Interface Behavior of Geogrid-Reinforced Sub-ballast: Laboratory and Discrete Element Modeling

  • Ngoc Trung NgoEmail author
  • Buddhima Indraratna
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 29)


This paper shows a study on the interface behavior of biaxial geogrids and sub-ballast using a direct shear box and computational modeling. A series of large-scale direct shear tests are performed on sub-ballast (capping layer) with and without geogrid inclusions. The laboratory test data indicate that the interface shear strength is mainly decided by applied normal stresses and types of geosynthetics tested. Discrete element modeling approach is used to investigate the interface shear behavior of the sub-ballast subjected to direct shear loads. Irregular-shaped sub-ballast particles are modeled by clumping of many spheres together in pre-determined sizes and positions. Biaxial geogrids are simulated in the DEM by bonding small balls together to build desired geogrid shapes and opening apertures. The numerical results reasonably match with the measured test data, showing that the introduced DEM model can simulate the interface behavior of sub-ballast stabilized by the geogrids. In addition, the triaxial geogrid presents the highest interface shear strength compared to the biaxial geogrids; and this can be associated with the symmetric geometry of grids’ apertures that can distribute load in all directions. Evolutions of contact forces of unreinforced/reinforced sub-ballast specimens and contour strain distributions during shear tests are also investigated.


Transport geotechnics Geogrid Sub-ballast Interface behavior Discrete element method 



The authors greatly appreciate the financial support from the Rail Manufacturing Cooperative Research Centre (funded jointly by participating rail organizations and the Australian Federal Government’s Business Cooperative Research Centres Program) through Project R2.5.1—Performance of recycled rubber inclusions for improved stability of railways. The Authors would like to thank the Australasian Centre for Rail Innovation (ACRI) Limited, and Tyre Stewardship Australia Limited for providing the financial support needed to undertake this research. Some research outcome is reproduced in this paper with kind permission from the Granular Matter. The Authors are thankful to Mr. Alan Grant, Duncan Best, and Mr. Ritchie McLean for their help in the laboratory.


  1. AS 2758.7 (1996) Aggragates and rocks for engineering purposes; Part 7: Railway ballast, Sydney, NSW, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  2. Biabani MM, Indraratna B, Ngo NT (2016a) Modelling of geocell-reinforced subballast subjected to cyclic loading. Geotext Geomembr 44(4):489–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biabani MM, Ngo NT, Indraratna B (2016b) Performance evaluation of railway subballast stabilised with geocell based on pull-out testing. Geotext Geomembr 44(4):579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cundall PA, Strack ODL (1979) A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique 29(1):47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Huang H, Tutumluer E (2011) Discrete Element Modeling for fouled railroad ballast. Constr Build Mater 25:3306–3312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Huang H, Tutumluer E, Hashash YMA, Ghaboussi J (2009b) Discrete element modelling of aggregate behaviour in fouled railroad ballast. In: Geotechnical Special Publication, 192, pp 33–41Google Scholar
  7. Indraratna B, Ngo NT, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2013) Deformation of coal fouled ballast stabilized with geogrid under cyclic load. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139(8):1275–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Indraratna B, Ngo NT, Rujikiatkamjorn C, Vinod J (2014) Behaviour of fresh and fouled railway ballast subjected to direct shear testing - a discrete element simulation. Int J Geomech ASCE 14(1):34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Indraratna B, Salim W, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2011) Advanced rail geotechnology - ballasted track., CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Indraratna B, Sun Q, Ngo NT, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2017) Current research into ballasted rail tracks: model tests and their practical implications. Aust J Struct Eng 18(3):204–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Itasca (2016) Particle flow code in three dimensions (PFC3D). Itasca Consulting Group Inc, MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  12. Lim WL, McDowell GR (2005) Discrete element modelling of railway ballast. Granular Matter 7(1):19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McDowell GR, Bolton M (1998) On the micromechanics of crushable aggregates. Geotechnique 48(5):667–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDowell GR, Harireche O, Konietzky H, Brown SF, Thom NH (2006) Discrete element modelling of geogrid-reinforced aggregates. Proc ICE - Geotech Eng 159(1):35–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ngo NT, Indraratna B (2016) Improved performance of rail track substructure using synthetic inclusions: experimental and numerical investigations. Int J Geosynthetics Ground Eng 2(3):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ngo NT, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2014) DEM simulation of the behaviour of geogrid stabilised ballast fouled with coal. Comput Geotech 55:224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ngo NT, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2015) A study of the behaviour of fresh and coal fouled ballast reinforced by geogrid using the discrete element method. In: Geomechanics from micro to macro - proceedings of the TC105 ISSMGE international symposium on geomechanics from micro to macro, IS-Cambridge 2014Google Scholar
  18. Ngo NT, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2016) Modelling geogrid-reinforced railway ballast using the discrete element method. Transport Geotech 8(2016):86–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ngo NT, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2017a) Micromechanics-based investigation of fouled ballast using large-scale triaxial tests and discrete element modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134 (2): pp 04016089Google Scholar
  20. Ngo NT, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2017b) Stabilisation of track substructure with geo-inclusions – experimental evidence and DEM simulation. Int J Rail Transport 5 (2): 63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ngo NT, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2017c) A study of the geogrid–subballast interface via experimental evaluation and discrete element modelling. Granular Matter 19 (3): 54, 51–16Google Scholar
  22. O’Sullivan C, Cui L (2009) Micromechanics of granular material response during load reversals: combined DEM and experimental study. Powder Technol 193(3):289–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Powrie W, Yang LA, Clayton CR (2007) Stress changes in the ground below ballasted railway track during train passage. In: Proceedings of the institution of mechanical engineers: part F: J of rail rapid transit, pp 247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rujikiatkamjorn C, Indraratna B, Ngo NT, Coop M (2012) A laboratory study of railway ballast behaviour under various fouling degree. In: The 5th Asian regional conference on geosynthetics, pp 507–514Google Scholar
  25. Rujikiatkamjorn C, Ngo NT, Indraratna B, Vinod J, Coop M (2013) Simulation of fresh and fouled ballast behavior using discrete element method. In: Proceedings of the international conference on ground improvement and ground control, pp 1585–1592. Singapore, Research PublishingGoogle Scholar
  26. Selig ET, Waters JM (1994) Track geotechnology and substructure management. Thomas Telford, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Trani LDO, Indraratna B (2010) Assessment of subballast filtration under cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(11):1519–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tutumluer E, Dombrow W, Huang H (2008) Laboratory characterization of coal dust fouled ballast behaviour. In: AREMA 2008 annual conference and exposition, Salt Lake City, UT, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Information SciencesCenter for Geomechanics and Railway Engineering, University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations