Performance of Geogrid Stabilized Gravel Flexible Base with

Bituminous Surface Treatment

Jayhyun Kwon1*, Mark H. Wayne2, Jonathan Cook3

1
Tensar International Corporation, 2500 Northwinds Parkway Suite 500, Alpharetta, Georgia, U.S.A.,
JKwon@tensarcorp.com
2
Tensar International Corporation, 2500 Northwinds Parkway Suite 500, Alpharetta, Georgia, U.S.A.,
MWayne@tensarcorp.com
3
Tensar International Corporation, Cunningham Court, Shadsworth Business Park, Shadsworth,
Blackburn BB1 2QX United Kingdom, JCook@tensar.co.uk
* Jonathan Cook: 44 (0) 12542 66806; 44 (0)1254 266868

Abstract

A full-sale test section was constructed and trafficked at the U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development center (ERDC) to evaluate the performance of geogrid reinforced low-
volume roads. The test section consisted of two typical low-volume “farm-to market” lanes
constructed with double bituminous surface treatment over a crushed limestone base course
and a 6 CBR clay subgrade. One lane was reinforced with geogrid and constructed with a 6-
in. base course. The remaining lane was constructed with an unreinforced 8-in. base course.
Each test lane contained a suite of instrumentation consisting of strain gauges, earth pressure
cells, moisture probes, pore water pressure transducers, and temperature probes. The test
pavements were subjected to accelerated trafficking to evaluate the relative performance of
the different pavement structures. Permanent surface deformations and pavement stiffness
were measured periodically throughout traffic testing. The results of the study showed that
the performance of the thinner geogrid reinforced pavement section was equal to the
performance of the thicker unreinforced control pavement. Results were used to develop
effective base course structural coefficients which provide a means for comparing the various
pavement structures.

Keywords: Geogrid; Mechanical Stabilization; Accelerated Pavement Testing; Bituminous

Surface Treatment

1. INSTRUCTION

There are nearly two million miles of unpaved roads in the United States (Johnson
2009). Properly constructed and maintained gravel surfaced road can serve general traffic for
many years. Gravel surfaced roads are a popular choice as it is less costly to construct than

1
paved roads, but one of a notable disadvantage of gravel roads is that they are prone to giving
off dust.
Asphalt surface treatment such as chip seal and bituminous surface treatment are often
used to reduce dust problems. In addition, the asphalt surface treatment seals the surface from
moisture and protects the base and subgrade material. These surfacing types are quite flexible
and do not add to the structural capacity of the roadway. Structural failure of the gravel road
is caused by deficient thickness of aggregate base. Aggregate base is the only layer provides
structural capacity and the base thickness is dependent on the subgrade strength.
Subgrade repair and stabilization is required on roads with soft areas. The repair
involves the removal of the unstable material and replacing it with granular base material.
Weak subgrades pose the greatest challenge to the performance of the road. Left untreated, a
weak subgrade subjected to continuous traffic will quickly deform, causing the road surface
to rut, pothole, and ultimately deteriorate beyond use. Consequently, the additional thickness
of unbound aggregate base results in a situation whereby the subgrade-aggregate interface is
at a deeper level. This causes a number of problems, the most significant being that water
entering the pavement tends to accumulate in the "bath tub" created by the heavy duty
section. The subgrade strength decreases and the base course layer become saturated resulting
in a weaker pavement in the area where the greatest strength is required.
Geogrids are designed to reduce construction induced or in-service stresses applied to
weak subgrades. Geogrid and aggregate interlock to create a mechanically stabilized layer
(MSL) to evenly distribute the load, reducing bearing pressure on subgrade and therefore
ensuring longer-term stability and performance.
There are many advantages to creating a uniform subgrade elevation for both the heavy
and light duty pavement sections:

• Drainage challenges due to migration of water into low lying areas are avoided, thus the
pavement strength is maintained.
• Elimination of water trapped in the weak subgrade reduces its freeze-thaw
susceptibility.
• The use of a uniform subgrade elevation provides a much simpler method of
construction-less stake out procedures.
• The site can be graded to one level, resulting in less excavation and disposal of existing
soil.

