PAPER NO : 14

GEOGRIDS IN UNPAVED ROAD DESIGN: A PARAMETRIC STUDY

By
Ong Tiam Hwa
(Senior Technical Engineer, Maccaferri (M) Sdn. Bhd.)
MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

In Malaysia, the usage of geogrids in road pavement design on soft subgrade soils has gained
acceptance in the recent years. This paper investigates some of the factors affecting the
performance of geogrids in unpaved road design by conducting a series of numerical
parametric study based on the theory outlined by Giroud and Noiray (1981). The factors
examined in this study were the shear strength of subgrade soils (in terms of CBR value),
number of traffic passes and secant modulus of geogrids. This study found that the thickness
of aggregate layer can be reduced to more than 25% when a geogrid is used for unpaved road
with soft subgrade soils (i.e., CBR ≤ 3.0%). In addition, the benefit of geogrids is shown to be
more significant when the subgrade CBR value is equal to or lower than 1.0%, especially
when the secant modulus of the geogrid used as the reinforcement is high.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In the construction of a road on soft soils, the subbase needs to have adequate bearing
capacity to prevent unnecessary differential settlements of the roadstructure. If the bearing
capacity is insufficient, it can be increased by excavation and replacement of the soft material,
chemical stabilisation (e.g., lime stabilisation) or using geosynthetics (e.g., geotextiles and/or
geogrids). In this paper, the utilisation of geogrids* to increase the performance of unpaved
roads will be discussed.
The main function of geogrids is to provide reinforcement to subbase and thus increase its
bearing capacity. The tensile strength of the geogrids is mobilised when displacement occurs
below the geogrids and a membrane effect is developed. This mechanism creates an extra
stiffness in the roadstructure and prevents further settlement. Meanwhile, certain geogrids will
also provide the separation effect which prevents contamination of the aggregate with the
small particles of the soft subgrade and substantially contributes to the long term stabilisation
of roadstructure (Meyer and Elias, 1999).
This study was conducted to examine the performance of geogrids (in terms of aggregate
layer thickness reduction) in unpaved road with different subgrade soil properties, traffic
loadings and types of geogrids. In addition, this study also provided a quick and simplified
guide for incorporating geogrids in unpaved road design and construction.

*
According to ASTM Committee D-35, geogrid is defined as a geosynthetic used for reinforcement which is
formed by a regular network of tensile elements with apertures of sufficient size to allow strike-through of
surrounding soil, rock or other geotechnical materials (Koerner, 1994).

Page 1 of 8
 PAPER NO : 14

2.0 PARAMETRIC STUDY

The parametric study was conducted based on the design procedures proposed by Giroud and
Noiray (1981). This method allows the evaluation of any geogrid to be conducted objectively
as it incorporates the secant modulus of the geogrid in the analysis. For this parametric study,
a computer spreadsheet was written to help the author to solve the equations in the proposed
design procedures.
The design procedures proposed by Giroud and Noiray (1981) take into consideration a few
parameters; namely, secant modulus, K, of geogrids, undrained shear strength, cu, of subgrade
soil (given in terms of California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value in this study), equivalent single
axle load, P, of traffic, tire inflation pressure, Pc, of traffic, distance between midpoints of two
sets of wheels, e, number of traffic passes, N, type of trucks (i.e., on highway or off highway),
and the allowed rut depth, r, of the road. This study only considered the effect of secant
modulus, K, of geogrids, the CBR value of subgrade soils and the number of traffic passes, N.
The main steps involved in the design of geogrid-reinforced unpaved roads based on the
procedures proposed by Giroud and Noiray (1981) are:
1. Calculate the thickness of aggregate layer without geogrid reinforcement, ho' , as a function
of traffic and soil properties based on an empirical formula deduced from a full scale test.
2. Compare the thicknesses of aggregate layer with and without geogrid reinforcement based
on a theoretical analysis which does not take the traffic into account to determine the
reduction of aggregate thickness, ∆h, resulting from the use of a geogrid.
3. Determine the aggregate thickness for unpaved road with geogrid, h', by combining the
empirical formula and theoretical analysis when traffic is taken into account (using the
equation: h ' = ho' − ∆h ).
In the parametric study, only the on highway trucks were considered. The equivalent single
axle load, P, of traffic was fixed at 80 kN as this is the standard traffic load adopted by
Malaysia Public Works Department (Road Division, 1985). The tire inflation pressure, Pc, of
traffic was taken to be 600 kPa and the distance between midpoints of two sets of wheels, e
was fixed as 1.9 m because these are the common values for most of the heavy vehicles.
Based on the failure criterion defined by Corps of Engineers (Hammit, 1970), the allowed rut
depth, r, for unpaved road was taken to be 0.075 m because roads with a rut depth greater than
0.075 m (i.e., r > 0.075 m) shall be considered to have failed.

