Advertisement

Effect of geogrid reinforcement on flexible pavements

  • E. M. Ibrahim
  • S. M. El-Badawy
  • M. H. Ibrahim
  • A. Gabr
  • A. Azam
Technical Paper

Abstract

Effectiveness of geogrids in flexible pavement reinforcement was investigated throughout laboratory testing and finite-element analysis (FEA). The laboratory testing involved routine material characterization, resilient modulus testing, and five pavement prototype sections. These sections consisted of a 5 cm asphalt concrete (AC) layer, 15 cm granular base layer, and a 30 cm clay subgrade. The base layer was reinforced with a single layer of uniaxial geogrid placed at four different positions within the base layer. The pavement sections were loaded with a static plate-loading equipment and the results were compared with the control section (CS), which had no reinforcement. Results from this study showed that geogrids can be used to reduce tensile stresses in flexible pavement systems. The optimum position of the geogrid reinforcement to reduce tensile strains was found to be directly underneath the AC layer then within 33–50% of the granular base layer height as measured from the bottom of the base layer.

Keywords

Geogrid Resilient modulus Tensile strain Prototype pavement FEA Traffic benefits’ ratio 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The UTM-25 at Mansoura University H&AE-LAB, which was utilized in this research was purchased as part of the HEI Labs Accreditation Project, 7th Cycle.

References

  1. 1.
    AASHTO M145 (2012) AASHTO soil classification systems. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    AASHTO T11 (2012) Materials finer than 75-μm (no. 200) sieve in mineral aggregates by washing. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    AASHTO T27 (2012) Sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    AASHTO T96 (2012) Resistance to degradation of small-size coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles machine. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    AASHTO T193 (2003) Standard method of test for the California bearing ratio. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    AASHTO T90 (2014) Determining the plastic limit and plasticity index of soils. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    AASHTO T89 (2015) Determining the liquid limit of soils. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    AASHTO T180 (2012) Moisture density relations of soils. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. AASHTO, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    AAHSTO T307-99 (2012) Standard method of test for determining the resilient modulus of soil and aggregate materials. AASHTO, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abedel Motaleb ME (2007) Impact of high-pressure truck tires on pavement design in Egypt. Emir J Eng Res 12(2):65–73Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-Azzawi AA (2012) Fininte element analysis of flexible pavements strengthened with geogrid. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 7(10):1295–1299Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division (2004) Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures. NCHRP 1-37A Final Report, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Arulrajah A, Rahman MA, Piratheepan J, Bo MW, Imteaz MA (2013) Interface shear strength testing of geogrid-reinforced construction and demolition materials. Adv Civ Eng Mater J 2(1):189–200Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arulrajah A, Rahman MA, Piratheepan J, Bo MW, Imteaz MA (2013) Evaluation of interface shear strength properties of geogrid-reinforced construction and demolition materials using a modified large-scale direct shear testing apparatus. J Mater Civ Eng 26(5):974–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Asphalt Institute (1981) Thickness design—asphalt pavement for highways and streets. Manual Series No. 1, 9th edn. ISBN: 9781934154014, reprinted 1999, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Behiry AEAEM (2012) Fatigue and rutting lives in flexible pavement. Ain Shams Eng J 3(4):367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bowles RE, SE (1996) Foundation analysis and design. Consulting engineer/software consultant engineering computer software, Peoria, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brinkgreve RBJ (2002) Plaxis: finite element code for soil and rock analyses: 2D-version 8:[user’s guide]. Balkema publisher, the NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cancelli A, Montanelli F, Rimoldi P, Zhao A (1996) Full scale laboratory testing on geosynthetics reinforced paved roads. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Earth ReinforcementGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chua KM, Tenison J (2003) Explaining the Hveem stabilometer test: relating R-value, S-value, and the elastic modulus. J Test Eval 31(4):1–8Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Court C, Chamberlain B (2013) Tensar international limited CE marking, Tensar Reand Re500 Geogrids for Reinforced Soil Embankments, pp 1–13, http://www.tensarinternational.com
  22. 22.
    Donald HG, Ohashi H (1983) Mechanics of fiber reinforcement in sand. ASCE J Geotech Eng 109(3):335–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ECP (2008) Egyptian code of practice for urban and rural roads. Housing and Building National Central Research, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    El-Badawy SM (2006) Development of a mechanistic constitutive model for the repeated load permanent deformation behavior of subgrade pavement materials. PhD, Arizona State University, TempeGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    El-Badawy SM, Bayomy F, Miller S (2011) Prediction of subgrade resilient modulus for implementation of the mepdg in Idaho. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication no. 211, ASCE, Reston, pp 4762–4772Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gabr AR, Cameron DA (2012) Properties of recycled concrete aggregate for unbound pavement construction. J Mater Civ Eng 24(6):754–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gedafa DS (2006) Comparison of flexible pavement performance using Kenlayer and HDM-4. Fall Student Conference Midwest Transportation Consortium, Ames, IowaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ji R, Siddiki N, Nantung T, Kim D (2014) Evaluation of resilient modulus of subgrade and base materials in indiana and its implementation in MEPDG. Sci World J 14Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kamel MA (2004) Development of design procedure for reinforced flexible pavement. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Korkiala-Tanttu L (2009) Calculation method for permanent deformation of unbound pavement materials. VTT publications 702, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ling HI, Liu Z (2001) Geosynthetic—reinforced asphalt pavements. J Geotech Geo Environ Eng 177–184Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mccartney JS, Cox BR, Wood CM, Curry B (2010) Evaluation of geosynthetic-reinforced flexible pavements using static plate load tests. In: 9th International Conference on Geosynthetics–Geosynthetics: Advanced Solutions for a Challenging World, pp 1445–1450Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Miura N, Sakai A, Taesiri Y, Yamanouchi T, Yasuhara K (1990) Polymer grid reinforced pavement on soft clay grounds. Geotext Geomembr 9(1):99–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moayedi H, Kazemian S, Prasad A, Huat B (2009) Effect of geogrid reinforcement location in paved road improvement. EJGE 14:1–11Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parry RHG (1995) Mohr’s circles. Stress paths, and geotechnics. E&FN Spon. 1st edn. Taylor & Francis, UK. ISBN 0419192905Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pellinen TK, Song J, Xiao S (2004) Characterization of hot mix asphalt with varying air voids content using triaxial shear strength test. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa (CAPSA’04), South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh P, Gill KS (2012) CBR improvement of clayey soil with geo-grid reinforcement. IJETAE 2(6):315–318Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    TenCate (2010) Geosynthetic reinforcement of the aggregate base/subbase courses of pavement structures. TenCateTM Geosynthetics North America, PendergrassGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Virgili A, Canestrari F, Grilli A, Santagata FA (2009) Repeated load test on bituminous systems reinforced by geosynthetics. Geotext Geomembr 27(3):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Webster SL (1993) Geogrid reinforced base courses for flexible pavements for LightAircraft: test section construction, behavior under traffic, laboratory tests, and design criteriaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zornberg JG, Gupta R (2009) Reinforcement of pavements over expansive clay subgrades. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering: the Academia and Practice of Geotechnical Engineering, vol 1, pp 765–768Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. M. Ibrahim
    • 1
  • S. M. El-Badawy
    • 2
  • M. H. Ibrahim
    • 2
  • A. Gabr
    • 2
  • A. Azam
    • 2
  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentDelta Higher Institute of Engineering and TechnologyMansouraEgypt
  2. 2.Public Works Engineering Department, Faculty of EngineeringMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations