Development and Empirical Basis of Pavement Optimization using Tensar

TriAx® Geogrids
A summary of pavement performance research using punched and drawn geogrid as manufactured by
Tensar International Corporation, and its applicability to the optimization of flexible pavement sections

Abstract

The use of geogrids to optimize the performance of flexible pavement applications was first introduced in the United
States by Tensar International. The principal mechanism of the geogrid in an optimization application is the lateral
restraint of the unbound aggregate layer, resulting in an enhanced modulus of this mechanically stabilized layer (MSL)
and improved maintenance of this modulus over the life of the structure. In order to quantify the performance of a
geogrid stabilized roadway, research in full-scale is required to replicate representative loading conditions and
accumulated damage of the asphalt pavement system. The vast majority of full-scale pavement research studies over
the past 25 years have been undertaken using Tensar's punched-and-drawn geogrids. Significant evidence exists to
apply engineering judgment to the performance of these products. This document provides background information
on the evolution of Tensar geogrid technology and design parameters based upon available full-scale accelerated
pavement testing.

Introduction – Overview of Geogrid Use in Flexible Pavements

The predominant historical use of geosynthetics in roadways has been for the purpose of stabilizing unsuitable
subgrade conditions. However, the use of geogrid for the stabilization of unbound aggregate base layers in
permanent, surfaced, flexible pavements offers both performance advantages and design options that allow the
pavement engineer to optimize the roadway section to the requirements of each specific project. The design of
flexible pavement sections using geogrid is based on the increase in stiffness of a mechanically stabilized aggregate
layer and reduced deterioration of stiffness over the design life of the pavement, as compared to a conventional
unbound aggregate layer. The resulting performance improvement can be used by the designer to:

1. Reduce the construction cost of a flexible pavement while delivering equivalent design life
2. Dramatically increase the design life of a flexible pavement without increasing the thickness of the pavement
section
3. Optimize a flexible pavement design to the specific needs of the project by maximizing the design life for a
given construction budget or section thickness

The quantification of the performance of the mechanically stabilized layer (MSL) is the primary challenge in the
development of appropriate methodologies for the use of geogrid in flexible pavement design. Because of the
complexity of flexible pavement design and the extraordinary number of variables which can impact pavement
performance, the reliable quantification of the performance of flexible pavements in general, and geogrid stabilized
pavements in particular, is highly dependent on full-scale accelerated pavement testing.

Tensar has developed its SpectraPave4-PRO software based on over 25 years of accumulated knowledge that includes
extensive full-scale accelerated pavement testing. The design methodology developed by Tensar for flexible
pavements using MSLs is incorporated into this software, and the discussion below refers both to the methodology
and the software tool as interchangeable with one another.

Evolution of Tensar Biaxial and TriAx® Geogrids

Geogrid usage has steadily evolved since Tensar products were first introduced in the early 1980s. Tensar biaxial
geogrids have gained widespread acceptance in the United States and around the world over the last 25 years
primarily as a solution to problems associated with pavements, haul roads, and working surfaces constructed on soft
or problematic soils. Over this period Tensar has examined the design characteristics of Tensar geogrids, and through
independent testing and research, has identified key geogrid parameters that affect the performance of MSLs
containing Tensar geogrids. Using this knowledge, Tensar spent 6 years testing and optimizing the geometry of its
stabilization geogrids, and in 2007 released its TriAx Geogrid product line, which provides significantly improved

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-1 –
performance compared to its original biaxial geogrid technology. The reference documents for this paper contain
several statements regarding the improved performance of TriAx Geogrid based on its aperture geometry.

There is consensus among the leading researchers and authorities on geosynthetics that geogrid performance in
roadway applications relates directly to the mechanism of lateral restraint and the confinement of surrounding
materials. The confinement of the aggregate in MSLs leads to their enhanced stiffness and the resulting performance
benefits. It is critical to remember that aggregate confinement (and therefore MSL performance) does
not correlate with any specific material property of the geogrid – it is the result of all of the material
properties and geometry of both the geogrid and the aggregate, working together in response to the
specific loading conditions. The development and optimization of TriAx Geogrid, and the performance benefit
assigned to MSLs, therefore relied on extensive empirical testing to quantify its behavior. Attempts to quantify the
performance of any geogrid for design purposes which do not include in-ground research (up to and including full-
scale moving wheel accelerated pavement testing (APT)) are not supported by the body of research in the field and
should be considered invalid.

