International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: 1029-8436 (Print) 1477-268X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Interface shear behaviours between recycled

concrete aggregate and geogrids for pavement
applications

Apichat Suddeepong, Narong Sari, Suksun Horpibulsuk, Avirut

Chinkulkijniwat & Arul Arulrajah

To cite this article: Apichat Suddeepong, Narong Sari, Suksun Horpibulsuk, Avirut Chinkulkijniwat
& Arul Arulrajah (2018): Interface shear behaviours between recycled concrete aggregate
and geogrids for pavement applications, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, DOI:
10.1080/10298436.2018.1453609

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1453609

Published online: 28 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 164

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2018.1453609

Interface shear behaviours between recycled concrete aggregate and geogrids for
pavement applications
Apichat Suddeeponga, Narong Saria, Suksun Horpibulsuka, Avirut Chinkulkijniwata,b and Arul Arulrajahc
a
Center of Excellence in Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand;
b
Center of Excellence in Civil Engineering, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand; cDepartment of Civil and Construction
Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT
The usage of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) in pavement applications is a sustainable approach for ARTICLE HISTORY
future infrastructure development, given the significant environmental benefits. Geogrid reinforcement Received 23 August 2017
of RCA can also improve the tensile and flexural strengths of the pavement structure to sustain high Accepted 11 March 2018
traffic loadings. The effect of aperture size, tensile strength of geogrids, normal stress and gradation on
KEYWORDS
shear interaction between geogrids and RCA was investigated in this research, with the usage of a large- Geogrid; recycled concrete
scale direct shear test (LDST) apparatus. Three types of biaxial geogrids, with different aperture sizes and aggregate; interface shear
tensile strengths, and two RCA samples with different gradations were used in this study. The interface strength; shear strength;
shear strength was found to be highly dependent upon the aperture width of the geogrids, D, as well gradation
as the RCA particles finer than the aperture width of geogrid, FD. Based on the analysis of test results, a
linear relationship between interface shear strength coefficient, α, the ratio of interface shear strength
of geogrid/RCA and shear strength of RCA was proposed, with respect to the D/FD ratio. The proposed
relationship will be useful for a rapid assessment of the interface shear strength coefficient of geogrid-
reinforced RCA based on the aperture size of geogrids and RCA gradation properties.

1. Introduction
Virgin aggregates from quarries are typically used as construc-
tion materials in pavement construction works. In order to
reduce negative effects on the environment due to the extrac-
tion of virgin aggregates, recycled waste materials from con-
struction and demolition sectors have recently been used as
an alternative construction material. Edil and Benson (1998)
indicated that there were two tasks when considering recycled
materials for a specific engineering application: (1) economical
efficiency of using recycled materials in place of natural mate-
rials and (2) evaluation of engineering parameters which are
essential for safe and economical design. In Thailand, an aver-
age of 1.1 million tons of construction waste is generated annu-
ally. Although construction waste constitutes a major source
of wastes in terms of volume and weight, its management and
recycling have yet to be effectively practiced in developed and
developing countries.
Recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) is the by-product of the
construction and demolition activities of concrete structures
(Sivakumar et al. 2004, Poon and Chan 2006, Disfani et al.
2011, Hoyos et al. 2011, Puppala et al. 2011, Arulrajah et al.
2012, Arulrajah, Piratheepan, et al. 2013, Arulrajah, Rahman,
et al. 2013). Previous studies have provided good insight into the
utilisation of RCA as an unbound pavement material (Gabr and
Cameron 2012, Arulrajah et al. 2012, 2014, Azam and Cameron
2013).
When used as a pavement base material, RCA must be sub-
jected to both compression (at the top) and tension (at the
bottom). RCA has been reported to have a high compressive
strength and California Bearing Ratio, according to the national
and international standards. While the tensile strength of RCA
is low, it can be improved with geosynthetic reinforcement
(Horpibulsuk and Niramitkornburee 2010, Suksiripattanapong et
al. 2013, Sukmak et al. 2016, Udomchai et al. 2017). The interface
shear strength between compacted material and geosynthetic is
the typical failure mode of the reinforced material and must be
examined for pavement design.
Geogrids are geosynthetic reinforcement materials, compris-
ing of various aperture sizes which combine transverse and lon-
gitudinal polymer ribs. Geogrids are commonly used in various
geotechnical engineering applications including roads (Palmeria
and Antunes 2010) and railway embankments (Arulrajah et al.
2009, 2013) due to their high tensile strengths. The geogrid
improves the soil stiffness through the interlocking of granular
particles in the geogrid apertures. The contact between geogrid
and compacted material provides increased interface shear resist-
ance. Interlocking between compacted particles is furthermore
enhanced within the geogrid apertures. The interface behaviour
between geogrid and soil/aggregate particles depends upon many

