No abstract

No abstract

Number of laboratory studies; have shown that geosynthetics reinforcement improves the performance of flexible pavement either by extending the service life or by savings in base course thickness. In spite of the good laboratory evidence for the geosynthetics reinforced flexible pavement, the mechanism that enables and governs the reinforcement function is still unclear [1]. Cyclic laboratory test has been one of the ways, used for assessing/evaluating the soil-geosynthetic interaction mechanisms. In such a tests contribution of geosynthetics properties, interface shear provided by geotextiles and interlocking provided by geogrids when used under or within the base course of flexible pavement are mainly concentrated. This paper reviews literature of laboratory model studies carried out by various researchers over the globe. This review indicates that, appreciable improvement due to geosynthetics reinforcement depends upon various factors viz. location of geosynthetics, geogrid aperture size, geosynthetics properties, mainly stiffness, variation of base course thickness and strength of subgrade soil. The findings of these laboratory studies are also correlated with the same nature of field studies finding.

At present, rapid urbanization results in enormous infrastructure growth, which led engineers to face construction challenges over soft soil or weak sub grade. Many soil stabilization approaches have been established as a viable way to overcome this hindrance. Among all the ground improvement techniques, geocell, being a three-dimensional form of geosynthetics, is often used to enhance the bearing capacity of soft soils. This paper discusses analytical methods developed by researchers Presto (2008) [1], Koerner (2012) [2], Avesani Neto et al. (2013) [3], and Sitharam and Hedge (2013) [4] to evaluate the bearing capacity of soil reinforced with geocell. The paper also compares the results of these methods with those of laboratory experiments conducted by Dash et al. (2003b) [5] and Emersleben and Meyer (2008) [6]. Researcher Dash et al. used cohesive soil in foundation, while Emersleben and Meyer used c-ɸ soil in foundation. The comparisons show that researchers Koerner and Presto underestimate the bearing capacity when compared with experimental results of both Dash et al. and Emersleben and Meyer. Whereas authors Avesani Neto et al. and Sitharam and Hegde offer the best fit with experimental results of Dash et al. But, with Emersleben and Meyer’s experimental results, Avesani Neto et al. gives the overestimated results, while Sitharam and Hegde partially agree for lower geocell aspect ratios beyond settlement equal to 35% of footing diameter.

No abstract