Factors Associated with Service Life of Flexible Pavements

Applied Research Associates (ARA) and Ryan R Berg & Associates (2012) were engaged as independent experts to
validate Tensar’s modified AASHTO 1993 pavement design methodology. They summarize the factors affecting
pavement service life, and describe the manner in which Tensar has considered those factors within its design
methodology (SpectraPave4 PRO software) as follows:

“A benefit of M-E based pavement design is the recognition of how different pavement distresses manifest in the
pavement section over time. Empirical pavement design methods based on the overall serviceability of the pavement,
like AASHTO ‘93, do not recognize the specific distresses that lead to the pavement losing its serviceability. The
Tensar SpectraPave4-PRO pavement design method does accommodate these distinct performance differences, by
dividing the design methodology into thin asphalt, standard asphalt, and thick asphalt pavements.” The Tensar
design methodology specifically states that comparisons between designs are limited to those pavement sections
having asphalt thickness values within each boundary. In other words, it is not appropriate to compare service
life ESAL values for a thin asphalt pavement to those of a standard pavement or thick asphalt
pavement. Tensar’s design methodology accounts for this restriction, and is therefore more advanced
and technically valid than AASHTO ’93 or design algorithms that are based on it.

Thin Asphalt Pavements

Thin asphalt pavements are defined in the SpectraPave4-PRO system as those having asphalt layers less than or
equal to 3” (75mm) in total thickness. In this configuration the stresses in the asphalt layer are primarily
compressive, rather than in flexure. The absence of flexural stresses within the asphalt leads to a reduction in the
amount of fatigue cracking, reducing the impact of this form of distress. As there is little asphalt in this type of
pavement, the pavement loads must be carried primarily by the aggregate base and subgrade layers. The key distress
that manifests is asphalt rutting and deformation in the subgrade and base layers. Stability in the subgrade, and
aggregate layers is essential in thin asphalt pavements, and the MSL has a large impact on pavement response and
performance.

Standard Asphalt Pavements

The SpectraPave4-PRO method defines standard asphalt pavements as having a total asphalt pavement thickness
between 3 (75mm) and 6 inches (150mm). This pavement thickness is typical of many of the in-service local roads in
the United States. In this standard configuration the asphalt is carrying a significant portion of the traffic loading and
it carries that load in both compression and bending. As a result of the bending, asphalt fatigue becomes a concern
and the overall pavement performance is driven by the fatigue cracking in the asphalt layer as well as rutting that
accumulates in the subgrade, base, and asphalt layers. Figure 1 presents a schematic of the key distresses in a
standard pavement section, showing that fatigue cracking and rutting both affect the overall pavement performance.

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-2 –
Figure 1 Pavement distresses in standard thickness asphalt layers

Thick Asphalt Pavements

For asphalt thicknesses 6 inches (150mm) and greater, the SpectraPave4-PRO method defines the pavement as a
thick asphalt pavement section. In a thick asphalt pavement, the primary load carrying layer is the asphalt layer. As
asphalt thickness increases in the section, the bending strain in the asphalt decreases and the amount of fatigue
cracking decreases. As the load is carried by the asphalt layer and the fatigue cracking is reduced, the distresses that
drive performance become the asphalt layer rutting and some aggregate base and subgrade rutting. Figure 2 shows
a schematic of the key distresses in a thick pavement section. This figure illustrates that fatigue cracking is not a
significant concern and rutting becomes the predominant distress. Also in this pavement type the top-down cracking
and durability of the asphalt layer tend to have a large impact on overall pavement performance.

Figure 2 Pavement distresses in thick asphalt layers

The information presented in Figures 1 and 2 is substantiated by Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
(MEPDG) results developed by Vavrik (2009), and through ARA’s examination of the percentage of alligator cracking
(visual indication of subgrade failure) predicted for pavement sections for a range of subgrade strength values and
asphalt thickness with a constant thickness of unbound aggregate. Figure 3 was presented by Dr. Vavrik in a technical
roadway seminar in 2009 (see references).

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-3 –
 35.0%
Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 30,000 psi

30.0% Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 25,000 psi

Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 20,000 psi
Alligator Cracking %
Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 15,000 psi
25.0%
Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 8,000 psi

Subgrade Resilient Modulus = 3,000 psi

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Asphalt Concrete Thickness (in)
Figure 3 Relationship between subgrade support (Resilient Modulus), asphalt thickness and alligator
cracking

Mechanically Stabilized Layer Performance Research

As reported by ARA and Berg (2013), over the last 25 years, many different research efforts have been conducted to
document the benefits of using MSLs that incorporate a variety of Tensar geogrid products. These research efforts
have been conducted by highway agencies, University researchers, and by Tensar. These studies include laboratory
testing, accelerated pavement testing and construction of in-service pavement sections in order to determine the
performance associated with incorporation of geogrid materials into unbound layers, with the intent of improving
pavement performance. Today, it is generally accepted that geosynthetic suppliers should provide documentation on
the performance of their products based on the protocol established by AASHTO (2009) and the FHWA (2008).

AASHTO R50-09 & FHWA Geosynthetic Design Manual

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provides guidance on the use of
geosynthetics in pavement structures. A Standard Practice document, AASHTO R50-09, provides clear direction on
how to attribute performance benefit for any geosynthetic product in flexible pavement applications. It is important to
note that unlike most other government bodies (State DOTs, County and Municipal agencies, for example), AASHTO
has avoided the development of material specifications for geogrid products in roadway applications.

In Section 3 of the R50-09 document, AASHTO states that ‘Because the benefits of geosynthetic reinforced pavement
structures may not be derived theoretically, test sections are necessary to obtain benefit quantification.’ In Section 5
of the same document, it is stated that design procedures ‘use experimentally derived input parameters that
are often geosynthetic specific’ and ‘users of this document are encouraged to affirm their designs with field
verification of the reinforced pavement performance.’ In the same document, AASHTO later states that
“traffic benefit ratio (TBR) and base course reduction factor (BCR) are the parameters that need to be quantified
through full-scale testing” (emphasis added).

The traffic benefit ratio (TBR) is defined as the ratio of the traffic capacity of a geogrid stabilized section to the traffic
capacity of an otherwise identical unstabilized section. From the earliest use of geogrid for pavement optimization, it
was understood that TBR varies based on numerous factors, including subgrade resilient modulus, the thickness of
aggregate and asphalt layers, and the quality of the aggregate base material. As early design methodologies were
developed (including early design software developed by Tensar), a constant TBR was often attributed to a particular
Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International
-4 –
type or grade of geogrid, due to the lack of comprehensive data which would allow the variability of TBR to be
characterized accurately. This approach was taken with the implicit understanding that the range of applicable
pavement sections was limited, and it was incumbent upon the designer to account for these limits. While this was
the best approximation that could be made based on the limited data available at the time, the best current design
methodologies now account for the variation in performance benefit of geogrid in the flexible pavement section in
response to varying design input parameters.

In the FHWA (2008) Geosynthetic Design Manual, reference is made to an earlier version of the AASHTO (2009)
document, AASHTO PP46-01. As AASHTO R50-09 remained unchanged from AASHTO PP46-01, it is therefore
reasonable to conclude that the design procedure recommended by AASHTO retains the support of the FHWA.

Tensar Position Statement on Performance/Full-Scale Testing

Archer and Wayne (2012) provide a discussion of performance testing as follows:

“Performance testing of geogrid products can take many forms. The simplest type of testing takes place within a
relatively small-scale environment under carefully controlled laboratory test conditions. Test boxes are constructed to
house the various components of a pavement structure (subgrade, base course, asphalt, etc.) and trafficking loads
are applied using a circular plate dimensioned such that the area in contact with the surface is roughly the same as
that for a tire mounted on a standard (18 kip) axle vehicle. Loading is typically equivalent to half a standard axle and
is applied in cycles through an actuator.

The dynamic plate load testing in relatively small boxes described above has some distinct advantages, one of the
main ones being the ability to create uniform soil conditions between test sections. This results in good repeatability
of results. In addition, the speed at which individual test sections can be constructed is improved relative to the other
types of testing detailed below. One of the main drawbacks however, is that the load is applied through a rigid plate
rather than a moving wheel. This unfortunately means that trafficking performance parameters (TBR, BCR, etc.) that
rely principally on this type of testing cannot be applied directly to working pavement structures.”

Larger scale research to better predict pavement performance is now routine. Accelerated Pavement Testing (APT) is
an effective means to procure reliable performance data at full-scale that can be applied directly to working
structures. In the mid-1980s there were only seven active APT facilities in the world. Today there are 28. A principal
advantage of using APT is the ability to acquire data within a relatively short period of time, compared with the many
years that would be required for an in-service road structure. APT also allows the testing to be performed within a
controlled environment to remove the effects of precipitation and temperature that can adversely affect the reliability
of test results.

APT apparatus applies a constant load to a rolling wheel mounted on a load frame. The magnitude of the wheel load
is typically identical to that of a loaded standard-axle haul or freight truck. Deflection measurements are taken at the
surface of the pavement and instruments within the pavement structure and subgrade can be used to monitor
stresses and strains within individual layers. It can be argued that APT represents the most reliable form of pavement
testing. It is undertaken in a well-controlled environment and the trafficking loads are very similar to those
encountered in working pavement structures. Another principal benefit of this type of testing is that the data obtained
can generally be extrapolated and applied to pavements of various thicknesses constructed over a range of subgrade
support conditions. Such data serves as one of the key elements in the development of mechanistic-empirical models
for the design of pavement structures. Such an approach has already been adopted by AASHTO.