2. TEST SECTION DESIGN AND LAYOUT

Two unique pavement structures were tested and compared in order to quantify the
benefit the using geogrid in low volume roads surfaced with a double bituminous surface
treatment. Each item was constructed to contain a 3 meter wide by 15 meter long testing
area. Item 1 was constructed with a 200mm thick unreinforced aggregate base course
consisting of a crushed limestone. Item 2 was constructed with a 150mm stabilized aggregate
base course of the same material. Item 2 was stabilized by placing geogrid at the base
subgrade interface. The subgrade for both test items was constructed with 600mm of high
plasticity clay (CH) placed to achieve the targeted California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of
6%. Both items were constructed simultaneously to minimize variability and ensure
consistency between the two pavement structures. All construction and traffic testing
occurred under ERDC’s Hanger 4 pavement testing facility which eliminated the threat of
moisture intrusion due to environmental factors.

2
3. MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION

3.1. Subgrade

A locally available high plasticity clay (CH) was used to construct the test section
subgrade. The CH material consisted of 95.1% fines passing the #200 sieve. As determined
by ASTM D4318-10, the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index are 73, 24, and 49
respectively. According to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) the soil is
classified as high-plasticity clay (CH) and an A-7-6 according to the AASHTO classification
system. A 6 CBR subgrade was achieved based on a moisture content of 31% established
from historical experience. In-situ dry density after compaction was 1416 kg/m3 at the target
moisture content of 31%.

3.2. Base

Crushed limestone was used to construct the aggregate base course. The gradation for
the crushed limestone is shown in Fig. 1. ASTM procedure D2487-11 was used to determine
the base course was comprised of 46.4% gravel, 43.6% sand and 10% non-plastic fines
passing the #200 sieve. Coefficient of curvature (Cc) was determined to be 9.08 and the
coefficient of uniformity (Cu) was 80.09. The crushed limestone aggregate base was
classified as poorly-graded gravel with silt and sand (GP-GM) in the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and an A-1-a according to the AASHTO procedure. Modified
proctor tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D1557-11 Method C Modified.
Maximum dry density was 2318 kg/m3 at an optimum moisture content of 4.9%.

Fig. 1. Test section material gradations.

3
3.3. Surface Treatment

The double bituminous surface treatment (DBST) in this test section was selected to be
representative of a typical surface treatment for a low volume road. A rapid setting polymer
modified, cationic water based emulsified asphalt (CRS-2P) was used as the bituminous
binder in the DBST. Emulsified asphalt application rates for the initial and final layer were
1.36L/m2 and 1.81L/m2 respectively. The crushed limestone aggregate was placed at a rate
of 15.2kg/m2. A gradation curve for the DBST aggregate is presented in Fig. 1 (Curve 3).
The DBST aggregate is classified as a poorly-graded gravel in the USCS.

3.4. Geogrid

The geogrid used in this study is a relatively new geogrid product and consists of a
series of concentric triangles, forming a series of concentric hexagons. The geogrid is
composed of a black high-density polypropylene.

4. PAVEMENT CHARACTERIZATION

The pavement surface was characterized by performing a series of tests on the as-
constructed pavement. During test section construction dry density and moisture content
were obtained for each pavement layer using a nuclear moisture-density device method
outlined by ASTM D6938-10. Values from these tests were used to verify the uniformity of
each of the pavement layers during construction as well as for comparative purposes between
layers. Field in-place CBR tests were performed according to ASTM D4429-09a. Values
from the field in-place CBR tests show subgrade strengths ranging from 6.0 to 6.2%. As-
built properties of the base and subgrade are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. As-built test section properties

Item 1 Item 2
Material Test
(Unstabilized Section) (Stabilized Section)
Wet Density (kg/m3) 1864.5 1850.1
3
Dry Density (kg/m ) 1422.4 1409.6

CH Subgrade Moisture (%) 31.1 31.3

Oven-Dried Moisture
33.1 35.3
(%)
CBRIn-Field (%) 6.2 6
3
Wet Density (kg/m ) 2247.4 2250.6
Dry Density (kg/m3) 2172.1 2172.1
Crushed
Limestone Moisture (%) 3.5 3.6
Base Oven-Dried Moisture
2.5 2.2
(%)
CBRIn-Field (%) 110 120
Thickness (mm) 200 150