Geogrids

The geogrids adopted in this study are the common geogrids available in Malaysia. The
geogrids were chosen from three manufacturers (named as X, Y, and Z) which have published
their datasheet in their brochure and/or webpage. The geogrids are made from either
polypropylene (PP), polyester (PET) or aramid (AR). Table 1 provides the properties of the
geogrids used in this study. The geogrids in Table 1 are named in the following manner:
material-company-ultimate tensile strength. For instance, a geogrid with the name PP-Y-30
means that the geogrid is made from polypropylene by manufacturer Y and has an ultimate
tensile strength of 30 kN/m.
The different raw materials used in producing the geogrids would result in different stress-
strain curves of the geogrids (refer to Figure 1). Figure 1 shows that the geogrid made from
aramid would have the highest elasticity modulus and lowest creep behaviour. This is
followed by geogrids made from polypropylene and subsequently polyester.
The foremost property of a geogrid which governs its performance in the reinforcement of
unpaved road is actually the secant modulus, K. In the design of unpaved road using geogrids,

Page 2 of 8
 PAPER NO : 14

it is recommended that the secant modulus, K, at the strain of 2% is adopted because higher
strains will cause excessive deformation and settlement of the roadstructure. As shown in
Figure 1, the secant modulus, K, is largely dependable to the raw material of geogrids. For the
geogrids with the same ultimate tensile strength, aramid would have the highest secant
modulus, K, and this is followed by polypropylene and finally polyester would have the
lowest K. In fact, the secant modulus, K, for geogrids with the same ultimate tensile strength
and raw material may not be the identical too (e.g., K for PP-X-20 is not the same with K for
PP-Y-20). This is mainly attributed to the different manufacturing process of geogrids.
Table 1: Technical properties of geogrids used in the study
Made from Polypropylene (PP) Polyester (PET) Aramid (AR)

PET-Z-20

PET-Z-35

PET-Z-40

AR-X-30
PP-X-20

PP-X-30

PP-X-40

PP-Y-20

PP-Y-30

PP-Y-40
Geogrid Type

Ultimate Tensile Strength (kN/m) 20.0 30.0 40.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 20.0 35.0 40.0 30.0

Maximum Elongation (%) 10.0 10.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 3.5

Tensile Strength at 2% Strain 9.0 10.5 14.0 7.0 10.5 14.0 5.5 11.5 12.0 19.5

Secant Modulus (kN/m) 450 525 700 350 525 700 275 575 600 975

Note: The tensile strength is based on EN ISO 10319 testing method with 95% of confidence level.
Stress in % of maximum strength

100
Aramid grid
80
PP grid
60
PET grid
40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Strain (% )
Figure 1: Stress – strain curves of different
geogrids (after Meyer and Elias, 1999)

Soil Properties

In order for the tensile strength of a geogrid to be mobilised, subgrade deformation has to
occur. The yielding of subgrade allows for the geogrid deformation and the mobilisation of its
tensile properties. Thus, the question now is how soft the subgrade soil has to be in order for
this phenomenon to occur.

Page 3 of 8
 PAPER NO : 14

Koerner (1994) has stated that a geotextile used with subgrade soils that have a CBR value
lower than 3.0% will clearly have geotextile reinforcement occurring in a typical situation.
Therefore, the CBR values of subgrade soils examined in this study were set to be less than or
equal to 3.0% (i.e., soils with CBR value equal to 0.25%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0% and 3.0%
were examined). Basically the soils with these CBR values are clay, silt or silty clay (with
high moisture content and low permeability), which are normally categorised as poor to very
poor subgrade material in road construction.

Number of Traffic Passes

The influence of traffic loading to the aggregate layer thickness of unpaved roads was
investigated through the use of different number of traffic passes, N, which are 100, 500,
1000, 2500, 5000, 10000. Since the empirical equation used to calculate the thickness of
aggregate layer without geogrid reinforcement proposed by Giroud and Noiray (1981) is
established by extrapolation, the number of passages should not exceed 10000.