The last group of performance tests are characterized by wheel loads being applied using an actual moving vehicle.
The environment under which the loads are applied may be a full-scale laboratory or an actual in-service road.
Although there are clear advantages to this type of testing from a loading perspective, it is much more difficult to
control subgrade and other environmental conditions. In addition, the use of instrumentation to monitor stresses and
strains within the different pavement layers is generally prohibited or at best impractical.

The State of California has funded research on a procedure for conducting accelerated testing of flexible pavements.
This procedure is described within the document authored by J. T. Harvey, J. Roesler, N. F. Coetzee, and C. L.
Monismith (2000). Within this document a protocol for accelerated pavement testing has been formulated based on
six years’ work (see Figure 4). Tensar endorses this CAL/APT Program format, which requires “solution concept”
validation prior to full-scale accelerated pavement testing.

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-5 –
 Figure 4 Tensar APT Program

The role of the geosynthetic within the cross section must be clearly defined as either subgrade stabilization MSL,
base course stabilization MSL or a combination of the two. In addition, the CAL/APT mentions use of a Heavy Vehicle
Simulator (HVS) and not just the use of small scale testing. The use of small scale testing would be limited to pre-
qualification of the design and prior to use within the HVS. In addition to small scale testing it is advisable to use
additional tests, such as the resilient modulus test and permanent deformation test, to determine the degree of
aggregate quality and level of performance both with and without the geosynthetic. Testing protocol for the HVS
should be in general conformance with the procedures described by Jersey and Tingle (2010).

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-6 –
Shortcomings of small-scale and/or in-air index testing

Archer and Wayne (2012) go on to state that it is only through reference to full scale data that accurate calibration
factors can be determined for the various design methods used to calculate the layer thicknesses required for
geogrid-stabilized road structures. No relationships currently exist to predict the performance of geogrid-
stabilized roads based on material index properties. Therefore the substitution of one geogrid for another in
roadway designs, based solely upon the comparison of in-air index properties or small scale testing, is invalid. “An
incorrect design characterized by an unreliable aggregate base thickness could result” if such a practice is adopted.
(Giroud 2009)

Design Variables for Tensar TriAx® Geogrids

As stated above, early methods of stabilization design relied on assigned TBR values that were constant and
independent of other conditions, due to a lack of comprehensive testing data. Over time Tensar International and
independent entities have conducted numerous full-scale empirical or accelerated pavement studies on geogrid
performance which have greatly increased the data available across a broad spectrum of design conditions. As
expected, this work has validated our understanding that TBR is not a constant for each geogrid type or grade, and
the benefit gained from the MSL is significantly influenced by a wide range of other factors. In order to accurately
define geogrid performance across varying conditions, individual test ratios have been defined (based on control and
stabilized sections containing the same materials and geometry), and are referred to as Traffic Improvement Factors
(TIF). Conditions affecting each experimental TIF value include:

 Aggregate Quality and Layer Thickness

 Location of Geogrid (Subgrade stabilization and/or Base Course Stabilization)
 Asphalt Quality and Layer Thickness (Thin, Standard or Thick)
 Partially confined zone and fully confined zone of aggregate above the geogrid (MSL Stiffness)
 Subgrade strength or resilient modulus

In addition the accumulated research tells us that use of TBR or TIF values greater than 6 fall outside the normal
distribution of data, and must be treated with caution. High TBR values derived from empirical testing should not be
interpreted as evidence that the stabilized pavement will have an infinite lifespan.

Layer Coefficient Modification

In the AASHTO 1993 empirical design formula (Equation 1 below), the predicted pavement life is a function of the
structural number (SN), serviceability limits, and reliability. Pavement life using a TriAx® geogrid is calculated from an
enhanced SN based on the increased stiffness of the MSL. The “a” value of the TriAx® geogrid-stabilized MSL is the
key component of the enhanced SN value (Equation 2) that is calculated for the pavement section. The “a” value is
representative of aggregate quality and degree of enhanced confinement achieved with a particular geogrid.
Calibration and validation of this “a” value has been performed with an extensive catalogue of pavement structures
(layer thicknesses & material types), subgrade conditions, and TIF data. Algorithms that are based on the “a” value
calibrations have been created and incorporated into Tensar’s design methodology and SpectraPave4-PRO™. The
program automatically assigns the proper calibrated “a” value to the TriAx ® MSL for the user-defined input conditions.

 PSI 
log10 
log10 (W18 )  Z R S o  9.36 log10 ( SN  1)  0.20   4.2  1.5   2.32 log M  8.07
1094 10 R (Equation 1)
0.40 
( SN  1) 5.19

SN = a1D1 + a2D2m2 + a3D3m3 (Equation 2)

Where:
ai = layer coefficients representative of surface, base and subbase courses;
Di = actual thickness (in inches) of surface, base and subbase courses, and;
mi = drainage coefficients for base and subbase courses.

