol 24, No. 1, pp 21-37.
Krishnaswamy, N.R. and Sudhakar, S. (2005):
Analytical and Experimental Studies on Geosynthetic
Reinforced Road Subgrades:Journal of Indian Road
Congress, Vol 66, No. 1, pp 151-200.
Perkins, S.W. (1999): Mechanical response of
geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements:
Geosynthetics International, Vol 6, No. 5, pp 347-
382.
13
Pokharel, S.K, Han, J., Manandhar, C., Yang, X.,
Leshchinsky, D., Halahmi, I. and Parsons, R.L. (2011).
Accelerated pavement testing of geocell-reinforced
unpaved roads over weak subgrade. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2204, pp.6775.
Pokharel, S.K. (2010). Experimental Study on Geocell-
Reinforced Bases Under Static and Dynamic Loading,
Ph.D Thesis Submitted to University of Kansas, pp
349.
Saride, S.,Vedpathak, S., andRayabharapu, V.(2014).
Elasto-Plastic Behavior of Jute-Geocell-Reinforced
Sand Subgrade. Proceedings of Geo-Congress 2014,
Atlanta, Georgia. pp. 2911-2920
Thakur, J.K., Han, J. and Parsons, R. L. (2012): Creep
Behavior of Geocell-Reinforced Recycled Asphalt
Pavement (RAP) Bases: M.S. Thesis Submitted to
University of Kansas, pp 210.
Yang, X., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D. and Parsons, R.L.
(2013). A three-dimensional mechanistic-empirical
model for geocell-reinforced unpaved roads. Acta
Geotechnica. Vol. 8, pp. 201213
Volume 3 v No. 2 v July 2014