Investigations on interlayer shear strength characteristics of geosynthetic-reinforced asphalt overlay sections at Salvador International Airport
Source abstract
Abstract
This study aims at evaluating the interface shear strength characteristics of full-scale geosynthetic-reinforced asphalt overlay sections constructed at Salvador International Airport, Brazil. Specifically, 24 experimental sections including 5 different geosynthetic reinforcements and no geosynthetic reinforcement (control) with 4 different tack application rates were considered in the study. Multiple asphalt cores of 150 mm diameter were then extracted and tested in the laboratory using Leutner shear tester. Results demonstrated that the interface shear strength varied depending on the geosynthetic and tack coat rates, and mostly increased with increasing tack application rates. An interaction between tack application rates and geosynthetic characteristics was observed, which was highly influenced by the geosynthetic asphalt retention capacity. Overall, it can be inferred that the geogrid aperture size, mass per unit area of nonwoven geotextile backing, and geosynthetic tensile stiffness influenced the interface shear strength characteristics of geosynthetic-reinforced asphalt overlay.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization · Grouting, Rheology, and Soil Mechanics · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Civil Engineering Department, Federal University of Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Salvador Bahia Airport – VINCI Airports, Salvador, BA, Brazil
Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
Funding
CNPQ
References (52)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/978-3-319-42797-3_3310.1007/978-3-319-42797-3_33 ↗
2. ASTM D6140 · 2005
3. ASTM D6637 · 2015
4. ASTM D6933 · 2018
5. ASTM D6997 · 2020
6. ASTM D7402 · 2019
7. ASTM D7496 · 2018
8. 10.3141/2180-1210.3141/2180-12 ↗
9. BS EN 15381 · 2009
10. 10.1007/978-3-030-46455-4_410.1007/978-3-030-46455-4_4 ↗
11. 10.1007/978-3-319-71023-5_410.1007/978-3-319-71023-5_4 ↗
12. 10.1007/978-94-007-5104-0_610.1007/978-94-007-5104-0_6 ↗
13. 10.1080/1029843050006872010.1080/10298430500068720 ↗
14. Chowdhury, A., Button, J. W. & Lytton, R. L. (2009). Tests of HMA overlays using geosynthetics to reduce reflection cracking (Report No. FHWA/TX-10/0-1-1777-3). Texas Department of Transportation. http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-1777-3.pdf
15. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.11.01710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.11.017 ↗
16. Correia N. S. · Construction and Building Materials · 2021 · 269
17. 10.1016/j.trgeo.2014.01.00210.1016/j.trgeo.2014.01.002 ↗
18. 10.1617/s11527-015-0548-z10.1617/s11527-015-0548-z ↗
19. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.06410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.064 ↗
20. FGSV 770 · 2013
21. 10.1080/14680629.2017.138908710.1080/14680629.2017.1389087 ↗
22. 10.3846/enviro.2014.15810.3846/enviro.2014.158 ↗
23. Kumar V. V. · 2018 · 1008
24. 10.1061/9780784480441.04610.1061/9780784480441.046 ↗
25. 10.1680/jgein.21.0001310.1680/jgein.21.00013 ↗
26. 10.1007/978-3-030-48679-2_6110.1007/978-3-030-48679-2_61 ↗
27. Leutner R. · Bitumen · 1979 · 41 · 84
28. Mohammad, L. N., Elseifi, M. A., Bae, A., Patel, N., Button, J. & Scherocman, J. A. (2012). Optimization of tack coat for HMA placement (NCHRP Report 712). Transportation Research Board.
29. Noory, A., Nejad, F. M. & Khodaii, A. (2018). A new laboratory test device and method for evaluation of shear bonding of geosynthetic reinforced overlays. 11th international conference on geosynthetics (Vol. 4, pp. 3323–3330).
30. 10.1080/10298436.2017.139409410.1080/10298436.2017.1394094 ↗
31. 10.1080/14680629.2019.162843810.1080/14680629.2019.1628438 ↗
32. 10.1080/14680629.2012.73579710.1080/14680629.2012.735797 ↗
33. 10.1617/s11527-018-1223-y10.1617/s11527-018-1223-y ↗
34. Raab, C. & Partl, M. N. (2004). Interlayer shear performance: Experience with different pavement structures. Proceedings of the 3rd Eurasphalt and Eurobitume congress (Vol. 1, pp. 535–545).
35. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.02.02510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.02.025 ↗
36. 10.1201/9781351063265-3110.1201/9781351063265-31 ↗
37. 10.1080/01694243.2016.120524010.1080/01694243.2016.1205240 ↗
38. Road Surface Treatment Association (RSTA). (2012). Code of practice for geosynthetics and steel meshes.
39. 10.1061/JPEODX.000021210.1061/JPEODX.0000212 ↗
40. 10.1061/978078448093910.1061/9780784480939 ↗
41. 10.1080/14680629.2018.143976410.1080/14680629.2018.1439764 ↗
42. Santagata F. A. · Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists · 2008 · 77 · 221
43. Sholar G. · Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists · 2004 · 73 · 771
44. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.01010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.010 ↗
45. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.01010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.010 ↗
46. Vaitkus A. · Gradevinar · 2012 · 64 · 915
47. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.03510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.035 ↗
48. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.15110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.151 ↗
49. 10.1016/j.jtte.2020.10.00510.1016/j.jtte.2020.10.005 ↗
50. Yang, L., Roodi, G. H. & Zornberg, J. G. (2019). Development of a shear test for unreinforced and geosynthetic-reinforced hot mix asphalt. Geosynthetics conference (pp. 538–547).
51. 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.01010.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.010 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.04810.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.048 ↗