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-7 –
For TriAx geogrids the TIF is converted to an appropriate modified layer coefficient for the Mechanically Stabilized
Layer (MSL) within which the TriAx® Geogrid is incorporated, based on the results of full scale testing. This approach
more accurately accounts for the variable performance benefit (effective TIF values) associated with the enhanced
confinement effect. Figure 5 provides an example of how the TIF values on one particular subgrade condition are
directly related to aggregate thickness and asphalt thickness. Layer coefficients presented in the AASHTO 1993 Design
Manual for pavement materials are empirically derived correlations to material properties. As such, the layer
coefficient is a measure of the relative ability of the material to function as a structural component within the
pavement. The use of enhanced layer coefficients for MSLs is consistent with this approach. It is important to note
that the new increased layer coefficient is not a reflection of the aggregate material alone, but is adjusted to account
for the improved long-term performance due to inclusion of the TriAx® geogrid, yielding a stiffened composite of
aggregate and geogrid. In addition, current AASHTO correlations for the resilient modulus of a granular base layer
and its layer coefficient are not valid for a composite material that consists of granular aggregate material and Tensar
TriAx® geogrid reinforcement.

TIF
7

2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Base Course Thickness (in.)

4-in. AC 6-in. AC 8-in. AC

Figure 5 Relationship between asphalt thickness, aggregate base thickness and TIF – For Tensar TX5
Geogrid (based on a single subgrade strength/resilient modulus)

Because of increased contact forces and stresses around the geogrid resulting from efficient aggregate confinement,
stiffness compared to the unbound aggregate increases significantly and improves overall pavement performance.
This increase in, and retention of, stiffness results in a reduction in the amount of rutting and increased fatigue life of
the pavement. In addition to a stiffness enhancement, the MSL provides the drainage benefit associated with an
unbound aggregate layer as well as the enhanced ductility that is not present in chemically treated base materials.

Layer Modulus Enhancement

As reported by Wayne, M.H., Boudreau, R.L., and Kwon, J. (2011a) TriAx geogrids have been shown to enhance and
maintain the modulus of aggregate samples that were prepared at a lower dry density than a control sample. In this
paper the authors documented the performance of a TriAx geogrid placed in the middle of a 12 inch layer of crushed
limestone base course material commonly used throughout the Southeast United States.

Figure 6 depicts the test program with respect to specimen density. The test results of CSB1 and CSB2 were intended
to bracket typical field compaction conditions. A recent field instrumentation study by White, et.al. (2011) indicates
that the first lift of aggregate is placed at a lower relative density based on the variability of subgrade conditions. This
leads to a large variation in density throughout unstabilized unbound aggregate (low density values at the bottom
with increasingly higher values toward the top). The role of the geogrid is to laterally confine aggregate leading to
consistent density with depth, resulting in a bulk resilient modulus that should mirror the behavior of the higher (top)
density of an unstabilized aggregate.

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-8 –
 91.3% MDD 91.3% MDD
91.3% MDD
top 6-in. top 6-in.
top 6-in.
Geogrid at Geogrid at
91.3% MDD
interface interface
85.6% MDD
85.6% MDD 85.6% MDD
bottom 6-in.
bottom 6-in. bottom 6-in.
CSB1 CSB2 CSB3 CSB4
FIGURE 6 Test program: Maximum Dry Density (MDD), geogrid placement & specimen designation.

Although limited in number, results from this testing program, shown in Figure 7, clearly demonstrate that the
aggregate placed around a geogrid forms a composite with greater stiffness and less deformation than that exhibited
by an unbound aggregate alone. As a result the density increase that occurs under repeated and steadily increasing
loads results in uniform densification of the geogrid stabilized specimen.

400
CSB 3
0.21
CSB 4
CSB 1 0.19
350

300 CSB 2 0.18

Resilient Modulus, Mr (MPa)

Structural Layer Coefficients

250 0.16

200 0.13
CSB1
CSB 1
CSB 4
CSB2 0.10
150 CSB 3 CSB3
CSB 2 CSB4
100 Linear (CSB1)
Linear (CSB2)
50 Linear (CSB3)
Linear (CSB4)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

Bulk Stress (kPa)

Figure 7 Resilient modulus predicted by the Universal Model (based on AASHTO T307 results)

Modulus enhancement and maintenance associated with TriAx geogrid stabilization of aggregate base was
summarized by Wayne, Kwon, and Boudreau (2011b) for a pavement constructed at the Port of Los Angeles. For this
project, plate load testing was performed on the subgrade layer, the middle of the aggregate layer (without geogrid
installed), and on top of the full 12-in aggregate layer (with geogrid installed). The results of the field testing with the
plate load indicated between 40 and 80 percent increase in the modulus of subgrade reaction, with the increase in
modulus values being inversely related to the magnitude of the deformation achieved with the plate load test. In
addition, laboratory testing of samples collected in the field showed the same behavior when tested under NCHRP
598, with the mechanically stabilized layer (MSL) samples surviving intact at up to 20,000 cycles, while the control
(non-MSL) samples reached failure before 10,000 cycles.

A project in North Dakota that incorporated TriAx geogrid materials into a layer of recycled salvaged base material
was used to evaluate the appropriateness of using a layer coefficient of 0.10 for this layer, as opposed to the standard
0.14 for a high quality base material (Wayne, M.H., White D.J., and Kwon, J., 2011c). In this study, field testing
consisted of falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing, DCP testing, and borehole shear testing, while laboratory
resilient modulus testing was also performed prior to road construction. As expected, pavement sections with TriAx

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-9 –
geogrid stabilization provided higher strength and modulus results when compared to non-stabilized layers. The
additional result of interest in this study is that borehole shear testing provided an estimate of the lateral restraint or
residual stress provided by the geogrid materials placed at the bottom and in the middle of the recycled salvaged
base layer. In the sections with TriAx geogrid stabilization, the lateral restraint was measured at over 200 psf, while 0
psf was measured in the unstabilized sections. The presence of significant lateral restraint in the granular layer led to
more isotropic behavior of the MSL, which in turn leads to the higher strength and modulus values for the layer. This
results in thinner MSL base layers capable of carrying the same traffic as a significantly thicker unbound base layer
(total pavement thickness for the control section was 44 in (1120mm) while the total pavement thickness for the MSL
section was 26 in (660mm)). Laboratory testing of the materials from this project also indicated a layer coefficient 30
percent higher than that allowed in the North Dakota pavement design procedure (0.13 versus 0.10).

For a section of Highway 905 near San Diego, California, Nelson, Fountain, and Wayne (2012), reported the design
and testing of two flexible pavement sections (one with a geogrid MSL layer and one without). Both were compared
via a series of field and laboratory material characterization tests. In this particular case, increases in the modulus of
subgrade reaction, R-value, and resilient modulus values indicated that the pavement section with the MSL layer will
provide similar or better performance than the control, even though the control section consists of more Hot Mix
Asphalt (7 in (178mm) versus 6 in (150mm)), and a thicker higher quality base material (29 in (737mm) of class 2
Aggregate Base versus 6 in (150mm) of class 2 Aggregate Base and 11 in (279mm) of class 4 Angular Sand).

Summary and Conclusions

Tensar International has conducted extensive performance validation research and testing to better understand how
geogrid properties contribute to the performance of paved and unpaved roadways. The wide range of products
commercially available, combined with the number of design variables which impact roadway performance, has made
the correlation of in air material index properties with roadway performance impossible. This has been made more
evident in recent years as new, technologically advanced geogrid products have become available. Lighter-weight
Tensar Geogrid products, incorporating unique hexagonal geometrical profiles and high radial stiffness
through 360◦, have been proven in full-scale tests to perform significantly better than Tensar biaxial
geogrids with higher in-air QC tensile strength.

The most reliable means by which an engineer can protect the integrity of a particular design is to use a performance
specification. The best way to develop such a specification is to base it on the performance benefits that
have been demonstrated for a particular product or set of products in full-scale pavement test sections,
and to specify the design methodology that supports the predicted performance.

Position statement on TriAx Geogrids

Research and new road construction projects around the world have demonstrated the superior performance of TriAx
geogrids over Tensar’s own biaxial geogrids. Tensar has invested heavily to help engineering practitioners to analyze
and design pavements through the use of industry accepted protocols such as AASHTO R50-09. This approach is
backed by over 25 years of experience in pavement design as a company. Tensar’s modified AASHTO 1993 pavement
design methodology and SpectraPave4-PRO software have both been validated by independent pavement experts
(ARA and Berg, 2012). SpectraPave4-PRO incorporates all of Tensar’s experience in geogrid stabilized
pavement design, and translates the accumulation of performance data for TriAx stabilized MSLs into
an accurate and reliable design methodology.

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-10 –
References
AASHTO. (2009).”Standard Practice for Geosynthetic Reinforcement of the Aggregate Base Course of Flexible
Pavement Structures.” AASHTO Publication R 50-09. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C.
AASHTO. (2001).”Recommended Practice for Geosynthetic Reinforcement of the Aggregate Base Course of Flexible
Pavement Structures.” AASHTO Publication PP46-01. American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C.

