International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-017-0124-4

ORIGINAL PAPER

Interface Shear Strength Properties of Gravel Bases and Subgrades

with Various Reinforcements
G. Narendra Goud1,2 · B. Umashankar2

Received: 21 August 2017 / Accepted: 28 December 2017 / Published online: 12 January 2018
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Reinforcing pavement layers with geosynthetics improve the pavement performance significantly. In addition to the use of
geosynthetics, the hexagonal–steel–wire mesh has gained popularity as a reinforcing material in pavements. The interface
shear property of pavement material and reinforcement is an important input parameter in numerical modeling of the rein-
forced pavement system. In this study, the interface shear parameters of various pavement materials, namely poor subgrade,
fair subgrade, gravel base (GB), and gravel surface (GS) with geogrid and hexagonal–wire–mesh reinforcements is obtained
using large-size direct shear test apparatus. GS and GB mixes are selected from Indian rural roads specification of unpaved
surface and base layers of the pavement. In addition, the effect of the size of the aperture of geogrid reinforcement on interface
properties is studied by considering two types of biaxial geogrids of different aperture sizes. The interface shear strength
and interaction coefficients of different reinforcement types with pavement materials are also proposed. The interaction
coefficients of three reinforcement types with the pavement materials considered in the study are found to range from 0.82
to 1.45. The interface shear modulus of different interfaces considered in this study ranges from about 12165–57337 kPa/m
corresponding to normal streeses in the range of 30–90 kPa.

Keywords  Interface shear strength · Subgrade · Pavement base · Geogrid · Hexagonal–steel–wire mesh · Large-scale direct
shear test · Interface shear modulus

Introduction a pavement reinforcing material to reduce the thickness of

Reinforcing pavement layers using geosynthetics to improve
the performance of pavements has become very popular in
recent times. Geosynthetics have been used as reinforcement
in base layers of flexible pavements for more than 40 years
[1]. Geogrids are commonly used to reinforce the pavement
material to improve the performance and enhance the ser-
vice lifespan or to reduce the thickness of pavement com-
ponents [2]. In addition to geosynthetic reinforcements in
the form geocell and or geogrid, the hexagonal–steel–wire
mesh (HSWM) reinforcement is being widely accepted as
* B. Umashankar
buma@iith.ac.in
G. Narendra Goud
gnarendragoud@gmail.com
1
Department of Civil Engineering, MVSREC, Hyderabad,
India
2
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi,
Medak, Telangana 502285, India
the base layer [3, 4] and to resist tensile stresses and reduce
fatigue cracking in flexible pavements as interlayers [5–8].
The reinforcement can be placed at one or more locations in
a pavement system as follows—(a) at the interface of surface
course and base or binder course, to combat flexible pave-
ment fatigue failure (b) within the base or sub-base course,
to reinforce gravel base (GB) course that enhances pavement
life or to reduce the pavement thickness and (c) at the inter-
face of base or sub-base and subgrade soil, to reinforce or
to mechanically stabilize the subgrade. Figure 1 shows the
possible locations of placing the reinforcement within the
pavement structure. An important parameter used to evaluate
the efficiency of geogrid–reinforced pavement systems is the
interface shear strength coefficient [9]. The interface shear
strength of pavement layer and reinforcement is an important
input parameter to model the reinforced pavement system. In
numerical modeling of reinforcement with pavement materi-
als, the following properties of the interface are inputted—
friction, cohesion, dilation, normal and shear stiffness, and
tensile strength. The soil–reinforcement interface properties

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
7 
Page 2 of 14
Fig. 1  Possible locations of pavement reinforcement
depend on many factors such as the interaction mechanism
between soil and reinforcement (direct shear mode or pull-
out mode), the physical and mechanical properties of soil
(density, particle shape and size, particle-size distribution,
and moisture content), and properties of the reinforcement
(shape, geometry, tensile stiffness, and strength). The inter-
action between soil and grid reinforcement is complex, when
compared to that of the strip or sheet types of reinforcement
[10]. Bergado et al. [11] find that out of direct shear and
pullout interaction modes, most of the interaction modes
obtained from the analysis were of the direct shear under
working-stress condition. Triaxial and direct shear tests
are conventionally used to determine the shear parameters,
however, direct shear apparatus is commonly adopted to
determine the interface shear properties of reinforcement
and fill materials. Some researchers have used direct shear
apparatus and obtained interface properties using a device in
which a rigid block was kept as substratum particularly when
geotextile was placed at the interface [12–14] whereas other
researchers have tested interface properties using a device
in which both parts of the shear box were filled with soil
and the geogrid was placed at the horizontal shear plane to
simulate the field conditions [15–17]. Many studies on the
shear behavior of sands and sand mixes using direct shear
apparatus are available in the literature. Table 1 gives the
details of the studies conducted by different researchers.
However, studies on reinforcement interaction with granular
soils and aggregate mixes are very limited in the literature
[9]. Incorporation of reinforcement in the form of steel-grid
or welded-wire mesh and studies on their interaction with a
backfill of reinforced soil walls is well-documented by many
researchers [11, 16, 18–22]. In addition, use of HSWM in
asphalt pavements to combat fatigue failures are reported in
the literature [5]. However, studies on the interaction of the
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7
HSWM reinforcement with the pavement granular materials
are very limited. In the present study, four different types
of pavement materials (subgrade soils, blended aggregate
mixes) and two types of geogrids and HSWM reinforce-
ments are used to test interface properties. Large-size direct
shear apparatus was used keeping both the halves of a shear
box filled with pavement material, and interface tests were
performed with reinforcement placed at the middle coincid-
ing with the shearing plane.
Materials Used
Berg et al. [28] reported that base reinforcement in perma-
nent roadway applications can be effective even for sub-
grades with relatively high strengths [California Bearing
Ratio (CBR), as high as 8%]. Two types of subgrades, poor
and fair, are considered in the present study to determine
the interface shear behavior with different reinforcement
types. According to the “Guidelines for the design of flexible
pavements for low-volume rural roads” [29], poor subgrade
(PSG) and the fair subgrade (FSG) soils shall have a CBR in
the range 2–4 and 5–6%, respectively. In the present study,
local soil near the construction site of IIT Hyderabad, Kandi
campus, Sangareddy, Medak, India, was collected and tested
for various properties. The CBR of soil was determined at
different moisture contents (ranging from 6 to 16%) and
Standard Proctor compaction energy equal to 600 kN-m/m3
was used to identify suitable test conditions that simulate
the PSG and the FSG for low-volume flexible pavements.
Figure 2 shows the variation of subgrade CBR with a change
in moisture content and dry unit weight. It is evident from
the plot that with an increase in moisture content, CBR
decreases. To meet CBR criterion of subgrade soil for PSG
and FSG, the moisture contents were maintained within the
range of 13.5–14 and 12–12.5%, respectively. The standard
Proctor compaction energy was chosen to prepare both PSG
and FSG.
Gravel/soil aggregate surface (GS) and GB materials
used in this study were selected in accordance with Indian
Road Congress Specifications for Rural Roads (Ministry of
Rural Development [30]). These materials were obtained
by blending different sizes of crushed aggregate suitably
to meet the required gradation as per the specification. The
maximum size of aggregate in GS and GB was equal to 26.5
and 37.5 mm respectively. The properties of pavement mate-
rials used in this study are presented in Table 2. Grain-size
distribution obtained in accordance with ASTM D 422 [31].
Figure 3a shows the gradation curves of subgrade soil, GS,
and GB used in the study. Modified compaction tests were
conducted according to ASTM D1557 [32] to determine the
maximum dry unit weight and optimum moisture content
of the GS and GB materials, Fig. 3b shows the compaction
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7 Page 3 of 14  7

