Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Interaction of nonwoven needle-punched

geotextiles under axisymmetric loading
conditions
D.T. Bergadoa,*, S. Youwaib, C.N. Haic, P. Voottipruexd
a
Geotechnical Engineering Program, School of Civil Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4,
Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
b
School of Civil Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120,
Thailand
c
The Polytechnic University of HoChiMinh City, HoChiMinh City, Viet Nam
d
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology, North Bangkok, Piboonsongkram Rd., Bangsue District,
Bangkok, Thailand
Received 28 May 2000; received in revised form 16 February 2001; accepted 03 March 2001

Abstract

Geotextiles have been successfully used for reinforcement of unpaved roads on soft
subgrade to improve the performance of a reinforced fill layer placed on soft ground. The
tension–strain behavior of a nonwoven needle-punched geotextile under axisymmetric loading
condition as well as the mechanism and effects of the different grades of geotextile on the
increase in bearing capacity of reinforced unpaved roads over weak subgrade under traffic
load were considered. The strain energy capacity concept is proposed to describe the tension–
strain of geotextile under an axisymmetric loading condition. Modified CBR tests on soft and
weathered clay overlain by compacted sand as well as on soft and weathered clay overlain by
compacted sand reinforced with fix- or free-end nonwoven needle punched geotextile were
carried out. Finite element method (FEM) using the PLAXIS software was utilized to back-
analyze the results of the modified CBR tests. No significant difference between in-air and in-
soil stiffness has been found for geotextile reinforcement of unpaved road. The calculated
results indicate an additional load capacity due to the presence of the geotextile using an
axisymmetric stiffness which demonstrated a significant contribution of membrane action by
the different types of geotextile on the increase in bearing capacity of soil–geotextile system.
The effects of the different types of geotextile obtained in this study can be used to preliminary
select the appropriate grades of nonwoven needle-punched geotextile corresponding to the

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +66-2-524-5512; fax: +66-2-524-6050.

E-mail address: bergado@ait.ac.th (D.T. Bergado).

0266-1144/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 2 6 6 - 1 1 4 4 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 0 - 3
300 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

allowable rut depth in the design of the reinforced unpaved roads under traffic load. # 2001
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Geotextiles; Modified CBR; Unpaved roads

Nomenclature

Tf tensile strength at break in uniaxial tensile test (kN/m)

Pf puncture force at break in CBR puncture test (kN)
r radius of plunger in CBR test (m)
T tensile force per unit width of fabric (kN/m)
F puncture force in (kN)
a angle between geotextile plane and initial horizontal position (8)
e tensile strain (%)
l diagonal length of the geotextile (mm)
a horizontal distance between the outer edge of the plunger and the inner
edge of the mold (mm)
uy vertical displacement of puncture rod (mm)
d diameter of puncture rod (mm)
Fr applied load in the case of with reinforcement (kN)
Fu applied load in the case of without reinforcement (kN)
C dilatancy angle (8)
fmax maximum internal friction angle (8)
fcrit internal friction angle at critical state condition (8)
Eu undrained modulus of soil (kPa)
Suv undrained shear strength (kPa)
G shear modulus of soil that is in contact with the reinforcement (kPa)
Gi shear modulus of interface element (kPa)
Ri interface coefficient (kPa)
c shear strength of soil that is in contact with reinforcement (kPa)
ci shear strength of interface element (kPa)
d angle of friction of interface element (kPa)

1. Introduction

The reinforcement which is strong in tension effectively combines with the soil
which is strong in compression, forming a strong and semi-rigid composite material.
With the availability of competent geotextile, the uses of geotextile in many
engineering applications have become more apparent and have proven to be an
effective means of soil improvement. In early applications in roads and airfield
construction, emphasis was laid on the separation function of the geotextile. The
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 301

geotextile sheeting partially replaced the conventional sand filter-separation layer

(Hausmann, 1987). A full-scale field test was constructed at Washington State
Highway by Tsai et al. (1993) to compare the ability of different geotextiles to stabilize
a soft subgrade during construction and found that nonwoven, needle-punched
geotextiles had the best overall performance due to their ability for in-plane drainage.
The uniaxial loading tensile test has been used to determine the in-isolated tensile
strain properties of geotextiles. Maneecharoen (1997) studied the factors affecting
the in-isolation geotextile laboratory testing and discovered that the tensile strength
of nonwoven, needle-punched geotextiles slightly increased with increasing strain
rate. However, McGown et al. (1981) summarized that nonwoven polymer
geotextile, which are mainly made by Polypropylene, in-isolation test is not
significantly affected by changing the strain rate.
Resl and Werner (1986) carried out the laboratory tests under an axisymmetric
loading condition using nonwoven, needle-punched geotextiles. The results showed
that the geotextile layer placed between subbase and subgrade can significantly
increase the bearing capacity of soft subgrades. Model laboratory tests and full scale
tests were conducted by Douglas (1993) and Tsai et al. (1993) lead to the conclusion
of increased bearing capacity and reduced rut depth achieved under traffic load due
to the membrane effect of geotextile stabilized soft soil. Fannin and Sigurdsson
(1996) carried out a full-scale field trial to observe the performance of different
geosynthetics in unpaved road construction over soft ground. The resulting
correlation between tensile stiffness of the geotextile and improved trafficability
was attributed to a significant tension generated by membrane effect of the geotextile
reinforcement.
In this study, the in-air CBR puncture test on nonwoven, needle-punched
geotextile was utilized to find a suitable method to describe the tension–strain
behavior of geotextile under axisymmetric loading condition. In addition, FEM was
used to back-analyze the results of modified CBR tests on soft and weathered clay
overlain by sand with and without geotextile reinforcement. The comparison
between in-air and in-soil stiffness, the improvement of bearing capacity of soil–
geotextile system, and the mechanism of geotextile-reinforced unpaved road over
clay subgrade were investigated.

2. In-air stress–strain behavior

Cazzuffi and Venesia (1986) investigated the comparison between the tensile
strength and puncture force at break of nonwoven geotextiles obtained from wide
width tensile test (ASTM D4595-86, 1994) and CBR puncture test, respectively.
Consequently, an empirical relation was obtained between the tensile load under
uniaxial loading with the puncture force at break of geotextile obtained from CBR
puncture test as follows:
Pf
Tf ¼ ; ð1Þ
2pr
302 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Table 1
Physical property of nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles

Property Unit TS20 TS40 TS65

Physical characteristic polymer Continuous filament nonwoven needle punched 100% poly-
propylene

Nominal mass g/m2 125 180 285

Thickness mm 1.2 1.7 2.5
Apparent opening size (O95) mm 0.26 0.24 0.18

where Tf =tensile strength at break in uniaxial tensile test, Pf =puncture force at

break in CBR puncture test, and r=radius of pluger in CBR test. In practice, the
dimension ratio (L/B) of the wheel contact area for traffic loading is less than two
and is quite similar to an axisymmetric case which can be simulated by CBR
puncture test.
In-air or in-isolation stress–strain behavior of geotextiles was investigated. Two
types of in-air tests, namely: wide width tensile test and CBR puncture test were
carried out using low strength nonwoven needle-punched Polyfelt geotextiles with
three different types, namely: TS20, TS40 and TS65. The physical properties for each
type of geotextile are tabulated in Table 1.

3. The method to analyze an axisymmetric stress–strain behavior

In CBR puncture test, the test data recorded only the vertical displacement and
the applied force of the puncture rod. The test results described in the form of
puncture force versus vertical displacement, did not describe the tension load–strain
in geotextile. In this paper, a method to analyze and calculate the tensile strength and
the tensile strain of geotextile under an axisymmetric condition is proposed based on
McGown et al. (1998) and McGown and Khan (1999). The proposed method is
related to the relationship between the puncture force and vertical displacement of
puncture rod with the tensile load in geotextile at specified displacement (Fig. 1) as
follows:
F
T¼ ; ð2Þ
2pr sin a
where T=tensile force per unit width of fabric in kN/m, F=puncture force in kN,
r=radius of plunger (r ¼ 25 mm) in m, and a=angle between geotextile plane and
the initial horizontal position as illustrated in Fig. 1.
The angle, a, is obtained from the following relationship:
y
sin a ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; ð3Þ
y þ 502
2
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 303

Fig. 1. Proposed geometry assumed to interpret an axisymmetric tension–strain of geotextile in CBR

puncture test.

where y is vertical displacement of puncture rod as shown in Fig. 1. According to the

German standard (DIN), the tensile strain (e) is calculated as follows:

ðl  aÞ
e¼ 100 ð4Þ
a

where l=the diagonal length of the geotextile and a=the horizontal distance
between the outer edge of the plunger and the inner edge of the mould (a ¼ 50 mm).
Based on the above-proposed analysis, the CBR test result can be plotted in the
form of tensile load versus strain of geotextile, which is represented for the load–
strain behavior of geotextile under an axisymmetric loading condition. The stiffness
of the geotextile under an axisymmetric condition can be determined from this curve,
and applied to the design of geotextile reinforcement in unpaved road under traffic
load. In practice, the loading application of wheel load caused by traffic can be
similar to the axisymmetric case.
304 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

4. Wide width tensile test

A series of wide width tensile tests were carried out to investigate the uniaxial
stress–strain behavior of nonwoven, needle-punched geotextiles. A 200 mm wide by
200 mm long specimens were used. Three grades of nonwoven, needle-punched
Polyfelt geotextile TS20, TS40 and TS60 were tested in two directions such as
machine and cross machine direction at a constant rate of strain of 10%/min. The
results of the wide width tensile tests of the TS20, TS40 and TS60 geotextile in
machine direction based on five samples are plotted in Figs. 2–4, respectively. The
scatter of the result are from the non-uniform distribution of mass per unit area in
lightweight nonwoven geotextile layer. However, the difference in the testing result is
not significant. Thus, the average value was employed as shown in Figs. 2–4. The
resulting data indicate a difference of tensile strain at break of geotextile sample
between machine and cross machine direction. The pre-tension of the geotextile in
the machine direction during manufacture process resulted in lower elongation at
break. The value of tensile strain at break of cross machine direction was found to be
about two times higher than in machine direction. The ultimate tensile strengths,
however, were nearly the same for both directions.

5. CBR puncture tests

The puncture resistance of the geotextiles was determined by the following the
British standard method (BS6906: Part 4, 1989) of test. A test specimen was securely

Fig. 2. Wide width tensile test of TS20 by ASTM-D-4595.

 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 305

clamped between the clamping ring of the test rig ensuring no slippage and damage
to the sample. The test rig was then placed in the tensile testing machine wherein the
50 mm diameter plunger was punctured into the geotextile. The CBR puncture tests

Fig. 3. Wide width tensile test of TS40 by ASTM-D4595.

Fig. 4. Wide width tensile test of TS65 by ASTM-D4595.

306 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Fig. 5. CBR puncture test of TS20 at different puncture speeds.

were carried out at three different puncture speeds of 20, 40 and 80 mm/min,
respectively, for each grade of geotextile. The test results described in the form of
vertical displacement of puncture rod versus puncture force is typically shown in
Fig. 5 as average values of five samples. To investigate the stress–strain behavior of
nonwoven geotextiles under CBR puncture test, the tensile load in geotextile was
interpreted by Cazzuffi’s empirical formula (Eq. (1)) and the proposed formula
(Eq. (2)). The tensile strain was calculated according to the German standard (DIN)
using Eq. (4). The CBR testing results were described in the form of tensile load per
unit width versus tensile strain of geotextile sample as typically plotted in Fig. 6.
These results indicate that the puncture force and the vertical displacement at break
were slightly effected by changing puncture speed. The maximum puncture force
slightly increased simultaneously to reduce the vertical displacement of puncture rod
at break when the strain rate increased ranging from 20 to 80 mm/min, as typically
shown in Fig. 5.
In the CBR puncture test, the plunger was pushed perpendicular into the
geotextile sample at a constant rate of vertical displacement. However, the tensile
strain in the geotextile sample may not be at a constant rate of strain. Assuming an
average rate of strain in the geotextile specimen as defined by the tensile strain at
break divided by the time to reach failure; the tensile strength at breakage and the
calculated results of the average tensile strain with varying strain rate are shown in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively. These results indicate that a rate of vertical puncture of
20, 40 and 80 mm/min correspond to an average rates of strain in geotextile sample
of 14%/min, 28%/min and 55%/min, respectively. The test results also show a slight
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 307

Fig. 6. Tension–strain of TS20 interpreted by Cazzuffi’s formula.

Table 2
Tensile strength at break of geotextile at different puncture speeds of CBR puncture test

Puncture speed Tensile strength at break (kN/m)

(mm/min)
Proposed formula (Eq. (3)) Cazzuffi’s formula (Eq. (1))

TS20 TS40 TS65 TS20 TS40 TS65

20 13.4 20.1 31.4 8.6 13.8 20.9

40 14.4 20.8 32.4 9.1 14.1 21.5
80 15.2 22.3 33.6 9.5 14.3 21.8

Table 3
Average tensile strain rates of geotextile at different puncture speeds of CBR puncture test

Puncture Tensile strain at break (%) Average tensile strain rate (%/min)
(mm/min)
TS20 TS40 TS65 TS20 TS40 TS65

20 30.8 37.5 34.1 13.8 15.0 14.4

40 29.4 35.8 33.5 37.1 29.5 28.7
80 28.6 30.2 31.2 53.6 54.9 55.6
308 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

effect of strain rate on tensile strain of geotextile sample. For example, when the
average rate of strain increased twice, from 14%/min to 28%/min or from 28%/min
to 55%/min (100% increase), the tensile strength of geotextile at break increased
from 2% to 7%. The deviation of tensile strength at break is about of 1 kN/m when
the average strain rate increased by 100%. It is concluded that the effect of variable
strain rate is not significant for the nonwoven polymer geotextile tested with the high
rate of strain in the range of 14%/min–28%/min. This conclusion is consistent with
the results of McGown et al. (1981) and Maneecharoen (1997).

6. Comparison of strain energy capacity

The concept of strain energy capacity defined as the area under the load–strain
curve at a given strain (see Fig. 8) can be applied to verify the proposed formula to
analyze the tension–strain behavior of geotextile in CBR test. The strain energy
stored in geotextile sample at break obtained from CBR puncture test is interpreted
by the proposed method and compared with the results obtained from wide width
tensile test. These areas should be compared at the same tensile rate. The CBR
puncture tests were carried out at three different puncture speeds of 20, 40 and
80 mm/min. The purpose is to select a suitable load–strain curve to compare the
strain energy capacity of the geotextile with the results obtained from wide width
tensile test carried out at a constant rate of strain of 10%/min. As discussed
previously for nonwoven geotextiles, the results were not significantly affected by
changing the strain rate. Hence the deviation between two load–strain curves having
average strain rates of 10%/min and 14%/min for CBR puncture and wide width
tensile test, respectively, can be neglected. Therefore, the area under tension–strain
with the average strain rate of 14%/min in CBR puncture test can be used to
compare with the strain energy capacity obtained from wide width tensile tests which
was carried out at the strain rate of 10%/min. The uniaxial tensile-strain and
axisymmetric tensile-strain curves of the geotextile at a strain rate of 10%/min
obtained from wide width tensile test and CBR puncture test, respectively, are
typically plotted in Fig. 7. The axisymmetric tensile-strain of geotextile obtained
from CBR puncture tests are interpreted by the proposed method and Cazzuffi’s
empirical equation, respectively. The deviation of the strain between the axisym-
metric and the uniaxial conditions due to the increment of the strain in the geotextile
depends on the loading condition and the stress state. However, at the failure state,
the strain energy storage in the geotextile by the same applied strain rate for
developing the failure condition should be the same. This is one of the concepts of
the ‘‘Isochronous Strain Energy’’ (McGown et al., 1998; McGown and Khan, 1999).
The comparison of strain energy capacity of TS20, TS40 and TS65 obtained from
wide width tensile test (uniaxial tensile test) and CBR puncture test (axisymmetric
tensile test) interpreted by the proposed method and using Cazzuffi’s strain equation
are shown in Fig. 8 and tabulated in Table 4. The load–strain curves of geotextile in
CBR puncture test interpreted by the proposed method can yield the value of strain
energy capacity at break close to the value obtained from wide width tensile tests at
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 309

the same strain rate. Thus, the axisymmetric load–strain behavior of geotextile under
CBR puncture test can be reasonably interpreted by the proposed method. In Fig. 8,
there is some difference between the strain energy capacities at failure condition

Fig. 7. Comparison of tension–strain of TS20 at strain rate of 10%/min.

