Interface Shear Strength Testing of Geogrid ...

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, Vol. 2, No. 1 Paper ID ACEM20120055 www.astm.org

A. Arulrajah,1 M. A. Rahman,2 J. Piratheepan,3 M. W. Bo,4 and M. A. Imteaz5

Interface Shear Strength Testing of Geogrid-Reinforced Construction and Demolition Materials REFERENCE: Arulrajah, A., Rahman, M. A., Piratheepan, J., Bo, M. W., and Imteaz, M. A., “Interface Shear Strength Testing of Geogrid-Reinforced Construction and Demolition Materials,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013, pp. 189–200, doi:10.1520/ACEM20120055. ISSN 2165-3984. 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 geogridreinforced 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. KEYWORDS: geogrids, direct shear test, interface shear strength, recycled materials, construction, demolition

Introduction Granular materials are commonly used in civil engineering applications, such as embankments, backfilling, road bases, road sub-bases, railway ballast, railway sub-ballast, gabion walls, and slope stabilisation. Typically, virgin aggregates from quarries are used as construction materials in these

Manuscript received December 12, 2012; accepted for publication March 28, 2013; published online May 8, 2013. 1 Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne Univ. of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000 (Corresponding author), e-mail: [email protected] 2 Ph.D. Student, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne Univ. of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000, e-mail: [email protected] 3 Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne Univ. of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000, e-mail: [email protected] 4 Senior Principal, DST Consulting Engineers Inc., Thunder Bay, Ontario, P7B 5V5, Canada, e-mail: [email protected] 5 Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne Univ. of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000, e-mail: [email protected] C 2013 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. Copyright V

189

190

ADVANCES IN CIVIL ENGINEERING MATERIALS

civil engineering infrastructure works. The excessive usage of quarried materials in such applications has, however, resulted in the construction industry in many developed and developing countries facing increasing shortages of quarry materials. At the same time, a large amount of waste materials are being generated, which imposes significant pressure on landfill facilities and the environment. A significant proportion of these waste materials are produced from the construction and demolition (C&D) 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 [1–3]. C&D materials have recently been found to be viable alternative materials in civil engineering applications such as pavement sub-bases and other road construction applications [3]. This includes C&D materials, such as RCA [4–8], CB [1,9,10], RAP [2,11–14], crushed glass [15–19], and waste excavation rock [20]. However, the properties of these newer alternative materials, such as C&D materials, is not fully understood compared to natural quarried materials, and, hence, their usage in civil engineering applications continues to face many barriers. Research and evaluation of the geotechnical engineering properties of these C&D materials, such as their usage in reinforcement with geogrids as in this research, is, therefore, required to further understand these newer alternative materials. The drained internal friction angle (/0 ) and apparent cohesion (c0 ) of geogrid interfaces with soils or aggregates are the key input parameters for the geotechnical engineering design of soils and aggregates reinforced with geogrids. Several researchers have used the large-scale DST equipment to determine the interface shear strength of geosynthetic-reinforced structures with various soils, aggregates [21–26], and municipal solid waste [27]. The interface shear strength of geogrids with various soils and aggregates has also been reported with the use of smaller traditional DST equipment [28–30]. The large-scale DST equipment, however, has not been attempted previously for testing of geogrid-reinforced C&D materials and this is a primary goal of this research to fully understand the interface shear strength properties of C&D materials when reinforced with geogrids.

Experimental Procedures RCA, CB, and RAP were collected from a recycling site in Melbourne, Australia. The maximum particle size of the C&D materials was 19 mm. The samples were first oven dried at 60 C for the various laboratory experiments. Commercially available biaxial geogrids (biaxial) with an ultimate strength of 20 kN/m and triaxial geogrids (triaxial) with a slightly higher ultimate strength of 32 kN/m were used in the tests. The physical and mechanical properties of the geogrids used in the tests are presented in Table 1. Physical tests were undertaken on the C&D materials, including modified compaction test, particle density, particle size distribution, water absorption, and Los Angeles abrasion. Modified compaction tests were conducted according to ASTM D1557 [31] to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the C&D materials. As the maximum particle size of the C&D materials was 19 mm, a cylindrical mould having an internal diameter of 152.4 mm was used in the modified compaction tests. The particle size distribution of the samples was conducted with sieve analysis according to ASTM D422-63 [32]. CBR tests were carried out according to ASTM D1883 [33] on specimens subjected to modified Proctor compaction effort at the optimum water content and soaked for 4 days to simulate the worst-case scenario. Organic content tests were Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:7:3 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

ARULRAJAH ET AL. ON STRENGTH TESTING OF C&D MATERIALS

TABLE 1—Physical and mechanical properties of the geogrids. Geogrid Reinforcement Triaxial Biaxial

Aperture Shape

Tensile Strength (kN/m)

Polymer Type

Aperture Size (mm)

Triangular Square

32 20

Polypropylene Polypropylene

46 46 46 39 39

performed in accordance with ASTM D2974 [34]. The ignition method was used to determine the organic content of the samples. Particle density and water absorption tests of coarse aggregate (retained on 4.75 mm sieve) and fine aggregate (passing through 4.75 mm sieve) were carried out according to AS1141.5 [35] and AS1141.6.1 [36], respectively. Flaky characteristics of the samples were determined by flakiness index test according to BS 812-105.1 [37]. The Los Angeles abrasion test was conducted according to ASTM C131 [38] to determine the resistance of aggregate by abrasion and impact forces. A large-scale DST apparatus measuring 305 mm in length, 305 mm in width, and 204 mm in depth was used in the main experimental works on these C&D materials. The schematic diagram of the DST apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. The testing apparatus has two boxes: a fixed upper box and a moveable lower box. The oven-dried samples were mixed with water at optimum moisture content and kept at room temperature at 23 degrees for approximate 12 h in a closed container to ensure that water was mix uniformly with the samples. Initially, the lower and upper boxes were clamped when preparing samples for the tests. Lubricating oil was used on the platform of the shear box to enable easy movement. The samples were compacted in the shear box in three layers by using a vibratory compactor at 98 % of maximum modified proctor dry density. The large DST was next conducted for the unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced C&D materials at normal stresses of 30 kPa, 60 kPa, and 120 kPa. A shear displacement rate of 0.025 mm/min was maintained throughout the shearing stage. The horizontal displacements, vertical displacements, and shear stresses were recorded with LVDTs and load cells, which were computer controlled with a specialized software program. When the consolidation stage for the tests was completed, the connections between the lower and upper boxes were released, which provided an approximate 2-mm gap between the upper and lower boxes for friction minimization. The tests were conducted as per ASTM D5321 [39]. The tests were terminated once the horizontal shear displacement reached approximately 75 mm. The peak and residual shear strength of the unreinforced and reinforced C&D materials from the DST tests were obtained from the shear stress and horizontal displacement output graphs.

FIG. 1—Schematic diagram of the interface shear strength testing DST apparatus. Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:7:5 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

191

192


TABLE 2—Geotechnical properties of C&D materials. Geotechnical Properties

Testing Standard 3

Particle density—coarse (mg/m ) Particle density—fine (mg/m3) Water absorption—coarse (%) Water absorption—fine (%) Organic content (%) Fines content (%)

RCA

CB

RAP

AS 1141.5 [35] AS 1141.5 [35]

2.70 2.60

2.41 2.48

2.34 2.33

AS 1141.6.1 [36]

6.70

13.76

12.02

AS 1141.6.1 [36] ASTM D2974 [34]

7.05 1.80

10.28 2.02

13.86 4.03

AS 1141.11 [43]

9.90

9.00

2.10

Flakiness index Los Angeles abrasion loss

BS 812-105.1 [37] ASTM C131 [38]

12.83 30.50

13.75 34.50

17.43 38.70

Max dry density (mg/m3)

ASTM D1557 [31]

2.04

1.94

Optimum moisture content (%) California bearing ratio (%)

ASTM D1557 [31] ASTM D1883 [33]

12.75 135

8.30 39

2.08 12.5 172

Results and Discussion The physical properties of RCA, CB, and RAP materials obtained from the laboratory tests are summarized in Table 2. The particle size distribution results for RCA, CB, and RAP are shown in Fig. 2. The C&D materials were found to range between 0.075 mm and 19 mm in size. The particle size distribution curves for the C&D materials were within the lower and upper bound limits for typical aggregates used in civil engineering applications [1,9]. The results indicate that the particle densities of coarse aggregates (retained on a 4.75-mm sieve) were higher than that of fine aggregates (passing a 4.75-mm sieve), except for CB. The water absorptions of coarse aggregates were less than the fine aggregates except CB materials. The particle density results of RCA indicate the existence of high-quality aggregates. The CBR tests results for RCA and CB were found to be within values of 80–120 normally specified for pavement base and sub-base materials [3,10]. The Los Angeles abrasion loss values for the