Table 1  Recent studies on reinforcement–fill interface characterization using direct shear apparatus

S. no. Authors Size of direct shear box used Material type Peak fric- Peak cohesion (kPa)
(mm) tion angle
(degrees)

1 Arulrajah et al. [15] 305, 305, 204 Foamed glass 54.2 22.7
Foamed glass with geogrid 53.6 20
2 Arulrajah et al. [23] 305, 305, 204 Recycled concrete aggregate 65 95
Recycled concrete aggregate 50 75
with biaxial geogrid
Crushed brick 57 87
Crushed brick with biaxial 45 67
geogrid
Reclaimed asphalt pavement 45 15
Reclaimed asphalt pavement 40 6.5
with biaxial geogrid
3 Umashankar et al. [16] 300, 300, 200 Sand 47.4 2.5
Sand with geogrid 38.6 15.5
Sand with metal grid 42.3 16.8
4 Nicks et al. [24] 305, 305, 204 Open-graded aggregates 37.2–57.5
5 Choudary and Krishna [13] 300, 300, 150 (bottom box fit- Sand 37.7
ted with rigid block) Sand with geotextile 18.5
6 Sayeed et al. [25] 304, 400, 200 Sand 42.5
Sand–geotextile 39.8–40.9
7 Kandolkar and Mandal [14] 305, 305,175 Stone dust 37 2.5
(bottom box fitted with rigid Stone dust with steel grid 29
block)
Stone dust with bamboo grid 30
8 Abu-Farsakh et al. [26] 300, 300, 64.5 Sand 41.5 0
Clay 23.8–27.1 13.2–16.7
Sand–geotextile 33.4 0
Clay–geotextile 21.7–23.7 7.3–10.7
Sand–geogrid 39.3–40.1 0
Clay–geogrid 13.3–30.7 8.4–14
9 Dafalla [27] 100, 100 (in plan area) Sand 38.6–43 0–8.8
Clay 33.4–38.7 60–112
Clay–sand 38.3–41 3.9–25.5
10 Kamalzare and Ziaie-Moayed 150, 150, 100 Clay soil–granular soil 42–46 53–74
[17] Clay soil–geogrid–granular soil 42–46 53–74
11 Voottipruex et al. [21] 940, 584, 559 Bangkok clay 16.1 20.8
Bangkok clay–zinc coated 50 22.3
hexagonal wire mesh
Bangkok clay–PVC coated 43.4 22.3
hexagonal wire mesh

curves. The optimum moisture content and maximum dry
unit weight for GS and GB found to be 8.75 and 7.75% and
21.56 and 22.64 kN/cu.m respectively. Modified Proctor
compaction effort was used to prepare the large-scale direct
shear test specimen with GS and GB.
Two nonwoven biaxial geogrids and HSWM were used as
reinforcing materials, a schematic view is shown in Fig. 4a–c
respectively. Table 3 provides the properties of reinforcing
materials. Two geogrid reinforcement types with similar
stiffness, but with different aperture sizes, were used in the
study, Fig. 4d show variation of the tensile force with strain
for both GG1 and GG2 geogrids tested in accordance with
ASTM D 6637. The interlock between geogrid and aggre-
gate depends on factors such as aggregate particle size, aper-
ture size, and the mechanical properties of the geogrid [33].
The ratio of the aperture size of geogrid to D ­ 85 of super-
stratum (GB) was found to be 1.6 and 2.64 for geogrids
GG1 and GG2, respectively. Christopher [34] states that the

13
7 
Page 4 of 14 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7

20.0 boxes and was tightly fixed to the lower box using a clamp-
19.5 CBR Dry unit wt. 14 ing system (Fig. 5a, b). Anticipating no excess pore water
19.0 12 pressure build-up within the specimen during shearing, the
rate of shearing was kept at 1 mm/min in accordance with
Dry unit wt. (kN/cu.m)

18.5
10 ASTM D 5321. Considering the possible locations of rein-
18.0
forcement within the pavement layer (Fig. 1), various test

17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
15.0
4 6 8 10 12 14
Water Content (%)
Fig. 2  Variation of subgrade  dry unit weight and CBR with water
content
aperture size shall be in the range of ­D50 (= 8.5 mm) to two
times ­D85 (= 50 mm) for better interlocking of aggregate
with reinforcement.
Test Setup and Procedure
In this study, large-size direct shear apparatus of box size
equal to 300 mm × 300 mm × 200 mm in length, width, and
height was used to measure the interface properties of PSG,
FSG, GB and GS with geogrid and steel wire mesh rein-
forcements (GG1, GG2, and SWM).
Test apparatus consisted of horizontal and vertical load
cells of capacity equal to 45 kN, and two linear variable
differential transducers (LVDTs) with a range of ± 50 mm.
LVDTs were used to measure the horizontal and vertical
deformations of the sample during the shearing process. The
measurements were automated through a Data Acquisition
System (DAQ). During interface testing, the reinforcement
was placed at the interface between the lower and upper
CBR (%)
8
combinations were selected in the study (Table 4).
6
4 Interface Testing Programme
2
A total of 27 interface tests were performed on specimens
16 18 20 with and without reinforcement. The normal loads applied
for each combination were taken as equal to 30, 60, and
90 kPa. ASTM D3080 [35] and ASTM D5321 [36] stand-
ard test procedures were adopted for interface tests without
and with reinforcement respectively. ASTM D5321 [36]
test procedure on interface test stipulates the box size to
be at least five times the opening size of the reinforcement.
In this study, this ratio was equal to 7.5 for GG1 and 4.54
for GG2 geogrid reinforcements, however, the ratio was
slightly lower (equal to 2.85) than the standard requirement
for steel–wire–mesh reinforcement. Hence, the interface
test results on steel–wire–mesh reinforcement using the test
setup adopted may have the scale or boundary effects.
Failure Criterion
According to ASTM D3080 [35], the specimen should be
sheared to horizontal displacement equal to at least 10% of
the box size (i.e., equal to 30 mm for 300 mm wide shear
box). Youwai et al. [22] followed failure criteria based on
the peak shear stress or the shear stress corresponding to the
end of the test (equal to approximately 15% of box size, i.e.,
corresponding to 45 mm). According to ASTM D5321 [36],
the test may be continued until the horizontal displacement
exceeds 75 mm or other value specified by the user or the
test may be stopped sooner if the shear stress has reached

Table 2  Properties of subgrade S. no. Material property Material type

soil, GS, and GB
Poor subgrade Fair subgrade Gravel surface Gravel base

1 D10 (mm) – – 0.15 –

2 D50 (mm) 0.1 0.1 3.5 8.5
3 D85 (mm) 1.5 1.5 15 25
4 CBR (%) 1–3% 3–5% – –
5 Liquid limit (%) 37.0 37.0 30.0 –
6 Plasticity index (%) 23.8 23.8 10.0 NP
7 Free swell index (%) 25.0 25.0 10.0 0
8 Moisture content (%) 13.5 12.0 8.7 7.7
9 Dry unit weight (kN/cu.m) 18.4 18.4 21.6 22.6

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7 Page 5 of 14  7

100 intercept were found to be equal to 20°, and 74 kPa, and 25°,
and 48 kPa for FSG and PSG, respectively. The subgrades
80 under consideration did not show clear peak but for hori-
Percentage finer (by weight)

zontal displacement beyond 20 mm (i.e., 6.7% of box size),

shear stress along the horizontal plane reaches a plateau
60
and there is no significant increase in horizontal stress. FSG
gives a higher shear strength compared to PSG (Fig. 7a).
40 Abu-Farsakh et al. [26] performed direct shear tests on
GB
GS two types of clay designated as Clay 25 and Clay 6 and
20 Subgrade reported shear strength parameters as 25.1° and 15.5 kPa,
MoRD limits-GB and 27.1° and 13.2 kPa for Clay 25 and Clay 6, respectively.
0 MoRD limits-GS The liquid limit and plasticity index of Clay 25 and Clay 6
0.1 1
Sieve size (mm)
10 were reported as 41 and 27, and 25 and 6%, respectively.
(a) Dafalla [27] reported friction angle in the range of 38.3°–41°
for sand–clay mixes at different water contents. Table 6 pre-
24 sents the values of basic and shear properties reported in the
Gravel surface literature for clay and sand–clay mixes. A comparison plot
23 Gravel base of shear strength of materials tested by Abu-Farsakh et al.
[26] and Dafalla [27] with present study is shown in Fig. 7b.
Dry unit wt. (kN/cu.m)

22 For the case of graded aggregate mixes compacted at

optimum water content using modified Proctor compac-
21 tion energy, the well-defined peak was observed within
10–15 mm horizontal displacement (3.3–5%). Friction angle
20 and cohesion intercept of GB and GS were found to be 70°
and 36 kPa, and 68° and 94 kPa, respectively. GB consisting
19 of higher maximum aggregate size (37.5 mm) gives higher
shear strength in comparison with the GS having lower
18 maximum aggregate size (26.5 mm). Peak friction angle
4 6 8 10 12 14
and cohesion reported by Arulrajah et al. [23] are 65° and
Moisture content (%)
95 kPa respectively for recycled concrete aggregate with the
(b) maximum aggregate size of 20 mm and similar experimental
setup. Nicks et al. [24] reported a friction angle of 57.5° for
Fig. 3  Pavement materials tested  a Gradation curves of subgrade, open-graded aggregates with maximum aggregate size equal
GB, and GS and b compaction curves of GB and GS
to 25.4 mm. GB exhibited a higher value of friction angle
in comparison with the values reported in the literature; it
a constant value. In this study, a criterion for failure was could be attributed to well-graded aggregate blend and large
decided based on the peak shear stress or 50 mm of horizon- size of aggregate. GS exhibited higher cohesion (94 kPa) in
tal displacement (~ 17% of box size) considering the limita- comparison with GB (36 kPa), the contributing factor being
tions of the equipment. the availability of more fines in GS.

Interface Shear Strength of GS, GB, PSG,

Results and Discussion
Shear Strength of PSG, FSG, GS, and GB
The large-size direct shear tests on the two aggregate mixes
(GS and GB) and two subgrades (PSG and FSG) were con-
ducted at the predetermined unit weight and moisture con-
tents, the results are presented in Table 5. Figure 6a–c show
the variation of shear stress along the horizontal shearing
plane and the horizontal displacement of the lower box at
normal stresses equal to 30, 60, and 90 kPa respectively.
The shear strength parameters friction angle and cohesion
and FSG with Geogrids and Steel–Wire–Mesh
Reinforcements
Interface shear testing of two geogrids of different aperture
sizes and hexagonal–steel–wire–mesh with different pave-
ment materials were performed under three normal stresses
equal to 30, 60, and 90 kPa to determine their interface shear
strength. A total 15 number of experiments were conducted
on reinforced interfaces alone. Figure 8a–c show the pho-
tographs of three types of reinforcements fixed to the shear
box at the shearing plane.

13
7 
Page 6 of 14 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7

Fig. 4  Schematic view of the

reinforcing materials a GG1,
b GG2, c SWM and d tensile
force variation with strain for
both the geogrids of GG1 and
GG2

(a) (b)
7

Tensile force (kN)

4

2
GG2
1
GG1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial strain (%)
(c) (d)

Table 3  Properties of reinforcing materials

S. no. Material property Material type
Geogrid1 (GG1) Geogrid2 (GG2) Steel–wire–mesh (SWM)

1 Aperture shape Square Square Hexagonal

2 Aperture size/mesh opening (mm) 40 66 105
3 Percent open area (area of openings/total area) (%) 84 84 91
4 Reinforcement material Polypropylene Polypropylene Steel
5 Tensile strength (MD/CMD) 20.27/17.37 kN/m 23.09/22.70 kN/m 380–550 N/mm2
6 Rib thickness (MD/CMD) (mm) 2.4/1.0 2.1/0.9 –
7 Rib width (MD/CMD) (mm) 2.4/3.7 4.4/5.6 –
8 Diameter of rod (wire mesh/transverse) (mm) – – 2.4/4.4
9 Spacing between transverse rods (mm) – – 175

MD machine direction, CMD cross machine direction

Figure 9a–c show the variation of interface shear stress
with a horizontal displacement corresponding to the three
normal stresses equal to 30, 60, and 90 kPa, respectively, of
GB–GG1–GB, GB–GG1–FSG, and GB–GG1–PSG inter-
faces. The interface shear stress curves followed similar
trend up to a horizontal displacement of 20 mm at low nor-
mal stress (i.e. 30 kPa) for the three cases under considera-
tion as shown in Fig. 9a.
For the two cases of the specimens prepared with
GB–GG1–FSG and GB–GG1–PSG interfaces, the shear
stress variation with displacement is very similar under three
normal stresses. Interface testing of reinforcement with FSG
substratum interface offers slightly higher shearing resist-
ance in comparison with PSG substratum interface. The
peak value of interface shear stress was reached within a
horizontal displacement of 5% with no significant change
thereafter.
For the case of GB–GG1–GB interface, a peak was
reached within a displacement of 5% of box size for higher
normal stress (90 kPa, Fig. 9c), whereas no well-defined peak
shear stress was observed at lower normal stresses (equal to
30 and 60 kPa, Fig. 9a, b) even at large displacement of the

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7 Page 7 of 14  7

Fig. 5  Interface shear test appa-

ratus details a Schematic view
of the direct shearing test with
reinforcement and b photograph
of reinforcement clamping

Table 4  Scheme of test S. no. Test designation Superstratum-substratum Reinforcement

combinations
1 PSG Poor subgrade–poor subgrade –
2 FSG Fair subgrade–fair subgrade –
3 GB Gravel base–gravel base –
4 GS Granular surface–granular surface –
5 GB–GG1–GB Gravel base–gravel base Geogrid1
6 GB–GG1–FSG Gravel base–fair subgrade Geogrid1
7 GB–GG1–PSG Gravel base–poor subgrade Geogrid1
8 GB–GG2–GB Gravel base–gravel base Geogrid2
9 GB–SWM–GB Gravel base–gravel base Steel wire mesh

Table 5  Shear strength Material Shear strength (peak/end of test) (kPa) Cohesion c, Friction
properties of granular mixes and (peak/end of angle ф,
subgrade soil σn = 30 σn = 60 σn = 90 test) (kPa) (peak/end
of test)
(degree)

GS 125 54 193 99 292 226 94 0 68 56

GB 181 81 222 155 331 272 36 0 70 68
FSG 82 56 102 81 104 90 74 42 20 30
PSG 61 51 77 81 89 88 48 35 25 32

box. Similar phenomenon was observed by Alfaro et al. [10] This phenomenon indicates the progressive mobilization of
within a normal stress range of 20–50 kPa for the reinforce- shear resistance throughout the interface zone.
ment–soil interface shear testing using a large-size device Figure  9d shows the Mohr–Coulomb shear strength
developed to conduct both pull-out and direct shear tests. envelopes at peak for the three cases under consideration.

13
7 
Page 8 of 14 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7

350 350
GB GB
300 GS GS

Shear strength (kPa)

300
250 FSG FSG
Shear stress (kPa)

250
PSG PSG
200 200
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 20 40 60 80 100

Horizontal displacement (mm) Normal stress (kPa)

(a) (a)

FSG (Present study) DS 1 [27] DS 3 [27]

350
GB PSG (Present study) Clay 25 [26] Clay 6 [26]

300 GS 150
FSG
Shear strength (kPa)
250 125
Shear stress (kPa)

PSG 100
200
75
150
50
100 25

50 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
0 Normal stress (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50
(b)
Horizontal displacement (mm)
(b) Fig. 7  Shear strength envelopes of PSG, FSG, GS, and GB a Mohr–
Coulomb shear strength envelopes  of pavement materials tested in
present study, and b comparison of shear strength of PSG and FSG
350 GB with test results from literature
300 GS
FSG
Shear stress (kPa)

250 The Interface friction angle and adhesion intercept for

PSG GB–GG1–GB interface were found to be 69° and 54 kPa.
200
It can be noticed that installation of geogrid increased the
150 apparent cohesion of the material from 36 to 54 kPa; how-
100 ever, it decreased the friction angle slightly. A similar phe-
nomenon was reported by Tutumluer et al. [33] at University
50 of Illinois, USA.
0 Interface friction angle and adhesion intercept for
0 10 20 30 40 50 GB–GG1–FSG and GB–GG1–PSG interfaces were found
Horizontal displacement (mm) as 50° and 42°, and 68 and 75 kPa, respectively. Sakle-
shpur et al. [9] reported peak interface friction angle and
(c) adhesion intercept values in the range of 8.8°–35.1° and
26.3–111.6  kPa respectively for soil–aggregate inter-
Fig. 6  Variation of shear stress with horizontal displacement for face reinforced with different types of geogrids. The
GB, GS, FSG and PSG corresponding to normal stresses equal to a shear strength of GB–GG1–GB interface was consider-
30 kPa, b 60 kPa and c 90 kPa
ably higher compared to the other two GG1 reinforced

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7 Page 9 of 14  7
Table 6  Values of basic and shear properties of clay and sand clay mixes from literature
Material Clay content Water content Dry density
(%) (%) (gm/cm3)
Clay 25 27.5 16.5 1.72
Clay 6 19 18.8 1.67
Sand–clay mixes (DS 1) 5 15 1.73
Sand–clay mixes (DS 3) 5 20 1.73
interfaces with substratum as FSG and PSG. This indicates
that the effect of infill material is predominant on interface
shear strength. Kamalzare et al. [17] reported interface
friction angle ranging from 42° to 46° and adhesion inter-
cept ranging from 53 to 74 kPa for clay soil–geogrid–gran-
ular soil interfaces. In this study, interface friction angle
was found to vary from 42° for PSG substratum to 69° for
GB substratum, while adhesion intercept was ranging from
75 kPa for PSG substratum to 54 kPa for GB substratum
reinforced with GG1. Table 7 summarizes the shear prop-
erties of different interfaces and reinforcements.
Figure 10a–c show the variation of shear stress with hori-
zontal displacement for two types of geogrids (GG1 and
GG2) and HSWM reinforcements under applied normal
stresses of 30, 60, and 90 kPa, respectively. It was observed
that the interface shear stresses of GB samples with rein-
forcement (GG1, GG2, and HSWM) increase with the hori-
zontal displacement up to a peak and exhibit perturbations
in shear stresses thereafter particularly at normal stresses 60
and 90 kPa as shown in Fig. 10b, c. These perturbations in
shear stresses have also been observed by Sakleshpur et al.
[9], Biabani and Indraratna [37] and Indraratna et al. [38].
The perturbations in shear stresses are due to the reorien-
tation of aggregate particles and changes in the degree of
interlocking of aggregate particles within the reinforcement
apertures of interface zone during shearing.
Influence of Percent Open Area of Reinforcement
on Interface Shear Strength
Reinforcements (geogrids and HSWM) are characterized by
a series of connected stiff ribs or knitted/welded wires and
regular shaped openings. Therefore, the interactions between
gravel mix and grid reinforcement may include the following
mechanisms: shear resistance (frictional resistance) between
gravel mix and the surface of the reinforcement ribs, shear
resistance of the gravel mix in the opening area, and passive
resistance against the reinforcement ribs or wires [38–40].
Liu et al. [39] states that passive resistance of the reinforce-
ment ribs is significantly influenced by percent open area
(OA) that dictates the mechanical interlocking of the aggre-
gate particles within the grid reinforcement openings, and
tensile strength of the transverse ribs. The value of frictional
Angle of friction Cohesion, (kPa) Reference
(degree)
25.1 15.50 Abu-Farsakh et al. [26]
27.1 13.20
40.7 11.77 Dafalla [27]
39.6 5.20
resistance is markedly affected by OA of the reinforce-
ment, and the optimum OA is reported to be in the range of
60–80% for sub-ballast [40]. Figure 10a–c show the variation
of shear stress with horizontal displacement for two types of
geogrids (GG1 and GG2) and HSWM reinforcements under
applied normal stresses of 30, 60, and 90 kPa, respectively. It
can be observed that shear stress of HSWM reinforced inter-
face was higher at all the normal stresses and significantly
higher in comparison with geogrid reinforced interface at
30 kPa normal stress, mainly due to higher percent OA of
91% for the HSWM compared to 84% for geogrid reinforced
interface and stiffness of steel wire. The higher interface
shear stress in the case of HSWM compared to geogrid could
be mainly attributed to high percent OA leading to enhanced
mechanical interlocking of aggregate particles against the
transverse ribs, in addition to tensile stiffness of HSWM
compared to geogrid reinforcement. The trend followed by
the geogrid reinforced interface shear stress curves was simi-
lar because of the same percent OA (84%) and similar tensile
strength (17–23 kN/m) for both the geogrids. Figure 10d
shows the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelops of the interfaces
at peak with different reinforcements.
Interaction Coefficient of Reinforcement
The interaction coefficient of reinforcement with soil is
defined as the ratio of the shear strength at the soil–rein-
forcement interface to the shear strength of the soil at the
same overburden condition (normal stress). Equation 1 is
used to evaluate the interaction coefficient of the reinforce-
ment [15, 17].
𝜂 = 𝜏reinforced /𝜏unreinforced (1)
where η is the interaction coefficient of reinforcement with
soil at a specified normal stress, τreinforced is the shear strength
of reinforced soil, and τunreinforced is the shear strength of
unreinforced soil. An interaction coefficient exceeding unity
represents the beneficial effect of reinforcement with effec-
tive interlocking in reinforced pavement systems. Table 8
presents the interaction coefficients of different reinforce-
ments at normal stress equal to 30, 60, and 90 kPa. The inter-
action coefficient for GG1 reinforced GB interface observed
to be in the range of 0.73–0.95 and it found to range from
13
7 
Page 10 of 14
Fig. 8  Photographs showing different reinforcement placed over
pavement layers a 40 mm aperture geogrid (GG1), b 66 mm aperture
geogrid (GG2), and c hexagonal aperture steel–wire–mesh (SWM)
0.78 to 1.16 for GG2 reinforced interface at selected normal
stresses, this indicates that effective interlocking and better
shear stress transfer with GG2 in comparison with GG1.
The interaction coefficient found to vary from 0.95 to 1.45
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7
for hexagonal–steel–wire–mesh reinforced interface under
normal stress ranging from 30 to 90 kPa. For the case of
geogrid reinforced interfaces, the interaction coefficient was
higher at 60 kPa normal stress in comparison with other two
normal stresses, while for the case of HSWM reinforced
interface, the interaction coefficient decreased with increase
in normal stress. Sakleshpur et  al. [9] reported average
peak interaction coefficients in the range of 0.93–1.48 for
subgrade–aggregate base interface with different types of
geogrids under normal stresses in the range of 50–200 kPa.
Kamalzare and Ziaie-Moayed [17] performed interface test-
ing on sand–geogrid–clay under different normal stresses,
water contents, and densities. They reported interaction coef-
ficient values in the range of 0.7–1.3. Abu-Farsakh et al. [26]
reported interaction coefficients in the range of 0.66–1.06
and 0.69–0.71 for Clay 25 and Clay 6 respectively with two
types of geogrid reinforcements considered in their study.
The coefficients were found to vary from 0.92 to 1.01 for
sand–geogrid interfaces [39]. The interface coefficients from
this study compared well with the studies reported in the
literature.
Interface Shear Modulus–Coulomb Friction Model
Coulomb friction model is typically used in modelling of
the reinforced pavements based on finite elements [41]. Fig-
ure 11a shows a schematic of the shear stress–displacement
response of the interface and Fig. 11b shows the schematic
of the interface shear strength versus normal stress of inter-
face. The relationship has an elastic region whose slope,
GI, is governed by a parameter Eslip. The slope of the elastic
portion of the shear stress–displacement curve of interface
is expressed by an interface shear modulus, GI, which has
units of kPa/m (Eq. 2).
𝜏max
GI =
Eslip (2)
where τmaxis the maximum shear stress, and Eslipis the inter-
face shear displacement parameter. Table 9 presents the val-
ues of interface shear modulus calculated using Eq. 2 for
different interfaces based on interface tests conducted on
various reinforcement types and pavement materials. Eslip is
taken from the plot of shear stress and shear displacement
of interface considered for a normal stress equal to 30, 60,
and 90 kPa.
Conclusions
Based on extensive testing of selected subgrade soil (FSG
and PSG), constituted GB aggregate mix (GB), gravel sur-
face aggregate mix (GS), and series of large-scale direct
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7 Page 11 of 14  7