CONTACT  Suksun Horpibulsuk  suksun@g.sut.ac.th; Avirut Chinkulkijniwat  avirut@sut.ac.th

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   A. SUDDEEPONG ET AL.

factors, such as aggregate gradation and shape properties, geog- 100

rid types and properties, compaction effort during installation Small sized sample
and loading conditions (Palmeira 2009). Large-scale direct shear 80 Large size sample
Boundary (DOH, 2001)

test (LDST) apparatus is typically used to evaluate the interface
shear strength, between geosynthetics and soils (Kazimierowicz
2007, Araujo et al. 2009, Liu, Ho, et al. 2009, Liu, Zornberg,
et al. 2009, Palmeria et al. 2010), and other materials such as
municipal solid waste (Zekkos et al. 2010), foamed recycled
glass (Arulrajah et al. 2015) and construction and demolition
materials (Arulrajah et al. 2013, 2014, Vieira and Pereira 2016).
Reported that high interface friction angles were observed when
the geogrid has significantly sized apertures. The soil particle size
has an important influence on the interface friction angle; soils
with larger average soil particle sizes provides higher interface
resistance. Several researchers have reported that the interface
shear strength between geogrid and soil/aggregate was lower
than the shear strength of the unreinforced control materials
(Alfaro et al. 1995, Tatlisoz et al. 1998, Liu, Ho, et al. 2009, Liu,
Zornberg, et al. 2009, Kim and Ha 2014).
Even though there is available research on geosynthetic–soil
interfaces, research to date on the interface shear behaviour
of geogrid-reinforced RCA for base/subbase and embankment
applications is extremely limited; hence, this aspect is the focus
of this study. The effect of tensile strength and aperture size of
geogrid, RCA particle size and normal stress on the interface
shear response of the geogrid-reinforced RCA are evaluated.
Finally, a practical and rational equation for the estimation
of the interface shear strength of RCA in pavement bases is
proposed.
2.  Experimental investigation
2.1.  Materials and methods
2.1.1.  Recycled concrete aggregate (RCA)
In this research, Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) samples
were obtained from the Department of Public Works and Town
& Country Planing, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand. In order to
investigate the effect of gradation on the interface shear behav-
iour between geogrids and RCA, two RCA samples with grada-
tion close to the upper and the lower boundary for base/subbase
materials (DOH 2001) were prepared as shown in Figure 1.
The large-sized sample (close to lower boundary) was classi-
fied as poorly graded gravel (GP) according to the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS). The specific gravity was 2.65. The
water absorption was 6%. The maximum dry unit weight and the
optimum water content of the compacted sample under mod-
ified Proctor energy were 20.1 kN/m3 and 11.9%, respectively.
The California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value was 122%, which is
higher than the requirement of Department of Highways for
Passing (%)
60
40
20
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
Sieve Opening (mm)
Figure 1. Particle size distribution of RCA.
base materials (a minimum of 80%) (DOH 2001). The Los
Angeles abrasion (LA) value was 36.4%, which is lower than the
maximum LA value of 40% typically specified for base/subbase
material.
The small-sized sample (close to upper boundary) was clas-
sified as well graded gravel (GW) according to the USCS. The
specific gravity was 2.67. The water absorption was 7%. The max-
imum dry unit weight and the optimum water content under
modified Proctor energy were 22.4 kN/m3 and 12.5%, respec-
tively. The CBR value was 116%, which is also higher than the
requirement by Department of Highways for base material. The
LA abrasion value was 38.6%, which meets the requirement for
base/subbase materials. The LA and CBR results for both RCA
samples indicate that RCA is suitable for pavement base/subbase
applications.
2.1.2. Geogrid
A commercially available biaxial geogrid used to reinforce RCA
in this study was made from high tenacity polyester yarns and
covered with a black polymeric coating. Three types of geogrid
with different aperture sizes and tensile strengths were used in
this study: GX 60/60, GX 60/30 and GX 160/50. Physical and
mechanical properties of these geogrids are given in Table 1. The
geogrids are engineered products for short-term and long-term
applications. Geogrids are woven with strength in both the roll
length direction (commonly called the machine direction, MD)
and in the cross roll direction (commonly called the cross direc-
tion, CD). Short-term tensile strength and short-term tensile
strain are provided by manufacturer and the test is carried out
in accordance with ASTM D6637. The long-term tensile strength
is always smaller than short-term tensile strength due to creep
effect.

Table 1. Geogrid geometric characteristics.

Short term tensile Elongation at short term

Aperture size (mm) strength (kN/m) tensile strength (%)
Manufacturing
Product process Polymer type Coating type MD CD MD CD MD CD
Miragrid GX60/60 WOVEN PET PVC 7 7 60 60 11 –
Miragrid GX60/30 WOVEN PET PVC 21 24 60 30 11 –
Miragrid GX160/50 WOVEN PET PVC 30 21 160 50 12 –

Notes: PET = Polyethylene terephthalate, PVC = Polyvinylchloride, MD = Machine direction, CD = Cross direction.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING   3

Table 2. Summary of LDST testing programme.

RCA sample Reinforcement Normal stress (kPa)

Larger size No reinforcement 50, 100, 200
RCA+GX60/60 50, 100, 200
RCA+GX60/30 50, 100, 200
RCA+GX160/50 50, 100, 200
Smaller size No reinforcement 50, 100, 200
RCA+GX60/60 50, 100, 200
RCA+GX60/30 50, 100, 200
RCA+GX160/50 50, 100, 200

2.1.3.  Large-scale direct shear test (LDST)

A LDST apparatus, with shear boxes having 305 mm in length,
305 mm in width and 204 mm in depth, was used to evaluate
the interface shear strength between RCA and geogrid reinforce-
ment. The shear tests on unreinforced RCA aggregate were also
conducted to compare with those on the geogrid-reinforced
RCA. These tests were conducted as per ASTM D5321.
The LDST apparatus comprises two boxes; a fixed upper box
and a moveable lower box. During the sample preparation, the
lower box and the upper box were clamped. The sample was
compacted in the shear box in three layers, by hand tamping with
a plastic hammer to attain the maximum dry density obtained Figure 2. LDST test results of unreinforced RCA.
from the laboratory modified compaction test. The sample was
then submerged prior to commencement of the consolidation
stage, by filling the entire lower shear box and half of upper
shear box with water. The consolidation stage was for 12 hours
with three normal stress levels of 50, 100 and 200 kPa. When
the consolidation stage was completed, the connection between
the lower and upper boxes was released to provide an approxi-
mate 2-mm gap between the upper and lower boxes for friction
minimisation. The shearing was then conducted under the same
normal stress levels of 50, 100 and 200 kPa. A constant shear
displacement rate of 0.025 mm/min was maintained throughout
the shearing stage. The horizontal displacement, vertical dis-
placement and shear stress were recorded. The tests were elim-
inated once the horizontal shear stress displacement reached
approximately 45 mm. The room temperature was maintained at
20 ± 1 °C. Table 2 summaries the testing programme in the study.
To ensure the accuracy and consistency of the LDST results,
The LDST results presented were the mean data obtained from
triplicate samples.