3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 2 shows the graph of aggregate thickness for unpaved road without geogrid
reinforcement, ho' , versus CBR value. Basically, ho' is inversely proportional to CBR value
and directly proportional to number of traffic passes, N. From the figure, it can be deduced
that the utilisation of geogrids may not be economical when the CBR value is more than 3.0%
because the ho' is less than 0.4 m even at the maximum traffic loading (i.e., N = 10000) and
CBR value equal to 3.0%. However, geogrids should be considered when the CBR value is
less than or equal to 1.0% because the thickness of the aggregate layer increases tremendously
at CBR value below 1.0%.
Figure 3 shows the graph of aggregate thickness reduction, ∆h, due to the use of geogrid
versus CBR value. The graph does not incorporate the number of traffic passes, N, as it was
produced from the theoretical analysis which does not account for traffic passes. Instead, the
graph demonstrates the effect of geogrid’s secant modulus, K. Generally, Figure 3 shows that
geogrids with a high secant modulus, K, will perform better than geogrids with a low K.
However, the graph also shows that at CBR value equal to 3.0%, the performance of the
geogrids examined is almost the same regardless of the value of secant modulus, K. Thus, it
can be concluded that for subgrade soils with CBR value more than or equal to 3.0% (i.e.,
CBR ≥ 3.0%), the secant modulus, K, of geogrids is not the predominant factor to be
considered in the design and construction of unpaved roads. On the other hand, for subgrade
soils with CBR value less than or equal to 1.0% (i.e., CBR ≤ 1.0%), geogrids with a high
secant modulus, K, should be utilised as it would provide greater aggregate thickness
reduction, ∆h, as compare to those with a low K (refer to Figure 3).
The thickness of aggregate with geogrid reinforcement, h', can be obtained as a function of
traffic loading and secant modulus, K, of geogrids by combining Figure 2 and Figure 3 (i.e.,
using the equation: h ' = ho' − ∆h ). For example, to get the thickness of aggregate with geogrid
reinforcement, h', for geogrid type PP-X-20 (with secant modulus, K = 450 kN/m) at various
number of traffic passes, N (i.e., 100, 500, 1000, 2500, 5000 and 10000), the graph of
aggregate thickness of unpaved road with geogrid reinforcement, h', versus CBR value can be
drawn (as shown in Figure 4) by combining Figure 2 and Figure 3. By comparing Figure 2
and Figure 4, the reductions of aggregate thickness when the geogrid is used can be observed.

Page 4 of 8
 PAPER NO : 14

Aggregate thickness without geogrid, h o (m)

N = 100

'
N = 500
N = 1000
N = 2500
1 N = 5000
N = 10000

0.1
0.1 1 10
CBR value (%)

Figure 2: Aggregate thickness of unpaved road without geogrid

reinforcement versus CBR value

0.5

K = 275 kN/m
K = 350 kN/m
K = 450 kN/m
Aggregate thickness reduction, ∆h (m)

0.4
K = 525 kN/m
K = 575 kN/m
K = 600 kN/m
K = 700 kN/m
0.3 K = 975 kN/m

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.1 1 10
CBR value (%)

Figure 3: Aggregate thickness reduction due to the use of geogrid

reinforcement versus CBR value

Page 5 of 8
 PAPER NO : 14

Aggregate thickness with geogrid, h (m)

N = 100
N = 500
' N = 1000
N = 2500
1 N = 5000
N = 10000

0.1
0.1 1 10
CBR value (%)
Figure 4: Aggregate thickness of unpaved road with geogrid
reinforcement versus CBR value for geogrid type PP-X-20