350 350
GB-GG1-GB

Interface shear stress (kPa)

300

Interface shear stress (kPa)

300 GB-GG1-FSG
250 GB-GG1-PSG 250
200 200
150 150
100 100 GB-GG1-GB
50 50 GB-GG1-FSG
0 GB-GG1-PSG
0 10 20 30 40 50 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(a) (c)
350 GB-GG1-GB 350
GB-GG1-GB

Interface shear strength (kPa)

GB-GG1-FSG
Interface shear stress (kPa)

300 300
GB-GG1-FSG
250 GB-GG1-PSG
250 GB-GG1-PSG
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 20 40 60 80 100
Horizontal displacement (mm) Normal stress (kPa)
(b) (d)

Fig. 9  Variation of interface shear stress with horizontal displacement for GB–GG1–GB, GB–GG1–FSG and GB–GG1–PSG corresponding to
normal stresses equal to a 30 kPa, b 60 kPa, and c 90 kPa, and d Mohr–Coulomb interface shear strength envelopes at peak

Table 7  Shear properties of Interface Interface shear strength (kPa) (peak/end of test) Adhesion inter- Interface
different interfaces cept ca (kPa) friction
σn = 30 σn = 60 σn = 90 (peak/end of angle δ
test) (degree)
(peak/end
of test)

GB–GG1–GB 132 121 210 205 288 227 54 78 69 60

GB–GG1–FSG 105 77 135 102 175 165 68 27 50 56
GB–GG1–PSG 103 64 127 126 158 147 75 29 42 54
GB–GG2–GB 140 136 257 277 270 236 93 116 65 59
GB–SWM–GB 262 235 272 261 315 256 230 230 42 19

shear testing on interfaces with geogrid and HSWM rein- compaction effort were found to be 70° and 36 kPa,
forcements, the following conclusions are drawn. and 68° and 94 kPa, respectively. The shear strength
of graded GB with maximum aggregate size equal to
• Friction angle and cohesion intercept of the GB aggre- 37.5 mm was found to be higher than GS with maxi-
gate mix and the gravel surface aggregate mix at opti- mum aggregate size equal to 26.5 mm.
mum water content, compacted with modified Proctor

13
7 
Page 12 of 14 International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7

350 GB-GG1-GB 350

GB-GG2-GB
Interface shear stress (kPa)

Interface shear stress (kPa)

300 300
GB-SWM-GB
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100 GB-GG1-GB
50 50 GB-GG2-GB
0 0
GB-SWM-GB
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal displacement (mm) Horizontal displacement (mm)
(a) (c)
350 350