Fig. 8. Comparison of strain energy capacity of TS20 at strain rate of 10%/min.

310 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Table 4
Comparison of strain energy capacity obtained from CBR puncture test and wide width tensile test

Method of analyze load–strain curve Strain energy capacity

TS20 TS40 TS65

Proposed method (Axisymmetric tensile) 334.2 518.2 686.3

Cazzufi (1986) formula 171.5 285.9 370.9
Wide width tensile test (Uniaxial tensile) 355.5 417.0 926.8

obtained from axisymmetric and uniaxial tensile loading which can be acceptable
due to the difficulty in the simulation and the effect of slightly changing the direction
of tensile force in the geotextile under CBR puncture test during the testing process.
Actually, during the puncture process the geotextile plane becomes slightly curved
between the edge of puncture rod and the circular clamps. It is not exactly as a
diagonal line between the edge of puncture rod and the circular clamps as assumed.

7. Nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles

7.1. Axisymmetric tensile load–strain behavior

The test results produced a proposed suitable method to interpret the tensile load–
strain behavior of nonwoven geotextile samples under CBR puncture tests in the
form of tensile load–strain curve of geotextile under axisymmetric loading. The
stiffness of geotextile under axisymmetric loading condition can be determined from
this curve and then applied for design of geotextile reinforcement under such
condition. The results of CBR puncture test in the form of axisymmetric tensile load
versus strain interpreted by the proposed method are shown in Fig. 9 for the different
grades of nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles consisting of TS20, TS40 and TS65.
The secant modulus (or stiffness) for individual grade of geotextile under
axisymmetric condition can be determined from Fig. 9 and applied for design of
the geotextile reinforcement under such condition.

7.2. Axisymmetric stress–strain behavior

The result of CBR puncture test in the form of load–strain as shown in Fig. 10
indicated that the slope of nonlinear load–strain curve of TS20, TS40, TS65 are quite
different from each other. From these curves, the stiffness of the individual grade of
geotextile at a given strain can be determined. However, when the tensile load (in
kN/m) is divided by the thickness (in m) geotextile sample, the results can be
described in the form of tensile stress–strain behavior as in Fig. 10. The stress–strain
curves of the different grades of nonwoven needle-punched geotextile occur in a
narrow band. In order to facilitate for design, a suitable average stress–strain curve
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 311

representing several grades of low strength, nonwoven geotextile can be described as

shown in Fig. 10. For finite element analyzes of geotextile reinforcement, this
nonlinear stress–strain behavior can be simulated by a bilinear curve having

Fig. 9. Axisymmetric tension–strain of TS20, TS40 and TS65 interpreted by the proposed method.

Fig. 10. Axisymmetric stress–strain behavior of nonwoven, needle-punched geotextile.

312 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Table 5
In-isolation stiffness of nonwoven needle-punched geotextile Polyfelt TS under axisymmetric load
condition

Material Thickness Slope of bilinear curve In-isolation axisymmetric

(mm) (kN/m2) stiffness (kN/m)

e52:5% e42:5% e52:5% e42:5%

2
TS20 (125 g/m ) 1.2 180 000 24 000 216 29
TS20 (180 g/m2) 1.7 180 000 24 000 306 41
TS20 (285 g/m2) 2.5 180 000 24 000 450 60

intersection at the strain of 2.5% as shown by the continuous and dashed lines in
Fig. 10. The stiffness of the geotextile under axisymmetric loading conditions can
also be determined from the slope of this bilinear curve by multiplying with the
corresponding thickness of geotextile sample. The stiffness of nonwoven needle-
punched geotextiles under axisymmetric conditions obtained from the bilinear curve
is shown in Table 5.

8. In-soil test results

8.1. Modified CBR test

The modified CBR test aims to simulate the wheel load on an unpaved road over a
weaker subgrade. A modified CBR test mold based on the idea from modified CBR
design method of US Army Corps of Engineers was introduced in this study. A
modified cylindrical mold with a diameter of 300 mm and a height of 230 mm was
made to investigate the behavior of sand–clay system reinforced and unreinforced
with geotextiles. The size of the mold of the modified CBR test is larger than the
conventional CBR testing method to minimize the boundary effect. From the
numerical analysis result, the plastic zone expand to a distance of approximately 1.0
D from the center of the footing and to a depth of 1.5 D under the foundation, where
D is the diameter of the circular footing (Taiebat and Carter, 2000). Therefore, the
boundary condition of this testing system has little effects to the result of the
modified CBR test.
The mold has an upper and lower sections with heights of 50 and 180 mm,
respectively, as shown in Fig. 11. The 30 mm wide flanges were welded to the upper
and lower sections to clamp and bolt the geotextile in place for the fix-end geotextile
case of the test. The lower part of the mold contained undisturbed soft or weathered
clay representing a weak subgrade soil. The upper part contained compacted silty
sand representing the subbase soil layer. The sand layer was compacted at water
content of 13% and dry density of 17 kN/m3 corresponding to 90% standard Proctor
compaction in wet side of optimum in two equal lifts. A Marshall compactor
hammer with a weight of 45.3 N falling freely from 457 mm height was used to apply
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 313

Fig. 11. Test set-up and sketch of modified apparatus.