In order to quantify the percentage of aggregate thickness reduction due to the utilisation of
geogrids, the graph of aggregate thickness reduction in percentage versus CBR value can be
drawn (refer to Figure 5). Figure 5 shows that the reduction of aggregate thickness in terms of
percentage for geogrid type PP-X-20 is mainly a function of number of traffic passes, N,
while the effect of CBR value is negligible (for CBR value ≤ 3.0%). In fact, when the number
of traffic passes, N, is more than or equal to 500 (i.e., N ≥ 500), the variation of the aggregate
thickness in terms of percentage is also quite small (i.e., in the range of 10%). In view of this,
an average value for aggregate thickness reduction can be used to represent the performance
of geogrid type PP-X-20. By conducting statistical analysis, the average value for aggregate
thickness reduction of geogrid type PP-X-20 (i.e., K = 450 kN/m) is obtained to be 27.6%.
Although the above discussion is based on geogrid type PP-X-20 (i.e., results in Figure 4 and
Figure 5), similar results were obtained for other geogrids. Thus, a graph of average aggregate
thickness reduction (in percentage) versus secant modulus, K, of geogrids can be plotted and
is shown in Figure 6. The graph reaffirms the fact that geogrids with a high secant modulus,
K, will perform better than geogrids with a low K. Figure 6 can also serve to give indicative
values on the expected reduction in aggregate thickness when a geogrid is incorporated in the
unpaved road design. For example, when a geogrid with secant modulus, K, equal to 650
kN/m is used in the construction of an unpaved road, one could expect that the thickness of
the aggregate layer to be reduced to about 29% (i.e., value obtained from Figure 6) of the
initial aggregate thickness if geogrid is not incorporated. In fact, based on the results obtained
from the analysis conducted, for a preliminary estimation purpose, one could proposed
conservatively that the thickness of aggregate layer can be reduced to about 25% when a
geogrid is incorporated. If a more precise value is desired, one could always refer to Figure 2
and Figure 3 to obtain the thickness of aggregate with geogrid reinforcement, h', using the
equation: h ' = ho' − ∆h .

Page 6 of 8
 PAPER NO : 14

60
N = 100

Reduction in aggregate thickness (%)

N = 500
50 N = 1000
N = 2500
N = 5000
N = 10000
40

30

20

10
0 1 2 3
CBR value (%)

Figure 5: Percentage reduction of aggregate thickness due to the used of

geogrid type PP-X-20 versus CBR value

32

Mean - data
Reduction in aggregate thickness (%)

31
Mean - best fitted

30

29 y = 24.2241 + 0.0075x
r2 = 0.9933
28

27

26

25
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Secant modulus, K (kN/m)

Figure 6: Percentage reduction of aggregate thickness due to the used of

geogrid versus secant modulus of geogrid

Page 7 of 8
 PAPER NO : 14

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

With the utilisation of geogrids in unpaved road design, the thickness of aggregate layer can
be reduced to more than 25% for road with soft subgrade soils (i.e., CBR ≤ 3.0%). In addition,
the parametric study has indicated that the reduction in the thickness of aggregate layer due to
the utilisation of geogrids is more significant for soils with CBR value less than or equal to
1.0%. The study also deduced that the reinforcement function of geogrids may not be
significant for subgrade soils with CBR value greater than 3.0%.
In this study, the increase of aggregate layer thickness is shown to be directly proportional to
the increase of number of traffic passes, N, which is similar to the findings by Giroud and
Noiray (1981). It is also shown that when the number of traffic passes, N, is greater than 500,
the effect of traffic passes on aggregate layer thickness is more gradual.
In terms of the effect of secant modulus, K, of geogrids, this study has indicated that the
aggregate thickness reduction for unpaved road with geogrid reinforcement is directly
proportional to the secant modulus, K, of geogrids. However, it also highlighted that the
secant modulus, K, of geogrids is not the predominant criterion in determining the reduction
of aggregate thickness when the CBR value of subgrade soil is equal to or more than 3.0%.
On the contrary, the secant modulus, K, of geogrids is the main factor that determines the
performance of geogrids when CBR value of subgrade soil is equal to or less than 1.0%.
Finally, this study recommended that for a quick conservative estimation of aggregate
thickness for unpaved road with geogrid, h', a reduction factor of 25% from the initial
thickness of aggregate without geogrid, ho' , can be used (i.e., h ' = ho' − 0.25ho' ). However, if a
more precise value is desired, Figure 2 and Figure 3 can be used to obtain the thickness of
aggregate with geogrid reinforcement, h', using the equation: h ' = ho' − ∆h .

REFERENCES

Giroud, J.P. and Noiray, L. (1981). Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE. Vol. 107 (GT9), pp. 1233-1254.
Hammit, G. (1970). Thickness requirements for unsurfaced roads and airfield bare base
support. Technical Report S-70-5. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, USA.
Koerner, R.M. (1994). Designing with geosynthetics. 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall, USA.
Meyer, N. and Elias, J.M. (1999). Design methods for roads reinforced with multifunctional
geogrid composites for subbase stabilization. Proc. geosynthetics conf. Technical University
Munich, Germany.
Road Division (1985). Manual on pavement design. Public Work Department, Malaysia.

Page 8 of 8