Interface shear strength (kPa)

Interface shear stress (kPa)

300 300
250 250
200 200
150 150
GB-GG1-GB GB-GG1-GB
100 100
GB-GG2-GB GB-GG2-GB
50 GB-SWM-GB 50
GB-SWM-GB
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 20 40 60 80 100
Horizontal displacement (mm) Normal stress (kPa)
(b) (d)

Fig. 10  Variation of interface shear stress with horizontal displacement for different reinforcements corresponding to normal stress equal to a
30 kPa, b 60 kPa, and c 90 kPa and d Mohr–Coulomb shear strength envelopes of GG1, GG2, and SWM with GB at peak

• Friction angle and cohesion intercept of the fair sub-
grade (with CBR ranging from 5 to 6%) and the poor
subgrade (with CBR < 3%) were obtained as 20° and
74 kPa, and 25° and 48 kPa, respectively.
• Interface shear strength of fair subgrade soil and GB
was higher compared to poor subgrade soil and GB
when reinforced with similar geogrid (GG1).
• Interface shear stress curves of GG1 and GG2 rein-
forced interfaces followed the similar trend when sub-
Table 8  Interaction coefficients for different reinforcements
Normal stress Interaction coefficient
σn = 30 kPa
Interface
 GB–GG1–GB 0.73
 GB–GG2–GB 0.78
 GB–SWM–GB 1.45
stratum and superstratum were of the same material
(GB), mainly due to same percent OA of geogrids.
• The peak interface shear strength of HSWM reinforced
interface was higher than that of the geogrid reinforced
interface, this is mainly attributed to the high percent
OA (91% compared to 84%) leading to enhanced passive
resistance in steel–wire–mesh reinforcement against the
ribs, and high tensile strength of steel–wire–mesh rein-
forcement.
• Interaction coefficients range from 0.73 to 1.16 for
geogrid reinforced interfaces, whereas it varies from
0.95 to 1.45 for HSWM reinforced interface under nor-
mal stress ranging from 30 to 90 kPa.
• Interface shear modulus of different interfaces consid-
σn = 60 kPa σn = 90 kPa ered in this study ranges from about 12,165–37,433,
15,018–54,440, and 19,773–57,337 kPa/m correspond-
ing to the normal stress equal to 30, 60, and 90 kPa
0.95 0.87
respectively.
1.16 0.82
1.23 0.95

13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7 Page 13 of 14  7

Acknowledgements  Authors would like to thank Strata Geosystems

(India) Pvt. Ltd. for supplying geogrids and Maccaferri Environmental
Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd. for supplying Road Mesh for experiments.
The first author would like to thank Head-CED and the Principal of
MVSR Engineering College, Hyderabad, for permitting to conduct
research work at IIT Hyderabad.

References
1. Bhosale SS, Ingle GS (2013) Geosynthetics reinforced flexible
pavement: gateway of the sustainable pavement. Indian Highw
41:6–15
2. Reck NC (2009) Mechanistic empirical design of geogrid rein-
forced paved flexible pavements. In: Jubilee symposium on poly-
mer grid reinforcement. Institute of Civil Engineers, London
3. Léonard D, Vanelstraete A, Parewyck S (2002) Structural design
of flexible pavements using steel netting as base reinforce-
ment. Int J Geomech 2(1):291–303. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1532-3641(2002)2:3(291)
4. Goud GN, Hariprasad C, Umashankar B (2016) Experimental
study on steel-wire-mesh reinforced flexible pavements. In: Geo-
Chicago 2016: sustainable materials and resource conservation.
ASCE Special Publication, Chicago, pp 1–10
5. Elseifi MA, Al-Qadi IL (2005) Effectiveness of steel reinforcing
nettings in combating fatigue cracking in new flexible pavement
systems. J Transp Eng 131(1):37–45. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-947X(2005)131:1(37)
6. Ibrahim SF, Ahmed NG, Jassem NH (2013) Experimental study
on surface steel-reinforcement for asphalt pavements. J Eng Dev
17(3):110–127
7. Romeo E, Montepara A (2012) Characterization of Reinforced
Asphalt Pavement Cracking Behavior using Flexural Analysis.
Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 53:356–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Fig. 11  Coulomb interface friction model a interface shear stress vs. sbspro.2012.09.887
Horizontal displacement, and b interface shear strength versus nor- 8. Al-Qadi IL, Elseifi Ma, Leonard D (2003) Development of an
mal stress (modified after Perkins et al. [41]) overlay design model for reflective cracking with and without steel
reinforcing nettings (with discussion). J Assoc Asphalt Paving
Technol 72:1–41
9. Sakleshpur VA, Prezzi M, Salgado R, Siddiki NZ, Choi YS (2017)
Table 9  Interface shear modulus of different interfaces at a three nor- Large-scale direct shear testing of the geogrid-reinforced aggre-
mal stresses gate base over weak subgrade. Int J Pavement Eng. https://doi.org
Interface Normal Peak shear Eslip (mm) Interface shear /10.1080/10298436.2017.1321419
stress stress (kPa) modulus, GI 10. Alfaro MC, Miura N, Bergado DT (1995) Soil-geogrid reinforce-
(kPa) (kPa/m) ment interaction by pullout and direct shear tests. Geotech Test J
18(2):157–167. https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10319J
GB–GG1–GB 30 132 10.0 13,168 11. Bergado DT, Youwai S, Teerawattanasuk C, Visudmedanukul P
60 210 14.0 15,018 (2003) The interaction mechanism and behaviour of hexagonal
wire mesh reinforced embankment with silty sand backfill on soft
90 288 12.0 24,004 clay. Comput Geotech 30(6):517–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/
GB–GG1– 30 105 8.0 13,088 S0266-352X(03)00054-5
MSG 60 135 5.5 24,514 12. Ingold TS (1984) A laboratory investigation of soil-geotextile fric-
90 175 7.0 25,043 tion. Ground Engineering V17, N8, P21–28. (January 01, 1985).
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22(5):164
GB–GG1– 30 103 8.5 12,165 13. Choudhary AK, Krishna AM (2014) Influence of different types
PSG 60 127 7.5 16,867 of soils on soil- geosynthetics interaction behavior. IJIRSET 3(SPI
90 158 8.0 19,773 4):60–68
GB–GG2–GB 30 140 5.0 28,086 14. Kandolkar SS, Mandal JN (2013) Direct shear tests on stone dust.
In: Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Roorkee,
60 257 7.0 36,686 pp 1–6
90 270 5.0 54,100 15. Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S, Maghoolpilehrood F, Samingthong
GB–SWM– 30 262 7.0 37,433 W, Du Y-J, Shen S-L (2015) Evaluation of interface shear strength
GB 60 272 5.0 54,440 properties of geogrid reinforced foamed recycled glass using a
large-scale direct shear testing apparatus. Adv Mater Sci Eng.
90 315 5.5 57,337 https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/235424

13
7 
Page 14 of 14
16. Umashankar B, Hariprasad C, Sasanka Mouli S (2015) Interface
Properties of Metal-Grid and Geogrid Reinforcements with Sand.
In: International foundations congress and equipment expo 2015,
San Antonio, pp 1–9
17. Kamalzare M, Ziaie-Moayed R (2011) Influence of geosynthetic
reinforcement on shear strength characteristics of two-layer sub-
grade. Acta Geotech Slov 8:39–49
18. Bergado DT, Lo K-H, Chai J-C, Shivashankar R, Alfaro MC,
Loren R, Anderson (1992) Pullout tests using steel grid rein-
forcements with low quality backfill. J Geotech Eng ASCE
118(7):1047–1063
19. Bergado DT, Chai JC, Abiera HO, Alfaro MC, Balasubramaniam
AS (1993) Interaction between cohesive-frictional soil and various
grid reinforcements. Geotext Geomembr 12(4):327–349. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(93)90008-C
20. Bergado DT, Teerawattanasuk C, Wongsawanon T, Voottipreux
P (2001) Interaction between hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement
and silty sand backfill. Geotech Test J 24(1):23–38
21. Voottipruex P, Bergado DT, Ounjaichon P (2000) Pullout and
direct shear resistance of hexagonal wire mesh reinforcement in
weathered Bangkok clay. Geotech Eng 31(1):43–62
22. Youwai S, Bergado D, Supawiwat N (2004) Interaction between
hexagonal wire reinforcement and rubber tire chips with and with-
out sand mixture. Geotech Test J 27(3):1–9
23. Arulrajah A, Rahman MA, Piratheepan J, Bo MW, Imteaz
MA (2014) Evaluation of interface shear strength properties of
geogrid-reinforced construction and demolition materials using a
modified large-scale direct shear testing apparatus. J Mater Civil
Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000897
24. Nicks JE, Gebrenegus T, Adams M (2015) Strength characteri-
zation of open-graded aggregates for structural backfills (No.
FHWA-HRT-15-034).
25. Sayeed MMA, Ramaiah BJ, Rawal A (2013) Interface shear char-
acteristics of jute/polypropylene hybrid nonwoven geotextiles
and sand using large size direct shear test. Geotext Geomembr
42:63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.12.001
26. Abu-Farsakh M, Coronel J, Tao M (2007) Effect of soil moisture
content and dry density on cohesive soil-geosynthetic interactions
using large direct shear tests. J Mater Civ Eng 19(7):540–549.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:7(540)
27. Dafalla MA (2013) Effects of clay and moisture content on direct
shear tests for clay-sand mixtures. Adv Mater Sci Eng. https://doi.
org/10.1155/2013/562726
13
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering (2018) 4:7
28. Berg RR, Christopher BR, Perkins SW (2000) Geosynthetic rein-
forcement of the aggregate base/subbase courses of pavement
structures. GMA white paper II
29. IRC-SP-72 (2007) Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements
for low volume rural roads. Indian Roads Congress New Delhi
30. MoRD (2014) Specifications for rural roads. Indian Roads Con-
gress. Ministry of rural development
31. American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D422 (2007)
“Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils”
32. American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D1557 (2012)
Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteris-
tics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/
m3))
33. Tutumluer E, Huang H, Bian X (2012) Geogrid-aggregate inter-
lock mechanism investigated through aggregate imaging-based
discrete element modeling approach. Int J Geomech, 12(4), 391–
398. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000113
34. Christopher BR (2010) A design workshop on geogrids in road-
way and pavement systems
35. American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D3080/
D3080M (2011) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils
under consolidated drained conditions
36. American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D5321/
D5321M (2014) Standard test method for determining the shear
strength of soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic–geosynthetic inter-
faces by direct shear
37. Biabani MM, Indraratna B (2015) An evaluation of the interface
behaviour of rail subballast stabilised with geogrids and geomem-
branes. Geotext Geomembr 43(3):240–249
38. Indraratna B, Hussaini SKK, Vinod JS (2012) On the shear
behaviour of ballast-geosynthetic interfaces. Geotech Test J
35(2):305–312
39. Liu C, Zornberg JG, Chen T, Ho Y, Lin B (2009) Behavior of
geogrid-sand interface in direct shear mode. J Geotechn Geoen-
viron Eng 135(12):1863–1871. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000150
40. Biabani MM, Indraratna B, Nimbalkar S (2016) Assessment of
interface shear behaviour of sub-ballast with geosynthetics by
large-scale direct shear test. Procedia Eng 143:1007–1015
41. Perkins SW, Christopher BR, Eli LC, Eiksund GR, Hoff I,
Schwartz CW, Svano G, Watn A (2004) Development of design
methods for geosynthetic reinforced flexible pavements. US
FHWA DTFH61-01-X-00068