FIG. 2—Particle size distribution of C&D materials. Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:7:12 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.


all materials were within the maximum value of 40, normally specified for construction materials [3]. The shear strength of the C&D materials can be determined empirically from the CBR and Los Angeles tests, which are indications of shear strength. The CBR and Los Angeles results indicate that RCA has the highest shear strength followed by CB and RAP. For these recycled aggregates, the dominant properties controlling shear strength are the friction angle and apparent cohesion. This is evident from the shear strength tests that have been undertaken, which include the CBR tests and the Los Angeles abrasion tests. These tests define the mechanical and shear strength properties of the C&D aggregates. These CBR and Los Angeles results indicate that RCA and CB are high-quality materials for pavement sub-bases whereas RAP does not meet the criteria for usage in sub-bases. RAP will require some form of modification prior to implementation in sub-bases. The organic content of the C&D materials was low and indicated the presence of minute amounts of debris or foreign materials. The flakiness index values for RCA and CB were found to be within reasonable limits of less than 15 %, though this is not an essential test for most civil engineering applications. The modified compaction results for the RCA, CB, and RAP were found to be typical of that specified for construction materials [3]. The large-scale DST results were analysed to determine the interface shear strength of the unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced C&D materials. Comparison curves showing shear stresses versus horizontal displacements of the DST results for RCA, RCA-biaxial and RCA þ triaxial are shown in Fig. 3. Shear stress is observed to increase for the RCA, RCA þ biaxial, and RCA þ triaxial with an increase in the normal stress. The shear stress is observed to reach a peak shear stress and then levels of to a residual shear stress under large strain. The peak interface shear stresses of reinforced RCA þ biaxial and RCA þ triaxial are however found to give results that are lower than that of the peak shear stress of unreinforced RCA. Several researchers [23,24,28–30,40] have reported similar interface shear strength properties of soils and

FIG. 3—DST testing of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RCA: (a) shear stress versus horizontal displacement, and (b) vertical displacement versus horizontal displacement. Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:7:24 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

193

194


aggregates reinforced with geogrid materials, which were lower than that of the respective unreinforced materials from DST testing. This can be attributed to the lack of interlock between the geogrids and the recycled C&D aggregates. The current testing method for DST induces a shear plane at the boundary between the lower and upper boxes, which furthermore explains the reason for the lower interface shear strengths because of this lack of interlocking and provision of a smooth interface surface from the geogrid material. The shear stress of RCA þ triaxial is found to be higher than that of RCA þ biaxial, which is as expected, as the ultimate tensile strength of the triaxial geogrid is higher than that of the biaxial geogrid. The comparison curves showing vertical displacements versus horizontal displacements and the DST results for RCA, RCA þ biaxial, and RCA þ triaxial are also presented in Fig. 3. In the figure, positive vertical displacement indicates contractive behaviour, whereas negative vertical displacement indicates dilative behaviour. The results indicate that an initial vertical contraction takes place until the sample cannot compress, which is followed by dilation. The samples are observed to behave like dense materials, which similarly show increasing higher compression with an increase in normal stress. Similar behaviour has been reported by Disfani et al. [15] in DST on dense recycled glass. An increase in normal stress is observed to increase the tendency of compression. The contraction effect at the beginning of the test is observed to become more noticeable when the normal stress levels are increased. The shear stresses and vertical displacements versus horizontal displacements curves for unreinforced and reinforced CB with geogrids are presented in Fig. 4, whereas that of unreinforced and reinforced RAP is shown in Fig. 5. Similar trends are apparent in these figures as well, with similar lower shear strengths observed for the geogrid-reinforced materials as compared to the respective unreinforced materials. The results of Figs. 3–5 indicate that the shear stress increases with horizontal displacement until it reaches the peak shear stress. Subsequently, shear stress decreases with increasing

FIG. 4—DST testing of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced CB: (a) shear stress versus horizontal displacement, and (b) vertical displacement versus horizontal displacement. Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:7:39 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.


FIG. 5—DST testing of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RAP: (a) shear stress versus horizontal displacement, and (b) vertical displacement versus horizontal displacement.

FIG. 6—Interface peak shear strength properties for unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RCA, CB, and RAP. Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:7:51 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

195

196


FIG. 7—Interface residual shear strength properties for unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RCA, CB, and RAP.

horizontal displacement. All samples at different effective confining pressures showed little compression (positive volumetric strain) at the early stage of the shearing followed by significant dilation (negative volumetric strain) with increasing horizontal displacement. An increase in effective confining pressure was found to decrease the tendency for dilation, which is similar to the findings reported by Piratheepan et al. [14]. Figure 6 presents the interface shear strength properties based on peak shear stresses of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RCA, CB, and RAP. Figure 7 presents the interface shear strength properties based on residual shear stresses of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RCA, CB, and RAP. Table 3 presents the comparison results of peak and residual shear strengths for the unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced C&D materials. Granular soils, such as dense sands and gravels, TABLE 3—Comparison of peak and residual interface shear strength properties of C&D materials. Peak Material

c

0

Residual /

0

c

0

/0

RCA

95

65

80

39

RCA þ biaxial RCA þ triaxial

75 83

50 52

25 50

39 35

CB

87

57

30

41

CB þ biaxial CB þ triaxial

67 80

45 49

15.5 20

39 40

RAP

15

45

21

38

RAP þ biaxial RAP þ triaxial

6.5 13

40 42

12.5 3.5

37 40

Typical construction materials—dense sands and gravels [41] Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:8:21 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

—

40–48

—

32–36


TABLE 4—Relationship between interface angle/friction angle for the geogrid-reinforced C&D materials. Material RCA RCA þ biaxial

Interface Angle/Friction Angle

Tan Interface Angle/Tan Friction Angle

1.00 0.77

1.00 0.55

RCA þ triaxial

0.80

0.59

CB CB þ biaxial

1.00 0.79

1.00 0.58

CB þ triaxial

0.86

0.67

RAP RAP þ biaxial

1.00 0.89

1.00 0.71

RAP þ triaxial

0.93

0.75

typically specified in geotechnical engineering applications generally have peak friction values of 40–48 degrees and residual values of 32–36 degrees [41]. Based on the DST results, the unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced C&D materials would meet the shear strength requirements for usage as a construction material in civil engineering applications. It is evident from Fig. 7 and Table 3 that the interface shear strength properties of the unreinforced C&D materials were consistently higher than that of the respective geogrid-reinforced C&D material. The interface peak shear strength values of the C&D materials were noted to be higher than that of the respective residual values, which is as expected. The interface shear strength properties of RCA are observed to be higher than that of CB, whereas RAP is noted 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 except for RAP. This can be attributed to bitumen detaching from the aggregate surface because of higher normal stress at the residual stage when the triaxial geogrids were used. Table 4 indicates that the C&D materials reinforced with triaxial geogrids have a higher interface angle/friction angle relationship than that of the same material with biaxial geogrids. The results indicate that the relationship between interface angle and friction angle changes for the various aggregates and geogrids. Tan interface angle/tan friction angle ratios also changes for the various geogrids and recycled material types. This is similar to the findings reported earlier [42].

Conclusion The interface shear strength properties of geogrid-reinforced RCA, CB, and RAP were determined with a large-scale DST to assess the viability of using reinforced recycled C&D materials as alternative construction materials. Tests were undertaken on each of the C&D materials when unreinforced and when reinforced with biaxial and triaxial geogrids. The results of the tests were compared between the unreinforced and reinforced C&D materials. Comparisons were also made between the results for the various C&D materials tested. The interface shear strength properties of the unreinforced C&D materials were found to be consistently higher than that of the respective geogrid-reinforced material. The interface peak shear strength values of the C&D materials were noted to be higher than that of the respective residual shear strength values. The interface shear strength properties of RCA is observed to be higher than that of CB whereas RAP is noted to have the smallest 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. Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:8:37 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

197

198


The interface shear strength properties of the unreinforced C&D materials were, however, found to be higher than the respective material with geogrid reinforcement. This can be attributed to the lack of interlock between the geogrids and the recycled aggregates, as well as to the provision of a smooth interface from the geogrid material. The current testing method for DST induces a shear plane at the boundary between the lower and upper boxes, which, furthermore, explains the reason for the lower interface shear strengths because of this lack of interlocking and the provision of a smooth interface from the geogrid material. The unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced RCA, CB, and RAP were found to meet the peak and residual shear strength requirements for typical construction materials used in civil engineering applications.