51 blows per lift. This number of blows per lift was calculated based on equal energy
with standard Proctor test.
Prior to CBR testing, a surcharge equivalent to 5.3 kPa was applied on top the
compacted sand layer by placing 11 circular steel plates having diameter of 298 mm
and thickness of 6.2 mm (Fig. 11). The center of each plate has a circular hole with a
52 mm diameter to facilitate the penetration of the 50 mm CBR plunger. The applied
force and vertical displacement of the plunger was recorded by the automatic data
acquisition system.

8.2. Sand over soft and weathered clay layers

To investigate the bearing capacity of the unreinforced sand–clay system under

axisymmetric loading, two tests of modified CBR were carried out on 50 mm
thickness of compacted silty sand over 180 mm thickness of weathered clay
(Su ¼ 25 kPa). The other two tests were done using soft clay (Su ¼ 12 kPa) as the
subgrade soil. The undrained shear strength values of weathered clay and soft clay
were obtained from corrected field vane shear test before the undisturbed sampling.
The applied force and vertical displacement (uy ) were recorded. The tests results are
shown in Fig. 12. The shapes of the load-displacement curves fall into two distinct
portions. The applied load becomes reasonably constant or slightly decrease at
vertical displacement (uy ) of the puncture rod greater than 5 mm. It is equivalent to
314 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Fig. 12. Modified CBR test results of sand over clay (no geotextile reinforcement).

displacement ratios (uy =d) greater than about 10%. The term displacement ratio
(uy =d) is defined as a fraction of the diameter of puncture rod.

8.3. Geotextile in sand and soft and weathered clay interfaces

A series of modified CBR tests were carried out with a reinforced geotextile layer
placed at the interface between the compacted silty sand and undisturbed weathered
clay layer in two cases of fix- and free-end geotextile reinforcement. Three grades of
nonwoven needle-punched geotextile such as: TS65 (285 g/m2), TS40 (180 g/m2) and
TS20 (125 g/m2) were used. The reinforced geotextile TS65 was used with two cases
of weak subgrade soils i.e. weathered clay (Su ¼ 25 kPa) and soft clay (Su ¼ 12 kPa),
respectively. The typical results are shown in Fig. 13 for TS65. With the presence of
geotextile, the shapes of all load-displacement curves are similar. None of the curves
exhibited a peak load. In the initial stages, the applied load increased nonlinearly
with the vertical displacement but as the displacement ratio increased, the applied
load increased at a virtually constant rate. The slope of the curves is greatest at
vertical displacements smaller than 5 mm or displacement ratio below 10%.
The load-displacement curves obtained from fix- and free-end reinforcement cases
are quite similar in terms of footing settlement. The difference appears at the vertical
displacement greater than 15 mm (equivalent to displacement ratios beyond of 30%)
and become clear as a large displacements occurs. In the free-end case, the same
trend to increase bearing capacity of sand–clay system as in fix-end case when the
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 315

Fig. 13. Modified CBR test results of soft clay (Su ¼ 12 kPa) overlain by sand reinforced with TS65.

vertical displacement increased. However, the load-displacement curves recorded

from free-end modified CBR tests seem to be less stable than the fix-end cases. This
behavior can be attributed to the slippage of the geotextile inclusion in the soil.
Therefore, the main comparisons and investigations are based on the fix-end test
results.

8.4. Comparison between unreinforced and reinforced sand over weathered clay system

The load-displacement curves obtained from unreinforced and reinforced sand

over weathered Bangkok clay (Su ¼ 25 kPa) with different grades of geotextile TS20,
TS40, TS65 are plotted in Fig. 14. These results have confirmed the findings of a
number of previous investigations by showing the improvement of the bearing
capacity of the sand–clay system when a layer of nonwowen, needle-punched
geotextile was placed between the two soil interfaces. The relative bearing capacity
factors (Fr =Fu ) versus the relative displacement ratio (uy =d) are shown in Fig. 15.
The relative bearing capacity factor (Fr =Fu ) was calculated as fraction of the applied
load in the case of with reinforcement (Fr ) and without reinforcement (Fu ) at a given
displacement ratio. The displacement ratio (uy =d) is defined as a fraction of the
vertical displacement (uy ) and the diameter (d) of the puncture rod. The
improvement in applied load is more pronounced at the vertical displacement ratios
beyond about of 20%. The effects of different grades of geotextile in the
improvement bearing capacity can be recognized at the displacement ratios greater
316 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Fig. 14. Compared the modified-CBR test results of weathered clay (Su ¼ 25 kPa) overlain by sand
reinforced with different grades of geotextiles.

than about of 30%. The relative bearing capacity factor of TS65, TS40 and TS20 is
the same at about 1.35 at the displacement ratio of 25%. Beyond of the displacement
ratio of 30%, the difference in the relative bearing capacity between the grades of
geotextile were recorded and confirmed.
Comparing the improvement predicted due to the reinforcement by Giroud and
Noiray (1981) method, the bearing capacity is increased by the membrane effect from
elastic (pcu ) to the ultimate bearing capacity (2 þ p). Similarly, in Steward et al.
(1977) method, the bearing capacity factor (Nc ) increased from 2.8 to 5 due to
reinforcement for rut depth less than 50 mm. The relative bearing capacity factor
(Fr =Fu ) were calculated as a fraction of the applied load in the case of reinforced (Fr )
and unreinforced (Fu ) at a given displacement ratio, where the displacement ratio
(uy =d) is defined as a fraction of the vertical displacement (uy ) and the diameter (d) of
the puncture rod. The relative bearing capacity factor (Fr =Fu ) is of about 1.6 and 1.7,
when using Giroud and Noiray (1981) method and Steward et al. (1977) method,
respectively. Barenberg et al. (1980) also proposed the allowable subgrade stress
levels could be increased by a factor of about 1.8 compared to the unreinforced case.
In these methods, the relative bearing capacity factor is assumed to be independent
of the grades or types of geotextile and the rut depth.
The relative bearing capacity factor obtained from the test results is illustrated in
Fig. 15. The displacement ratio varied depending on which grade of geotextile was
selected. Thus, the relative bearing capacity factor can be different depending on the
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 317

Fig. 15. Relation of bearing capacity of weathered clay (Su ¼ 25 kPa) overlain by sand reinforced with
different grades of geotextiles.

type of geotextile used. The effect of different grades of geotextile, which is different
in strength and deformation characteristic, on the improvement of bearing capacity
is not included in the existing design methods. Therefore, the relative bearing
capacity factor can be used to preliminary select the suitable grades of geotextile for
design in the geotextile reinforced unpaved road under traffic load corresponding to
the allowable rut depth.

9. Finite element modeling

9.1. Finite element results

The PLAXIS finite element program version 7.1 was utilized (Brinkgreve and
Vermeer, 1998). The finite element modelling of modified CBR test for unreinforced
case was carried out first. Subsequently, the FE simulation was applied to the
reinforced sand over weathered clay with three different types of geotextile, namely:
TS20, TS40 and TS65.
The soil was modelled by 15-noded triangular elements. The soil–geotextile
interface was considered by using 10-noded interface elements. The Mohr–
Coulomb’s elastic perfectly plastic model was used for both soil and soil–geotextile
318 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

interface. The 5-noded bar elements using elastic stress–strain relation were
employed for the geotextile reinforcement. The finite element analysis was carried
out by applying vertical prescribed displacements of 30 mm and zero horizontal
prescribed displacement on top of the loading beam elements to simulate the
puncturing process. A beam element with high rigidity was used to model
the puncture rod. It was necessary to limit the applied displacement to 30 mm in
the finite element calculation in order to avoid excessive element distortions in the
area close to the footing.
The back-analysis of the modified-CBR test by using numerical analysis without
reinforcement were carried out to determine the suitable parameters and to
investigate the influence of the boundary condition. The compacted silty sand layer is
modeled using the Mohr–Coulomb’s elastic-perfectly-plastic model with the Poison’s
ratio of 0.33, friction angle and cohesion of compacted silty sand layer were adopted
from the previous studies (Zou, 1994; Parwaiz, 1994; Long, 1997). The dilation angle
is obtained from the relation between the dilation angle and the internal friction
angle as follows (Bolton, 1986):
C ¼ 0:8ðfmax  fcrit Þ; ð5Þ
where C is dilatancy angle and fmax is maximum internal friction angle and fcrit is
internal friction angle at critical state condition 308 (Brinkgreve and Vermeer, 1998).
The elastic modulus of the compacted silty sand was obtained from the back-
analysis of the displacements. The undrained shear strengths of weathered and
soft clay were obtained from corrected in-situ vane shear test results. The
undrained modulus of Bangkok clay can be correlated to field vane shear strength
as follows:
Eu ¼ aSuv ; ð6Þ
where Eu is the undrained modulus of soil and a is the correlation factor between 70
and 300 (Balasubramaniam and Brenner, 1981) and Suv is undrained shear strength.
The value elastic modulus was obtained from back-analysis of the displacement for
the modified CBR mold without reinforcement.
For the modeling of the geotextile, the stress–strain behavior at soil-interface is
simulated by elastic-perfectly-plastic model. The model parameters at soil interface
can be generated from that soil using the interaction coefficient Ri , defined as the
ratio of shear strength of soil structure interface to corresponding shear strength of
soil (Brinkgreve and Vermeer, 1998) as follows:
tan d ¼ Ri tan f; ð8Þ

ci ¼ Ri c; ð9Þ

Gi ¼ R2i G; ð10Þ
where G is shear modulus of the soil that is in contact with the reinforcement, Gi is
shear modulus of interface element, Ri is interface coefficient, c is shear strength of
the soil that is in contact with reinforcement, ci shear strength of interface element, f
is angular of friction of soil contact with reinforcement and d is angular of friction of
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 319

Table 6
Selected parameters for soils in FEM analysis

Materials Model c0 (kPa) f0 (8) Eref (kPa) n0 c0 (8) gt (kN/m3)

Compacted silty sand M-C 10 30 15 960 0.33 0 19.2

Weathered clay M-C 25 0 7884 0.35 0 16.3
Soft clay M-C 12 0 3780 0.35 0 15.1

Table 7
Selected stiffness of geotextile in FEM analysis

Material Stiffness of geotextile (kN/m)

TS20 TS40 TS65

Strain e52:5% 224 317 410

Strain e52:5% 32 45 60

interface element The magnitude of interaction coefficient (Ri ) for all grades of
geotextile were 1.0–0.3 for sand-geotextile interface and clay-geotextile interface,
respectively, as obtained from Long et al. (1997) and Long (1997). The selected
parameters for the geotextile in FEM back-analysis are shown in Table 6.
The selected stiffness for the geotextile in FEM back-analyzes are shown in Table
7. The finite element meshes and applied boundary conditions to simulate the
puncturing process in modified CBR tests are illustrated in Fig. 16. The results in the
finite element analyzes of unreinforced and reinforced cases are typically shown, in
Figs. 17–19, in the form of applied load versus vertical displacement relations. These
results indicated that the PLAXIS program could be used successfully in modeling
the unreinforced and geotextile reinforced sand over soft subgrade in unpaved roads.
The finite element results are seen to provide a reasonable agreement with the
experimental data measured from modified CBR test. The confining effect to the
geotextile from transient vehicle wheel loads could be much less than the uniform
permanent loads and may not significantly affect the in-soil stiffness in the
underlying geotextile reinforcement. Moreover, the confining pressure on geotextile
interface caused by the thickness of subbase soil layer overlying the geo-
textile reinforcement in unpaved road is small and may not affect the in-soil
geotextile stiffness. Thus, the in-air stiffness of geotextile under axisymmetric loading
obtained from the proposed method can be suitably used for design of geotextile
reinforced unpaved road.