AASHTO. (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

Al-Qadi, I. L., Dessouky, S. H., Kwon, J. and Tutumluer, E. (2008). “Geogrid in Flexible Pavements: Validated
Mechanism,” Transportation Research Record 2045, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, USA, pp.
102-109.

ARA and Ryan R Berg & Associates (2013).” Independent Review and Validation of Tensar’s Modified ’93 AASHTO
Pavement Design Procedure and Verification of Spectrapave4TM Software

Archer, S. and Wayne, MH (2012).” Relevancy of Material Properties in Predicting the Performance of Geogrid-
Stabilized Roadways,” GeoCongress 2012, ASCE, 1320-1329.

Barksdale, R.D., Brown, S.F. & Chan, F. (1989). “Potential Benefits of Geosynthetics in Flexible Pavement Systems.”
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 315. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

Brown, S.F., Jones, C.P.D. & Brodrick, B.V. (1983). “Use of Non-Woven Fabrics in Permanent Road Pavements.”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, Volume 73, pp. 541-563. London, England, United
Kingdom.

Collin, J.G., Kinney, T.C. & Fu, X. (1996). “Full Scale Highway Load Test of Flexible Pavement Systems with Geogrid
Reinforced Base Courses.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 537-549.

Dong, Y.-L., Han, J., and Bai, X.-H. (2010). “Bearing capacities of geogrid-reinforced sand bases under static loading.”
Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 207, A.J. Puppala, J. Huang, J.
Han, and L.R. Hoyos (eds.), Proceedings of the GeoShanghai International Conference 2010, June 3 to 5,
Shanghai, China, 275-281.

Dong, Y.-L., Han, J., and Bai, X.-H. (2011). “Numerical analysis of tensile behavior of geogrids with rectangular and
triangular apertures.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29(2), 83-91.

Fannin, R.J. & Sigurdsson, O. (1996). “Field Observations on Stabilization of Unpaved Roads with Geosynthetics.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 7, pp. 544-553. American Society of Civil Engineers.

FHWA, (1998), Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design, Publication No. FHWA-SA-98-079,

FHWA (2008). Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines, by Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R. and Berg, R.R.,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., FHWA-HI-07-092, 2008,
460 p.

Gabr, M. (2001). “Cyclic Plate Loading Tests on Geogrid Reinforced Roads.” Research Report to Tensar International
Corporation., NC State University.

Giroud, J.P., Ah-Line, C. & Bonaparte, R. (1985). “Design of Unpaved Roads and Trafficking Areas with Geogrids.”
Proceedings of Polymer Grid Reinforcement Conference, pp. 116-127. Thomas Telford Ltd., London, England,
United Kingdom

Giroud, J.P. & Han, J. (2004a). “Design Method for Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unpaved Roads: Part I – Development of
Design Method.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, in press. American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-11 –
Giroud, J.P. & J. Han. (2004b). “Design Method for Geosynthetic-Reinforced Unpaved Roads: Part II – Calibration and
Applications.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, in press. American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Giroud, J.P. and Han, J. (2011). “The Giroud-Han design method for geosynthetic-reinforced unpaved roads.”
Geosynthetics, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 44-51.

Giroud, J.P. & L. Noiray. (1981). “Geotextiles-Reinforced Unpaved Road Design,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 107, No. 9, pp. 1233-1253. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Giroud, J.P. (2009). “An assessment of the use of geogrids in unpaved roads and unpaved areas.” Presentation at the
Jubilee Symposium on Polymer Geogrid Reinforcement – Identifying the Direction of Future Research,
http://www.tensar.co.uk/jubilee-symposium/index.html , London, England.

Giroud, J.P. (2009) Calibration of the Giroud & Han Method. Personal communication with Joe Cavanaugh, Tensar
International Corporation

GMA (2000). GMA White Paper II: Geosynthetic Reinforcement of the Aggregate Base/Subbase Courses of Pavement
Structures. Geosynthetic Materials Association, Industrial Fabrics Association International.

J. T. Harvey, J. Roesler, N. F. Coetzee, and C. L. Monismith (2000) CALTRANS Accelerated Pavement Test (CAL/APT)
Program Summary Report Six Year Period: 1994–2000”, Report Prepared for the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, CAL/APT Program, Pavement Research Center, Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California, Berkeley, CA

Jersey, S.R. and Tingle, J.S. (2010) "Full-Scale Accelerated Pavement Tests Geogrid Reinforcement of Thin Asphalt
Pavements Phase 1 Interim Report", USACE Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.

