Interface Shear Strength Testing of Geogrid-Reinforced Construction and Demolition Materials

Abstract

The interface shear strength properties of geogrid-reinforced recycled construction and demolition (C&D) materials were determined in this research to assess the viability of using geogrid-reinforced C&D materials as alternative construction materials. The C&D materials investigated were recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), crushed brick (CB), and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). Biaxial and triaxial geogrids were tested as the geogrid-reinforcement materials. The interface shear strength properties of the C&D materials were ascertained by using a large direct shear test (DST) equipment. Large-scale DST was conducted for unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced C&D materials. The interface peak and residual shear strength property of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RCA was found to be higher than that of CB and RAP. RAP was found to have the lowest interface shear strength properties of the C&D materials. The higher strength triaxial geogrids were found to attain higher interface shear strength properties than that of the lower strength biaxial geogrids. The DST results, however, indicated that the interface shear strength properties of the geogrid-reinforced C&D materials were less than that of the respective material without reinforcement. This can be attributed to the lack of interlock between the geogrids and the recycled C&D aggregates, as well as the current conventional testing method for DST that induces a shear plane at the boundary between the lower and upper boxes where the geogrid is placed. The unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RCA, CB, and RAP were found to meet the peak and residual shear strength requirements for typical construction materials in civil engineering applications.

Effect of geogrid reinforcement on flexible pavements

“…These materials can vary greatly, either in form (strips, sheets, grids, bars, or fibers), texture (rough or smooth), and relative stiffness [22]. Geosynthetics are a group of polymeric materials, which are applied more and more in engineering projects, such as road and airport construction and railway application as ground improvement [13].…”

Effect of Geogrids on Interface Shear Strength Properties of Recycled Crushed Brick

“…1. The particle size distribution for the CB material targeted the lower and upper bound reference lines for aggregates in pavement subbase applications (Arulrajah et al 2013a;Rahman et al 2013). The organic content tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D2974 (2007).…”

“…The interface shear strength properties of geogrids with various soil and aggregates have been reported by Liu et al (2009a); Liu et al (2009b); Arulrajah et al (2013a) and Arulrajah et al (2013d). Interface shear strength properties of soil mass reinforced with geogrid materials has been reported by various researchers to be lower than that of the unreinforced control materials in direct shear tests by the conventional method, which has been attributed to the lack of interlocking between the geogrids and the soil/aggregates (Liu et al 2009a;Liu et al 2009b;Arulrajah et al 2013a). …”

“…A significant proportion of these waste materials are produced from the construction sectors, a large part of which is primarily obtained from demolished buildings. The recycling of C&D waste materials into sustainable civil engineering applications is of global importance, as we seek new ways to conserve our natural resources as well as reduce reusable waste materials from being landfilled (Arulrajah et al 2013a;Rahman et al 2013).…”

“…This includes C&D aggregates such as recycled concrete aggregate (Azam and Cameron, 2013;Arulrajah et al 2013a), crushed brick (Aatheesan et al 2010;Arulrajah 2012a), reclaimed asphalt pavement materials (Puppala et al 2011;Arulrajah et al 2013b). Other waste materials that have generated recent interests in various geotechnical applications include waste rock (Arulrajah et al 2012b), waste glass (Ali et al 2011;Disfani et al 2011;Disfani et al 2012;Imteaz et al 2012;Arulrajah et al 2013c) and fly ash Rahman et al 2011;Horpibulsuk et al 2012;Sukmak et al 2013).…”