References [1] Aatheesan, T., Arulrajah, A., Bo, M. W., Vuong, B., and Wilson, J., “Crushed Brick Blends With Crushed Rock for Pavement Systems,” Proc. ICE - Waste Res. Manag., Vol. 163(1), 2010, pp. 29–35. [2] Hoyos, L. R., Puppala, A. J., and Ordonez, C. A., “Characterization of Cement Fiber-Treated Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregates: Preliminary Investigation,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., Vol. 23(7), 2011, pp. 977–989. [3] Arulrajah, A., Piratheepan, J., Disfani, M. M., and Bo, M. W., “Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Properties of Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials in Pavement Subbase Applications,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., 2013 (to be published). [4] Poon, C. S. and Chan, D., “Paving Blocks Made With Recycled Concrete Aggregate and Crushed Clay Brick,” Constr. Build. Mater., Vol. 20, 2006, pp. 569–577. [5] Poon, C. S. and Chan, D., “Feasible Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Crushed Clay Brick as Unbound Rd. Sub-Base,” Constr. Build. Mater., Vol. 20, 2006, pp. 578–585. [6] Azam, A. M. and Cameron, D. A., “Geotechnical Properties of Blends of Recycled Clay Masonry and Recycled Concrete Aggregates in Unbound Pavement Construction,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., 2012 (to be published). [7] Arulrajah, A., Piratheepan, J., Ali, M. M. Y., and Bo, M. W., “Geotechnical Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Pavement Sub-Base Applications,” ASTM Geotech. Test. J., Vol. 35(5), 2012, pp. 1–9. [8] Gabr, A. and Cameron, D., “Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregate for Unbound Pavement Construction,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., Vol. 24(6), 2012, pp. 754–764. [9] Arulrajah, A., Piratheepan, J., Aatheesan, T., and Bo, M. W., “Geotechnical Properties of Recycled Crushed Brick in Pavement Applications,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., Vol. 23(10), 2011, pp. 1444–1542. [10] Arulrajah, A., Piratheepan, J., Bo, M. W., and Sivakugan, N., “Geotechnical Characteristics of Recycled Crushed Brick Blends for Pavement Sub-Base Applications,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 49(7), 2012, pp. 796–811. [11] Taha, R., Al-Harthy, A., Al-Shamsi, K., and Al-Zubeidi, M., “Cement Stabilization of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregate for Road Bases and Subbases,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., Vol. 14(3), 2002, pp. 239–245. [12] Puppala, A. J., Hoyos, L. R., and Potturi, A. K., “Resilient Moduli Response of Moderately Cement-Treated Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregates,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., Vol. 23(7), 2011, pp. 990–998. Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:8:38 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.