Knapton, J. & Austin, R.A. (1996). “Laboratory Testing of Reinforced Unpaved Roads,” Earth Reinforcement. Ochiai,
Yasufuku, and Omine (eds). Balkema, Rotterdam.
Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E. and Al-Qadi, I.,(2009) “A Validated Mechanistic Model for Geogrid Base Reinforced Flexible
Pavements,” ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, Volume 135, Issue 12, pp. 915-926

Kwon, J., Tutumluer, E., and Konietzky, H., (2008). “Aggregate Base Residual Stresses Affecting Geogrid Reinforced
Flexible Pavement Response,” International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Volume 9, Issue 4, pages 275-285.

Kwon, J. and Tutumluer, E. (2009). “Geogrid Base Reinforcement with Aggregate Interlock and Modelling of the
Associated Stiffness Enhancement in Mechanistic Pavement Analysis,” Transportation Research Record 2116,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C., pp. 85-95.

Nelson L., Fountain G.B., and Wayne, M.H. (2012), “Performance Verification of a Geogrid Mechanically Stabilized
Layer Flexible Pavement Design as Part of the La Media Road Widening Project”, GeoCongress 2012, Oakland,
California, March 25 – 29, 2012.

Perkins, S.W. & Ismeik, M. (1997). “A Synthesis and Evaluation of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Base Layers in Flexible
Pavements: Part I.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 549-604.

Perkins, S.W. (1999). “Geosynthetic Reinforcement of Flexible Pavements: Laboratory Based Pavement Test Sections.”
Final Report, FHWA/MT-99-001/8138. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.

Qian, Y. (2009). “Experimental Study on Triangular Aperture Geogrid-Reinforced Bases Over Weak Subgrade Under
Cyclic Loading”, Master’s Thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

Steward, J., Williamson, R. & Mohney, J. (1977). “Guidelines for Use of Fabrics in Construction and Maintenance of
Low-volume Roads.” Report FHWA-TS-78-205. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-12 –
Tensar (1996). “Design Guideline for Flexible Pavements with Tensar Geogrid Base Layers.” Tensar Technical Note,
TTN: BR96, p. 77. The Tensar Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia.

Tensar (1998). “Design Guideline for Unpaved Applications under Dynamic Loading with Tensar Geogrids.” Tensar
Technical Note, TTN:BR5, p. 30. The Tensar Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia.

Vavrik, W.R. (2009). “Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design: A Paradigm Shift.” CONTECH® Roadway Technical
Seminar, Applied Research Associates, Inc. PowerPoint Presentation.

Watts G.R.A., Blackman, D.I. & Jenner, C.G. (2004). “The Performance of Reinforced Unpaved Sub-bases Subjected
to Trafficking.” Proceedings of the Third European Geosynthetics Conference. Munich, Germany.

Watts, K. and Jenner, C. (2008). “Large-scale laboratory assessment of geogrids to reinforce granular working
platforms.” EuroGeo4, Edinburgh, United Kingdom, 7 - 10 September 2008.

Webster, S.L. (2000). Personal Communication with Mr. Robert B. Anderson. Tensar International Corporation.

Webster, S.L. (1992). “Geogrid Reinforced Base Course for Flexible Pavements for Light Aircraft: Test Section
Construction, Laboratory Tests and Design Criteria.” US Army Corps of Engineers Report No. DOT/FAA/RD-92-25.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

Wayne, M.H., Boudreau, R.L., and Kwon, J. (2011a). “Characterization of a mechanically stabilized layer using resilient
modulus and permanent deformation testing,” 10th International Conference on Low-Volume Roads, Lake Buena
Vista, Florida.

Wayne, M.H., Kwon, J. and Boudreau, R.L. (2011b). “Resilient Modulus, Repeated Load Permanent Deformation and
Plate Load Testing of a Mechanically Stabilized Crushed Miscellaneous Base material,” Transportation Research
Board, 90th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C.

Wayne, M.H., White D.J., and Kwon, J. (2011c). “Field and Laboratory Evaluation of a Mechanically Stabilized
Salvaged Base Course Used in the Construction of US 12 Marmarth, North Dakota,”, 2011 Mid-Continent
Transportation Research Symposium, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

White, D.J. White, P. K. R. Vennapusa, P.K.R., Gieselman, H.H., Douglas, S.C., Zhang, J., and Wayne, M.H. (2011).
“In-ground dynamic stress measurements for geosynthetic reinforced subgrade/subbase.” Advances in
Geotechnical Engineering, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 211, Proceedings of GeoFrontiers 2011, Han, J.
and Alzamora, D.E. (editors), Dallas, TX, March 13 to 16, 4663-4672.

White, D.W. (1990). “Literature Review of Geotextiles to Improve Pavements for General Aviation Airports.” US Army
Corps of Engineers Report No. DOT/FAA/RD-90/26. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2010-2013, Tensar International

-13 –