9.2. Mechanism of geotextile reinforced unpaved road over soft subgrade

The improvement in the bearing capacity of soil–geotextile system and the

mechanism of geotextile reinforced in unpaved road can also be investigated from
FEM analysis. The results of the finite element analyzes of the unreinforced and
320 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Fig. 16. Finite element mesh of modified-CBR test. (a) Sand–clay, (b) sand–clay-fix-end geotextile,
(c) sand–clay-free-end geotextile.

Fig. 17. FEM prediction versus laboratory tests results of clay overlain by sand.

reinforced case compared with the testing results are illustrated in Figs. 20 and 21.
When a vertical load is applied at the surface of the subbase layer, it causes high
horizontal as well as vertical stress, under the loaded area. The soil under vertical
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 321

Fig. 18. FEM predictions versus laboratory test results of soft clay (Su ¼ 12 kPa) overlain by sand
reinforced with TS65.

Fig. 19. FEM predictions versus laboratory test results of weathered clay (Su ¼ 25 kPa) overlain by sand
reinforced with TS65.
322 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Fig. 20. Typical deformed mesh of modified CBR test on weathered clay overlain by sand without
geotextile.

Fig. 21. Typical deformed mesh of modified CBR test on weathered clay overlain by sand with geotextile.
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 323

loaded area tends to move laterally. In the unreinforced case, the high horizontal
displacement occurred in the subbase soil layer. The resulting horizontal thrust in the
soil is partly resisted by the horizontal stress in the fill outside the loaded area, but
also resulted from the outward shear stresses on the surface of the clay below. The
presence of such outward shear stresses reduced the appropriate bearing capacity
factor for the clay.
With the presence of geotextiles, the horizontal shear stresses are carried by the
geotextile reinforcement through the reinforcement tension. Consequently, only
the vertical stresses are mainly transmitted to the underlying subbase layer. Thus, the
horizontal displacements are also reduced. The vertical loads are also partially
supported by the deformed geotextile through the membrane effect. The different
tensile force in geotextile at the same value of vertical displacement of puncture rod
obtained from FEM results are shown in Fig. 22. The effects of the different grades

Fig. 22. The tensile force in different grades of geotextile at same footing displacement from FEM
analysis.

Fig. 23. Typical deformed of geotextile in FEM analysis.

324 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Fig. 24. Comparison of horizontal displacement between unreinforced and reinforced with TS65 from
FEM analysis. (a) Sand–clay, (b) sand–geotextile–clay, (c) comparison of horizontal displacements.
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 325

of geotextile are illustrated. The typical deformation of geotextile under vertical load
obtained from FEM analysis is shown in Fig. 23. To investigate the reduction of
horizontal displacement in subbase layer, the typical FEM results of the horizontal
displacement at the cross-section beneath the edge of puncture rod in the
unreinforced and reinforced cases are plotted in Fig. 24. These results indicate that
the horizontal displacement in the reinforced case is divided into two zones by the
geotextile layer. This effect is transferred to the deeper level under the geotextile layer
and reduced the horizontal displacement in the subbase soil compared with the
unreinforced case. The transmission effect to the underlying layer allowed the full
mobilization of the bearing capacity. Therefore, the bearing capacity of soil–
geotextile system is increased.
The finite element analyzes described previously illustrated well the tendency of
the reinforcement to reduce the magnitude of the shear stress transmitted to the
subgrade as well as the membrane mechanism that becomes increasingly important
at large deformations. The axial stiffness of the reinforcement becomes, however, an
important consideration if large tensions are to develop at small rut depths. The
results of the investigation also explain why the reinforcement is able to provide an
improvement in road performance and the importance of geotextile separation
cannot be denied.

Fig. 25. Comparison of increase in the applied force due to membrane effect calculated by applying
Giroud and Noiray (1981) method using EAxisymmetric and EUniaxial .
326 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

9.3. Increase of bearing capacity due to membrane effect

The comparison between the calculated results of the membrane support using
axisymmetric stiffness and uniaxial stiffness obtained using Giroud and Noiray
(1981) method are plotted in Fig. 25 for geotextiles TS20 and TS40. These results
are compared with the modified CBR test results from this study. It was observed
that the membrane force does make a significant contribution to the increase in
the bearing capacity of the soil–geotextile system. The results indicated that the value
of the geotextile stiffness under axisymmetric condition provide a more reasonable
result than when using uniaxial stiffness. However, the predicted value using Giroud
and Noiray’s solution overpredicted the vertical displacement because it is based
on plane strain system. Therefore, the significant improvements in the load carrying
capacity of unpaved roads due to membrane action have been confirmed and
the effect of the different grades of the geotextile in increasing the bearing capacity
of the soil–geotextile system has been demonstrated.

10. Conclusions

The in-air stiffness under the axisymmetric loading condition of nonwoven

needle-punched geotextile TS20, TS40 and TS65 can be determined from
the corresponding tensile load–strain curve obtained from CBR puncture
tests which are interpreted by the proposed method based on the strain energy
capacity concept. The stress–strain behavior under the axisymmetric loading
condition of all grades of nonwoven needle-punched geotextile can be represented
by an average stress–strain curve and also simulated by a bilinear curve. The stiffness
under such condition of individual grade of geotextile can also be determined
from this bilinear curve by multiplying with the corresponding thickness of
each grade. The contact area of wheel load in unpaved roads can be assumed
to be uniform distributed as an equivalent ‘‘circular distributed load’’. Consequently,
the loading from individual wheels is approximated to an axisymmetric rather than
a plane strain loading. This paper has confirmed the findings of a number of previous
investigations by showing that the bearing capacity of a sand layer over a soft
clay subgrade is increased by the incorporation of a layer of geotextile at the
soil–clay interface. The calculated results in the form of additional load due to
the presence of the geotextile using an axisymmetric stiffness have demonstrated
a significant contribution of membrane action by the different grades of geotextile
on the increase in bearing capacity of soil–geotextile system. No significant difference
has been observed between in-air and in-soil stiffness of geotextile reinforced
unpaved roads. Thus, the in-air stiffness of geotextile under axisymmetric loading
condition obtained from the proposed method can be applied for design of geotextile
reinforced unpaved road under traffic load. The relative bearing capacity
factor obtained in this study which has considered the effect of different types
of geotextile can be used to preliminary select the grades of nonwoven
needle-punched geotextile corresponding to the allowable rut depth in the
 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328 327

design of unpaved road. The PLAXIS finite element program was applied
successfully in modeling the unreinforced and reinforced sand over weak subgrade.
The results of finite element analyzes has confirmed the improvement in the load
carrying capacity of unpaved roads due to membrane action and the effect of the
axial stiffness of geotextile even at small rut depth. The importance of geotextile
separation cannot be denied.

References

ASTM D4595-86, 1994. Standard test method for tensile properties of geotextiles by the wide-width strip
method. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4, Vol. 04.09, pp. 38–45.
Balasubramaniam, A.S., Brenner, R.P., 1981. Consolidation and Settlement of Soft Clay, Soft Clay
Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Barenberg, E.J., Dowland, J.H., Hales, J.H., 1980. Evaluation of soil-aggregate system with Mirafi fabric.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, USA.
Bolton, M.D., 1986. The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 36, 65–78.
Brinkgreve, R.B.J., Vermeer, P.A., 1998. Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analyses, Version 7.1.
Balkema Printers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
BS6906: Part 4, 1989. British Standard Methods of Test for Geotextiles, Determination of Puncture
Resistance (CBR Puncture Test), British Standards Institution, UK.
Cazzuffi, D., Venesia, S., 1986. The mechanical properties of geotextiles: Italian standard and
interlaboratory test comparison. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Geotextiles,
Vienna, Vol. 3, pp. 695–700.
Douglas, R.A., 1993. Stiffness of geosynthetics-built unpaved road structures: experimental programme,
analysis and results. Proceedings of the Geosynthetics’93, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 65–79.
Fannin, R.J., Sigurdsson, O., 1996. Field observations on stabilization of unpaved roads with
geosynthetics. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122 (7), 544–553.
Giroud, J.P., Noiray, L., 1981. Geotextile-reinforced unpaved road design. Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE 107 (9), 637–659.
Hausmann, M.R., 1987. Geotextiles for unpaved roads}a review of design procedures. Geotextile and
Geomembranes 5 (3), 201–237.
Long, P.V., 1997. Behavior of geotextile reinforced embankment on soft ground. Doctoral Dissertation
No. GE-96-1, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Long, P.V., Bergado, D.T., Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1997. Interaction between soil and geotextile
reinforcements. Proceedings of the First ASCE Conference of Geo-Institute (Geo Logan’97), Utah,
USA, pp. 372–393.
Maneecharoen, J., 1997. Factors affecting the laboratory testing of geotextiles. M. Eng. Thesis GE-96-13,
School of Civil Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
McGown, A., Andrawes, K.Z., Wilson-Fahmy, R.F., Brady, K.C., 1981. Strength testing of geotechnical
fabrics. Supplementary Report 703, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, UK.
McGown, A., Andrawes, K.Z., Pradhan, S., Khan, A.J., 1998. Limit state design of geosynthetics
reinforced soil structure. The Proceeding of Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta,
Vol. 1, pp. 143–178.
McGown, A., Khan, A.J., 1999. The design of geosynthetic reinforced soil structures ‘‘Problems and
solution’’. The Proceeding of Pre-Conference Symposium on Ground Improvement and Geosynthetics,
Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 1–22.
Parwaiz, M., 1994. Triaxial and shear box test on sand. M. Eng. Thesis No. GT-93-8, School of Civil
Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.
Resl, S., Werner, G., 1986. The influence of nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles on the ultimate bearing
capacity of the subgrade, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna,
Vol. 4, pp. 1009–1013.
328 D.T. Bergado et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (2001) 299–328

Steward, J., Williamson, R., Mohney, J., 1977. Guidelines for Use of Fabrics in Construction and
Maintenance of Low-Volume Roads, USDA, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Taiebat, H.A., Carter, J.P., 2000. Numerical studies of the bearing capacity of shallow foundations on
cohesive soil subjected to combined loading. Geotechnique 50 (4), 409–418.
Tsai, W.S., Savage, B.M., Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R., Allen, T.M., 1993. Evaluation of geotextiles as
separators in a full-scale road test. Proceedings of the Geosynthetics’93, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 35–48.
Zou, X.H., 1994. Triaxial test on sand with geotextile reinforcement, M.Eng. Thesis No. GT-93-5, School
of Civil Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.