3.  Results and discussion
Figure 2 shows the LDST results for unreinforced RCA samples.
For the large-sized sample, relationship between shear stress and
horizontal displacement indicates that the shear stress increases
with horizontal displacement up to the maximum shear stress
at approximately 20-mm displacement. The shear stress is
almost constant with increasing horizontal displacement until
the conclusion of the test at 45  mm. With increasing normal
stress, both the maximum shear stress and the shear stiffness
increased. Relationship between vertical and horizontal displace-
ments indicates that for the large-sized sample, with increasing
horizontal displacement, the vertical displacement (compres-
sion) increases. The vertical displacement also increases as the
normal stress increases at a particular horizontal displacement.
Figure 3. Effect of aperture size of geogrid on shear interface between geogrid and
large-sized RCA sample.
This shear response is consistent with the typical shear response
for compacted poorly graded gravel, which is loose geomaterial.
For the small-sized sample, the shear stress versus displace-
ment relationship is similar to that of the large-sized sample.
Unlike large-sized samples, the small-sized samples exhibit
completely dilatant behaviour in the vertical and horizontal
displacements relationship for all normal stresses tested. While
shear stress is almost constant with the increase in horizontal dis-
placement after the maximum stress. It is also observed that for
a particular normal stress, the shear strength of the large-sized
sample is higher than that of the small-sized sample.
4   A. SUDDEEPONG ET AL.
Figure 4. Effect of aperture size of geogrid on shear interface between geogrid and
small-sized RCA sample.
RCA having low tensile strengths can fail due to the tensile
stresses imparted by traffic loads. When geogrid reinforcement
is introduced, the failure modes of composite material will be by
either by rupture or slip failure. The rupture failure occurs when
the tensile stress in the geogrid exceeds its tensile strength. Slip
failure on the other hand, occurs due to the movement of RCA
particles on the geogrid and is controlled by the interface shear
strength. Figures 3 and 4 show the interface shear response of
the geogrids types GX60/30- and GX60/60-reinforced large- and
small-sized samples, respectively. For all the normal stresses and
RCA samples, the maximum interface shear stress is observed at
approximately 20-mm displacement and then the interface shear
stress tends to be constant, which is similar to the unreinforced
RCA. Interface shear stress versus horizontal displacement rela-
tionship of geogrid-reinforced aggregate and geogrid-reinforced
RCA is different. Interface shear stress versus horizontal dis-
placement relationship for geogrid-reinforced aggregate exhib-
its strain-softening behaviour (Indraratna et al. 2012). Interface
shear stress of geogrid-reinforced aggregate decreases after reach-
ing its maximum value while relationship between vertical and
horizontal displacements exhibits a relatively low initial compres-
sion followed by dilation. Unlike the geogrid-reinforced aggre-
gate, interface shear stress of geogrid-reinforced RCA is almost
constant with the increase in horizontal displacement after the
maximum shear stress. The constant interface shear stress may be
caused by the rearrangement of crushed particles (fine crushed
particles moved into voids). This interface shear response is found
to be similar to that of recycled glass cullets (Arulrajah, Ali, et al.
2014, Arulrajah, Raman, et al. 2014) and foamed recycled glass
(Arulrajah et al. 2015), that has been used as aggregates in pave-
ments and designated as having dilatancy associated stain-hard-
ening response. The maximum interface shear stress and interface
shear stiffness of geogrid-reinforced RCA increase with increasing
normal stress. Comparing the maximum interface shear stress of
geogrid-reinforced RCA in Figures 3 and 4 to the maximum shear
stress of unreinforced RCA samples in Figure 2, the maximum
Figure 5. Effect of tensile strength of tensile strength of geogrid on shear interface
between geogrid and large-sized RCA sample.
interface shear stress of geogrid-reinforced RCA is lower than the
maximum shear stress of unreinforced RCA. Several researchers
(Lee and Manjunath 2000, Abu-Farsakh et al. 2007, Ling et al.
2008, Liu, Ho, et al. 2009, Liu, Zornberg, et al. 2009, McCartney
et al. 2009) have reported similar results for soils and aggregates
reinforced with geogrids.
The relationships between vertical displacement and horizon-
tal displacement of the geogrid-reinforced RCA samples for both
particle sizes exhibit distinctly dilatant behaviour (Figures 3 and
4). It is noted that the relationship between vertical displacement
and horizontal displacement of geogrid-reinforced large-sized
sample (Figure 3) is distinctly different from that of the unrein-
forced sample (Figure 2). The dilatant behaviour in the vertical
and horizontal displacement relationship of geogrid-reinforced
RCA is caused by the interlocking between geogrid and RCA. An
increase in normal stress is observed to decrease the tendency of
dilation for the same type of geogrid. At the same normal stress
and type of geogrid, the maximum dilatant displacement of the
small-sized sample (Figure 3) is higher than that of the large-
sized sample (Figure 4).
It is evident from Figures 3 and 4, that for the same RCA
sample, for either the large or small-sized particles, the interface
shear strengths for geogrid type GX60/30 are higher than those
for geogrid type GX60/60. The tensile strength in shear direction
of both geogrid types GX60/60 and GX60/30 are the same, but
the aperture width of geogrid type GX60/30 is 3 times larger
than geogrid type GX60/60. As such, the result implies that the
interface shear strength depends on the aperture width for a
particular tensile strength of geogrid and RCA sample; the higher
aperture width results in the higher interface shear strength. The
higher interface shear strength is attributed to the higher degree
of interlocking between the geogrid and RCA particles. The
geogrid prevents the movement of the RCA particles; hence, the
RCA particles reorientate around each other. The interface shear
strength of the large-sized sample is found to be higher than that
of the small-sized sample, which is in agreement with the higher

Figure 6. Effect of tensile strength of tensile strength of geogrid on shear interface
between geogrid and small-sized RCA sample.
Figure 7. Geogrid-type GX160/50-reinforced small-sized sample after completion
of shearing.
shear strength of unreinforced RCA samples (see Figure 2). This
indicates that the shear strength of RCA particles also influences
the shear interface interaction between geogrid and RCA.
The effect of tensile strength of geogrid on the interface
shear strength is illustrated by a comparison of the test results
of geogrid types GX60/30- and GX160/50-reinforced large-sized
sample as shown in Figure 5. Tensile strengths in the shear direc-
tion of geogrid type GX60/30 and GX160/50 are 60 and 160
kN/m, respectively. Aperture size of geogrid type GX60/30 and
GX160/50 are 21 × 24 mm and 30 × 21 mm, respectively. It is
noted that the aperture width of both geogrid types is the same,
but they are located in different direction (see Table 1). It is evi-
dent that the interface shear response of both geogrid types are
essentially the same. A similar result is also observed for the
small-sized sample as shown in Figure 6. This implies that the
aperture width controls the interface shear strength. The effect of
tensile strength is however not found for both large- and small-
sized particles at the same aperture width because the failure
of the geogrid was not observed after the shear test (Figure 7).
Figures 8 and 9 show the shear strength parameters of unre-
inforced samples and the interface shear strength parameters
for geogrid-reinforced large- and small-sized RCA samples,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING   5
Figure 8. Interface stress failure envelope for large-sized sample.
Figure 9. Interface stress failure envelope for small-sized sample.
which are obtained from Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope. The
internal friction angles of the large- and small-sized samples are
almost similar: ϕ = 61.3° and 63.3° for the large- and small-sized
samples, respectively. In other words, the grain size distribution
curve has little effect on the internal friction angle. However,
the large-sized sample exhibits higher apparent cohesion than
the small-sized sample, which are 107.9 and 57.5 kPa for large-
sized and small-sized samples, respectively. Granular soils, such
as dense sands and gravels, typically specified in geotechnical
engineering applications, typically have peak friction values of
40° to 48° (Sivakugan and Das 2010). As such, both the large-
and small-sized samples meet the shear strength requirements
for usage as a pavement material.
Similar to the unreinforced RCA sample, the interface fric-
tion angles of large- and small-sized samples are almost simi-
lar: δ = 55.3° and 57.4° for the geogrid type GX60/60, δ = 60.9°
and 58.3° for the geogrid type GX60/30 and δ = 61.2° and 58.8°
for the geogrid type GX160/50. But the apparent adhesion of
geogrid-reinforced large-sized sample is higher than that of
geogrid-reinforced small-sized sample at the same type of geog-
rid; that is, ca = 92.8 and 41.6 kPa for geogrid type GX60/60,
6   A. SUDDEEPONG ET AL.
Figure 10. Relationship between α and normal stress.
ca = 93.6 and 63.2 kPa for geogrid type GX60/30 and ca = 93.9
and 55.4 kPa for geogrid type GX160/50. It is also observed that
the failure envelope of geogrid types GX60/30 and GX160/50
(which having the same aperture width of 21 mm) are almost
the same. It is emphasized that while rupture failue of geogrid
did not happen, interface shear strength of geogrid-reinforced
RCA was controlled by aperture width of geogrid and size of
RCA sample. This implies that the movement of RCA particles
during shear is in three dimension and random.
The interface shear strength between geogrid and RCA can
be expressed using the interface shear strength coefficient. The
interface shear strength coefficient is obtained from the following
equation:
𝜏reinforced
𝛼= (1)
𝜏unreinforced
where α is the interface shear strength coefficient; and τreinforced
and τunreinforced are the interface shear strength between geogrid
and RCA and shear strength of RCA, respectively. This param-
eter can be used for determination of interface shear strength
from known shear strength of RCA, which is useful in prac-
tice as the interface shear tests require specific apparatus and
time-consuming.
Figure 10 shows the relationship between α and normal stress.
For a particular RCA sample and type of geogrid, the α values
vary in a narrow band and can be considered as constant, based
on linear regression analysis. This indicates that the interface
shear strength is directly related to unreinforced shear strength,
irrespective of normal stress.
The effect of aperture size and tensile strength on the max-
imum interface shear strength for the RCA and the traditional
unbound aggregate is similar. The tensile strength of geogrids
has little effect on the interface shear strength, as the geogrids
Figure 11. Effect of the aperture width of geogrid on the interface shear strength
coefficient.
Figure 12.  Effect of particle content which are finer than the aperture width of
geogrid on the interface shear strength coefficient.
do not reach the failure state during shear test. The geogrid pre-
vents the RCA particles movement; hence, the higher degree
of interlocking of RCA particles as observed by the dilatant in
vertical displacement versus shear displacement. The interface
shear strength is dependent upon particle size of aggregate and
aperture width of geogrids, which is in agreement with the result
reported by Han et al. (2018). As such, the aperture width and
RCA particle size are taken as the prime parameters to investi-
gate the change in α in this research. The particle content finer
than the aperture width of geogrid is used as the valid param-
eter reflecting RCA particle size. The relationship between the
aperture width of geogrid, D and α is shown in Figure 11. For a
particular RCA sample, the α values of the larger aperture width
of geogrid are found to be higher than those of the smaller aper-
ture width of geogrid. It is also apparent that the α value of the
large-sized sample is higher than that of the small-sized sample
at the same type of geogrid. Figure 12 shows the effect of RCA
particle content finer than the aperture width of geogrid, FD on
the α values of geogrid-reinforced RCA. For a particular RCA
sample, the α values increase as FD increases. This is because of
the increase in the FD provides a higher chance for interlocking
of RCA–RCA particles and geogrid–RCA particle at the location

Figure 13. Relationship between α and D/FD.
of aperture of geogrid. Figure 11 and 12 indicate that the α is
strongly dependent upon both the D and FD. A novel parameter
D/FD ratio is proposed to take both D and FD into account. The
relationship between α and D/FD ratio is shown in Figure 13.
Obviously, the value of α increases linearly with D/FD ratio. A
linear regression analysis of the geogrid-reinforced RCA yields
the following equation with a high degree of correlation of 0.906:
𝛼 = 0.0077(D∕FD ) + 0.667 10 < D∕FD < 35 (2)
where D is expressed in mm and FD is expressed in decimal.
From this equation, the interface shear strength coefficient of
geogrid-reinforced RCA can be easily estimated from D and FD.
Since the maximum value of α must be 1.0 (where the inter-
face shear strength is equal to shear strength of RCA), based on
Equation (2) when FD = 43.2D, there is no interaction between
geogrids and RCA. Even though the formulation of the model
is based on a particular RCA whose gradation is in the range
specified by the Department of Highways, the development is
on sound principles and possibly applied for other materials.
The role of material types and geogrid characteristics on model
parameters and the determination of generalised model param-
eters are extensively enough for future separate research.
4. Conclusions
The shear strength of RCA and the interface shear strength of
geogrid-reinforced RCA were determined with a LDST appara-
tus and analysed in this research. The interface shear strength
predictive equation is developed in term of shear strength of
RCA, aperture width and RCA particle size, which is useful for
pavement design. The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The tensile strength of geogrids has little effect on the
interface shear strength, as the geogrids do not reach
the failure state during shear test. The geogrid pre-
vents the RCA particles movement; hence, the higher
degree of interlocking of RCA particles as observed
by the dilatant in vertical displacement versus shear
displacement.
(2) The RCA particle content finer than the aperture width,
FD controls the interface shear strength. The higher FD
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING   7
leads to the greater interface shear strength. The aper-
ture width also controls the interface shear strength
irrespective of the shear direction. This implies that the
reorientation of RCA particles during shear is random
and is in various direction.
(3) The ratio of the aperture width of geogrid to the RCA
particle content finer than aperture width, D/FD is pro-
posed to take both effect of RCA particle size and aper-
ture width into account. Based on the critical analysis
of test results, a linear relationship between α and D/FD
has been proposed. The proposed equation is very use-
ful for civil engineering practitioners to estimate the
value of the interface shear strength coefficient, α.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Thailand
Research Fund under the TRF Senior Research Scholar program Grant No.
RTA5980005, Suranaree University of Technology and the Office of Higher
Education Commission under NRU project of Thailand. The geogrids were
obtained from Tencate Geosynthetics (Thailand) Co., Ltd.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was financially supported by the Thailand Research Fund
underthe TRF Senior Research Scholar program [grant number
RTA5980005];Suranaree University of Technology. The Office of Higher
EducationCommission under NRU project of Thailand.
References
Abu-Farsakh, M., Coronel, J., and Tao, M., 2007. Effect of soil moisture
content and dry density on cohesive soil-geosynthetic interactions
using large directshear tests. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19
(7), 540–549. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007).
Alfaro, M.C., Miura, N., and Bergado, D.T., 1995. Soil geogrid
reinforcement interaction by pullout and direct shear tests. Geotechnical
Testing Journal, 18 (2), 157–167.
Araujo, G.L.S., Palmeira, E.M., and Cunha, R.P., 2009. Behaviour of
geosynthetic-encased granular columns in porous collapsible soil.
Geosynthetics International, 16 (6), 433–451.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2009. Ground improvement techniques for railway
embankments. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Geotechnical Engineering, 162 (1), 3–14.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2012. Geotechnical properties of recycled concrete
aggregate in pavement subbase applications. Geotechnical Testing
Journal, 35 (5), 1–9.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2013. Geosynthetic applications in a high-speed
railway: Case study. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Ground Improvement, UK.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2013. Geotechnical performance of recycled glass-
waste rock blends in footpath bases. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 25, 653–661. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000617.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2013. Geotechnical and geoenvironmental properties
of recycled construction and demolition materials in pavement subbase
applications. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25 (8), 1077–1088.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2013. Interface shear strength testing of geogrid-
reinforced construction and demolition materials. Advances in Civil
Engineering Materials, 2 (1), 189–200.
8   A. SUDDEEPONG ET AL.
Arulrajah, A., et al. 2014. Physical properties and shear strength responses
of recycled construction and demolition materials in unbound pavement
base/subbase applications. Construction and Building Materials, 58,
245–257.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2014. Recycled-glass blends in pavement base/subbase
applications: laboratory and field evaluation. Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, 26 (7), Article ID04014025.
Arulrajah, A., Piratheepan, J., and Disfani, M.M. 2014. Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement and Recycled Concrete Aggregate Blends in Pavement
Subbases: Laboratory and Field Evaluation. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, 26, 349–357.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2014. Evaluation of interface shear strength properties
of geogrid-reinforced construction and demolition materials using a
modified large-scale direct shear testing apparatus. Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 26 (5), 974–982.
Arulrajah, A., et al., 2015. Evaluation of interface shear strength properties
of geogrid reinforced foamed recycled glass using a large-scale direct
shear testing apparatus. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering,
2015 (2015), Article ID235424.
Azam, A.M. and Cameron, D.A. 2013. Geotechnical properties of blends
of recycled clay masonry and recycled concrete aggregates in unbound
pavement construction. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25,
788–798.
Disfani, M.M., et al., 2011 Recycled crushed glass in road work applications.
Waste Management, 31 (11), 2341–2351.
DOH, Standard No. DH-S 201/2544, 2001. Standard of crusher rock base,
Department of Highways, Thailand.
Edil, T. and Benson, C., 1998. Geotechnics of industrial byproducts. In:
C. Vipulanandan and D. Elton, ed. Recycled materials in geotechnical
applications, ASCE Special Publication. p. 79.
Gabr, A. and Cameron, D., 2012. Properties of recycled concrete aggregate
for unbound pavement construction. Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 24 (6), 754–764.
Han, B., et al., 2018. Laboratory investigation of particle size effects on
the shear behavior of aggregate-geogrid interface. Construction and
Building Materials, 158, 1015–1025.
Horpibulsuk, S. and Niramitkornburee, A., 2010. Pullout resistance of
bearing reinforcement embedded in sand. Soils and Foundations, 50 (2),
215–226.
Hoyos, L.R., Puppala, A.J., and Ordonez, C.A., 2011. Characterization
of cement-fiber-treated reclaimed asphalt pavement aggregates:
preliminary investigation. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 23
(7), 977–989.
Indraratna, B., Hussaini, S.K.K., and Vinod, K.S., 2012. On the shear
behavior of ballast-geosynthetic interfaces. Geotechnical Testing Journal,
35 (2), 305–312.
Kazimierowicz, F.K., 2007. Influence of geosynthetic reinforcement on the
load-settlement characteristics of two-layer subgrade. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 25 (6), 366–376.
Kim, D. and Ha, S., 2014. Effects of particle size on the shear behavior of
coarse grained soils reinforced with geogrid. Materials, 7, 963–979.
Lee, K. and Manjunath, V.R., 2000. Soil-geotextile interface friction by
direct shear tests. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37 (1), 238–252.
Ling, H.I., Wang, J.P., and Leshchinsky, D., 2008. Cyclic behaviour of soil-
structure interfaces associated with modular-block reinforced soil-
retaining walls. Geosynthetics International, 15 (1), 14–21.
Liu, C.N., Ho, Y.H., and Huang, J.W., 2009. Large scale direct shear tests
of soil/PET-yarn geogrid interfaces. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27
(1), 19–30.
Liu, C.N., et al., 2009. Behavior of geogrid-sand interface in direct shear
mode. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135
(12), 1863–1871.
McCartney, J.S., Zornberg, J.G., and Swan, R.H. Jr., 2009. Analysis of a large
database of gcl-geomembrane interface shear strength results. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 135, (2), 209–223.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2009)135:2(209).
Palmeira, E.M., 2009. Soil-geosynthetic Interaction: modelling and
analysis. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27 (5), 386–390.
Palmeira, E.M. and Antunes, L.G.S., 2010. Large scale tests on geosynthetic
reinforced unpaved roads subjected to surface maintenance. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 28 (6), 547–558.
Palmeira, E.M., Beirigo, E.A., and Gardoni, M.G., 2010. Tailings-nonwoven
geotextile filter compatibility in mining applications. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28 (2), 136–148.
Poon, C.S. and Chan, D., 2006. Feasible use of recycled concrete aggregates
and crushed clay brick as unbound road sub-base. Construction and
Building Materials, 20, 578–585.
Puppala, A.J., Hoyos, L.R., and Potturi, A.K., 2011. Resilient moduli
response of moderately cement-treated reclaimed asphalt pavement
aggregates. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 23 (7), 990–998.
Sivakugan, N. and Das, B.M., 2010. Geotechnical engineering: a practical
problem solving approach. Fort Lauderdale, FL: J. Ross Publishing.
Sivakumar, V., McKinley, J.D., and Ferguson, D., 2004. Reuse of
construction waste: performance under repeated loading. Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering, 157 (2),
91–96.
Sukmak, K., et al., 2016. Numerical parametric study on behavior of
bearing reinforcement earth walls with different backfill material
properties. Geosynthetics International, 23 (6), 435–451.
Suksiripattanapong, C., et al., 2013. Pullout resistance of bearing
reinforcement embedded in coarse-grained soils. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 36, 44–54.
Tatlisoz, N., Edil, T.B., and Benson, C.H., 1998. Interaction between
reinforcing geosynthetics and soil-tire chip mixtures. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 124, (11), 1109–1119.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:11(1109),1109-1119.
Udomchai, A., et al., 2017. Performance of the bearing reinforcement earth
wall as a retaining structure in the Mae Moh mine. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 45, 350–360. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.04.007.
Vieira, C.S. and Pereira, P.M., 2016. Interface shear properties of
geosynthetics and construction and demolition waste from large-scale
direct shear tests. Geosynthetics International, 23 (1), 62–70.
Zekkos, D., et al., 2010. Large-scale direct shear testing of municipal solid
waste. Waste Management, 30 (8–9), 1544–1555.