[13] Arulrajah, A., Piratheepan, J., Disfani, M. M., and Bo, M. W., “Resilient Moduli Response of Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials in Pavement Subbase Applications,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., 2013 (to be published). [14] Piratheepan, J., Arulrajah, A., and Disfani, M. W., “Large Scale Direct Shear Testing of Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials,” Adv. Civil Eng. Mater., Vol. 2(1), 2013, Paper No. ACEM20120009. [15] Disfani, M. M., Arulrajah, A., Bo, M. W., and Hankour, R., “Recycled Crushed Glass in Rd. Work Applications,” Waste Manage., Vol. 31(11), 2011, pp. 2341–2351. [16] Ali, M. M. Y., Arulrajah, A., Disfani, M. M., and Piratheepan, J., “Suitability of Using Recycled Glass–Crushed Rock Blends for Pavement Subbase Applications,” Conference on Geotechnical and Foundation Design, American Society of Civil Engineers, Dallas, TX, March 13–16, 2011, pp. 1325–1334. [17] Disfani, M. M., Arulrajah, A., Bo, M. W., and Sivakugan, N., “Environmental Risks of Using Recycled Crushed Glass in Rd. Applications,” J. Cleaner Product., Vol. 20(1), pp. 170–179. [18] Imteaz, M. A., Ali, M. M. Y., and Arulrajah, A., “Possible Environmental Impacts of Recycled Glass Used as a Pavement Base Material,” Waste Manage. Res., Vol. 30(9), 2012, pp. 917–921. [19] Arulrajah, A., Ali, M. M. Y., Disfani, M. M., Piratheepan, J., and Bo, M. W., “Geotechnical Performance of Recycled Glass-Waste Rock Blends in Footpath Bases,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., 2013 (to be published). [20] Kazimierowicz, F. K., “Influence of Geosynthetic Reinforcement on the Load-Settlement Characteristics of Two-Layer Subgrade,” Geotext. Geomembr., Vol. 25(6), pp. 366–376. [21] Arulrajah, A., Ali, M. M. Y., Piratheepan, J., and Bo, M. W., “Geotechnical Properties of Waste Excavation Rock in Pavement Subbase Applications,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., Vol. 24(7), 2012, pp. 924–932. [22] Araujo, G. L. S., Palmeira, E. M., and Cunha, R. P., “Behaviour of Geosynthetic-Encased Granular Columns in Porous Collapsible Soil,” Geosynth. Int., Vol. 16(6), 2009, pp. 433–451. [23] Liu, C. N., Zornberg, J. G., Chen, T. C., Ho, Y. H., and Lin, B. H., “Behavior of Geogrid–Sand Interface in Direct Shear Mode,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 135(12), 2009, pp. 1863–1871. [24] Liu, C. N., Ho, Y. H., and Huang, J. W., “Large-Scale Direct Shear Tests of Soil/Pet-Yarn Geogrid Interfaces,” Geotext. Geomembr., Vol. 27(1), 2009, pp. 19–30. [25] Rowe, R. K. and Taechakumthorn, C., “Design of Reinforced Embankments on Soft Clay Deposits Considering the Viscosity of Both Foundation and Reinforcement,” Geotext. Geomembr., Vol. 29(5), 2011, pp. 448–461. [26] Palmeira, E. M., Beirigo, E. A., and Gardoni, M. G., “Tailings-Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Compatibility in Mining Applications,” Geotext. Geomembr., Vol. 28(2), 2010, pp. 136–148. [27] Zekkos, D., Athanasopoulos, G. A., Bray, J. D., Grizi, A., and Theodoratos, A., “Large-Scale Direct Shear Testing of Municipal Solid Waste,” Waste Manage., Vol. 30(8–9), 2010, pp. 1544–1555. [28] Abu-Farsakh, M., Coronel, J., and Tao, M., “Effect of Soil Moisture Content and Dry Density on Cohesive Soil–Geosynthetic Interactions Using Large Direct Shear Tests,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., Vol. 19(7), 2007, pp. 540–549. [29] Ling, H. I., Wang, J. P., and Leshchinsky, D., “Cyclic Behaviour of Soil–Structure Interfaces Associated With Modular-Block Reinforced Soil-Retaining Walls,” Geosynth. Int., Vol. 15(1), 2008, pp. 14–21. Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:8:39 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.

199

200


[30] McCartney, J. S., Zornberg, J. G., and Swan, R. H., Jr., “Analysis of a Large Database of GCLGeomembrane Interface Shear Strength Results,” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., Vol. 135(2), 2009, pp. 209–223. [31] ASTM-D1557: Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009. [32] ASTM-D422-63: Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007. [33] ASTM-D1883-07: Standard Test Method for CBR (California Bearing Ratio) of LaboratoryCompacted Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007. [34] ASTM-D2974: Standard Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007. [35] AS1141.5, 2000, “Particle Density and Water Absorption of Fine Aggregate,” Standards Association of Australia, Sydney, Australia. [36] AS1141.6.1, 2000, “Particle Density and Water Absorption of Coarse Aggregate Weighing-inWater Method,” Standards Association of Australia, Sydney, Australia. [37] BS812-105.1, 2000, “Method for Determination of Particle Shape; Flakiness Index,” British Standard Institution, London. [38] ASTM-C131: Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006. [39] ASTM-D5321: Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil and Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear Method, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2008. [40] Lee, K. M. and Manjunath, V. R., “Soil–Geotextile Interface Friction by Direct Shear Tests,” Can. Geotech. J., Vol. 37, 2000, pp. 238–252. [41] Sivakugan, N. and Das, B. M., Geotechnical Engineering: A Practical Problem-Solving Approach, J. Ross, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2000. [42] Kautsourais, M. M., Sprague, C. J., and Pucetas, R. C., “Interfacial Friction Study of Cap and Liner Components for Landfill Design,” Geotext. Geomembr., Vol. 10, 1991, pp. 531–548. [43] AS1141.11, 2009, “Method for Sampling and Testing Aggregates-Particle Size Distribution by Sieving,” Standards Association of Australia, Sydney, Australia.

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Wed Sep 25 18:8:43 EDT 2013 Downloaded/printed by Arul Arulrajah (Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproduction authorized.