Advertisement

Interface Shear Strength Properties of Gravel Bases and Subgrades with Various Reinforcements

  • G. Narendra Goud
  • B. UmashankarEmail author
Original Paper
  • 85 Downloads

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 reinforced 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 

Notes

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. 1.
    Bhosale SS, Ingle GS (2013) Geosynthetics reinforced flexible pavement: gateway of the sustainable pavement. Indian Highw 41:6–15Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reck NC (2009) Mechanistic empirical design of geogrid reinforced paved flexible pavements. In: Jubilee symposium on polymer grid reinforcement. Institute of Civil Engineers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Léonard D, Vanelstraete A, Parewyck S (2002) Structural design of flexible pavements using steel netting as base reinforcement. Int J Geomech 2(1):291–303.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2002)2:3(291) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 1–10Google Scholar
  5. 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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ibrahim SF, Ahmed NG, Jassem NH (2013) Experimental study on surface steel-reinforcement for asphalt pavements. J Eng Dev 17(3):110–127Google Scholar
  7. 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.sbspro.2012.09.887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-Qadi IL, Elseifi Ma, Leonard D (2003) Development of an overlay design model for reflective cracking with and without steel reinforcing nettings (with discussion). J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 72:1–41Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sakleshpur VA, Prezzi M, Salgado R, Siddiki NZ, Choi YS (2017) Large-scale direct shear testing of the geogrid-reinforced aggregate base over weak subgrade. Int J Pavement Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.1321419 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alfaro MC, Miura N, Bergado DT (1995) Soil-geogrid reinforcement interaction by pullout and direct shear tests. Geotech Test J 18(2):157–167.  https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ10319J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergado DT, Youwai S, Teerawattanasuk C, Visudmedanukul P (2003) The interaction mechanism and behaviour of hexagonal wire mesh reinforced embankment with silty sand backfill on soft clay. Comput Geotech 30(6):517–534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-352X(03)00054-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ingold TS (1984) A laboratory investigation of soil-geotextile friction. Ground Engineering V17, N8, P21–28. (January 01, 1985). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 22(5):164Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choudhary AK, Krishna AM (2014) Influence of different types of soils on soil- geosynthetics interaction behavior. IJIRSET 3(SPI 4):60–68Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kandolkar SS, Mandal JN (2013) Direct shear tests on stone dust. In: Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Roorkee, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S, Maghoolpilehrood F, Samingthong W, Du Y-J, Shen S-L (2015) Evaluation of interface shear strength properties of geogrid reinforced foamed recycled glass using a large-scale direct shear testing apparatus. Adv Mater Sci Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/235424 Google Scholar
  16. 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 1–9Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kamalzare M, Ziaie-Moayed R (2011) Influence of geosynthetic reinforcement on shear strength characteristics of two-layer sub-grade. Acta Geotech Slov 8:39–49Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bergado DT, Lo K-H, Chai J-C, Shivashankar R, Alfaro MC, Loren R, Anderson (1992) Pullout tests using steel grid reinforcements with low quality backfill. J Geotech Eng ASCE 118(7):1047–1063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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):43–62Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Youwai S, Bergado D, Supawiwat N (2004) Interaction between hexagonal wire reinforcement and rubber tire chips with and without sand mixture. Geotech Test J 27(3):1–9Google Scholar
  23. 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 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nicks JE, Gebrenegus T, Adams M (2015) Strength characterization of open-graded aggregates for structural backfills (No. FHWA-HRT-15-034).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sayeed MMA, Ramaiah BJ, Rawal A (2013) Interface shear characteristics 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Berg RR, Christopher BR, Perkins SW (2000) Geosynthetic reinforcement of the aggregate base/subbase courses of pavement structures. GMA white paper IIGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    IRC-SP-72 (2007) Guidelines for the design of flexible pavements for low volume rural roads. Indian Roads Congress New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    MoRD (2014) Specifications for rural roads. Indian Roads Congress. Ministry of rural developmentGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D422 (2007) “Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils”Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D1557 (2012) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort (56,000ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3))Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tutumluer E, Huang H, Bian X (2012) Geogrid-aggregate interlock 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Christopher BR (2010) A design workshop on geogrids in roadway and pavement systemsGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D3080/D3080M (2011) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditionsGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 interfaces by direct shearGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Biabani MM, Indraratna B (2015) An evaluation of the interface behaviour of rail subballast stabilised with geogrids and geomembranes. Geotext Geomembr 43(3):240–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Indraratna B, Hussaini SKK, Vinod JS (2012) On the shear behaviour of ballast-geosynthetic interfaces. Geotech Test J 35(2):305–312Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu C, Zornberg JG, Chen T, Ho Y, Lin B (2009) Behavior of geogrid-sand interface in direct shear mode. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 135(12):1863–1871.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 143:1007–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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-00068Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringMVSRECHyderabadIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringIIT HyderabadMedakIndia

Personalised recommendations