4
5. TRAFFIC TESTING

Traffic testing of both Items 1 and 2 was accomplished using one of ERDC’s specially
designed single axle load carts. The configuration used for testing consisted of a single axle
dual wheel setup loaded to a nominal load of 44.5kN as shown in Fig. 2. Tire pressures were
830kPa throughout testing of both items. The equivalent axle load factor for this
configuration is 1.51 (Huang, 2004). Therefore, one pass of the load cart is equal to 1.51
equivalent standard axle loads (ESALs).
Traffic was applied with a normally distributed bi-directional pattern. A 900mm wide
wander pattern was utilized to mimic previous studies (Tingle and Jersey, 2007) as well as
duplicate what has been observed in other test sections (Timm and Priest, 2005). Traffic
loading was applied over the full 15 meter length of the each test section. Periodic
interruptions were made during trafficking to collect pavement performance data and
instrumentation response. Data collection and instrumentation response recordings were
performed at predetermined stations located within the inner 12 meter of the test section.
This method was utilized in order to eliminate any influence from the load cart’s change of
direction. Failure criterion for both items was defined as a 25mm surface rut, including any
upheaval along the edges of the traffic lane. Due to time constraints, trafficking was halted
after 40,000 passes of the load cart which equates to 60,400 ESALs.

Fig. 2. Load cart

6. RESULT

One method of assessing a pavement’s structural performance is by measuring the rut

depth. For this testing rutting was measured at three locations (Stations 12.5, 25, and 37.5)
within the 15 meter length of the test sections. Rut depth measurements were taken using a
straight edge placed across the traffic lane. The maximum rut measured from the bottom of
the rut trough to the top of any present upheaval was recorded and used as the rut depth for
that particular station and traffic interval.
Table 2 summarizes the rutting performance of Items 1 and 2. As indicated by the data,
both items rutting performance was essentially equal after 60,400 ESALs. Neither lane had
reached the predetermined failure criterion of 25mm before time limits were exhausted.
Both Items performed equally through the application of 60,400 ESALs. Due to the
lack of any upheaval along the wander pattern edge, only surface deformation measurements
are presented and they are deemed adequate to use for rutting performance as well. Minor
variations were observed due to the roughness of the aggregate surface treatment, but overall
the trend is clear that little to no rutting or subsurface damage was occurring.

5
Table 2. Rutting performance
Rutting at specific traffic levels (mm)
ESALs
Test Item Treatment
50 600 7,800 30,000 60,000
1 Unstabilized 4.8 7.9 11.2 11.2 11.2
2 Stabilized 4.8 6.4 9.7 9.7 9.7

Fig. 3 shows the surface of Item 2 after completion of the 60,400 ESALs. It is clear
there was an initial settlement or seating of the aggregate into the asphalt emulsion within the
wander pattern denoted between the longitudinal blue lines. After this initial settlement no
significant rutting occurred for the duration of testing. Due to time constraints the decision
was made to end the trafficking of both items with the current load.

Fig. 3. Test section surface at completion

Due to the lack of rutting in either of the test items, a decision was made to apply an
aircraft load to the pavement to gather additional performance data. A simulated C-17 aircraft
load was applied with a nominal 200kN single-wheel load with a tire pressure of 980kPa.
Table 3 displays the performance results from each test item. The performance data indicates
the DBST with a 150mm stabilized flexible base performs equally as well as the DBST with
a 200mm unstabilized flexible base under aircraft traffic. During trafficking it was apparent
that soon after the 104 pass level the pavement structure failed rapidly which lead to the onset
of excessive rutting.

Table 3. C-17 rutting performance

Rutting at specific traffic levels (mm)
ESALs
Test Item Treatment
0 26 52 104 190
1 Unstabilized 0.0 6.4 10.2 17.8 101.6
2 Stabilized 0.0 6.4 2.5 10.2 101.6

6
 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) tests were performed on the surface of both lanes
post construction. Results from the FWD tests were evaluated in terms of the Impulse
Stiffness Modulus (ISM). ISM is the ratio of the applied load to the measured plate
deflection. Degradation of the ISM values and the effect of trafficking on each test item are
summarized in Fig. 4. Higher ISM values represent a stiff pavement while low ISM values
represent a weak pavement. Typically ISM values below 70kN/mm are considered low
stiffness pavements which are common among low volume roads. Post construction average
ISM values for Items 1 and 2 were 57 and 41 kN/mm, respectively. The higher stiffness of
Item 1 compared to Item 2 is due to the extra two inches of base course when compared to
Item 1.
After the completion of testing, the ISM value for Items 1 had dropped to 40kN/mm
where Item 2 dropped to 33kN/mm. ISM values for Item 1 decreased 42% compared to 14%
drop for the geogrid reinforced Item 2. A power fit of the data shows a good relationship to
the Item 1 data but Item 2 data do not exhibit a good relationship. Trend lines are presented
for visual purposes rather than for predictive purposes.

Fig. 4. ISM changes during testing

8. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this study a full scale test section was constructed and trafficked to evaluate the
performance of low volume roads surfaced with a double bituminous surface treatment
reinforced with geogrid. Several conclusions and recommendations were generated after
analysis of the construction and traffic data. Following are the conclusions:

• The pavement test items were constructed in a uniform manner with minor variability
between test items. The uniformity of construction allows meaningful comparisons
between test items to be made.

7
 • The geogrid reinforced pavement section performed equally as well as the thicker
unreinforced pavement section.
• The initial stiffness of the reinforced test item was not a good indicator of performance.
• The geogrid reinforced pavement section had less stiffness degradation than the
unreinforced pavement section.

The double bituminous surface treatment is often used as preventive maintenance

treatments without providing structural capacity of the pavement section. Although,
environmental effects to road deterioration are not simulated in this study, the results
demonstrate that the DBST can significantly reduce surface rut depths compared to the
traditional unpaved gravel road design. The test results indicate that the effective structural
capacity is higher for DBST sections which is based on the reduced surface rutting required
to achieve the same amount rutting as an unsurfaced gravel road. Most gravel roads will fail
due to inclement weather, therefore maintenance activities such as regular blading are
typically required every 2 to 4 times per month (2). DBST protects gravel surfaced roads
from moisture intrusion to the base and subgrade. This feature offers reduced maintenance
and extends rehabilitation intervals which yield significant cost savings.
This research indicates that geogrid stabilization can reduce aggregate base thickness to
achieve the same amount of surface rutting for a thicker unstabilized section, and therefore
offers a more sustainable alternative solution to the conventional gravel road.

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The tests described and the resulting data presented herein, unless otherwise noted,
were obtained from research performed by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station.

10. REFERENCES

Johnson, E.N., and R.C. Olson. Best Practices for Dust Control on Aggregate Roads. Report
MN-RC-2009-04. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN, 2009.

Huang, Y.H. Pavement Analysis and Design, 2 nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.,
2004.

Tingle, J.S., and S.R. Jersey. Empirical Design Methods for Geosynthetic-Reinforced Low-
Volume Roads. In Transportation Research Record 1989, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C. (200) 91-101.

Timm, D.H., and A. L. Priest. Wheel Wander at the NCAT Test Track, National Center for
Asphalt Technology NCAT Report 05-02. Auburn, AL. 2005.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Test Methods for Liquid
Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. Designation: D4318-10. West
Conshohocken, PA, 2010.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Test Methods for
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System).
Designation: D2487-11. West Conshohocken, PA, 2011.

8
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort. Designation: D1557-11. West
Conshohocken, PA, 2011.

Association of American Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2006. Standard

Method of Test for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates, AASHTO T027-06,
Washington, D.C., 2006.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard Test Methods for In-Place
Density and Water Content of Soil-Aggregate by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth).
Designation: D6938-10. West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard test method for CBR
(California Bearing Ratio) of soils in place. Designation: D4429-09a. West Conshohocken,
PA, 2009.